Skip to main content

Who Should Take Care of Offenders with Dementia?

Some Thoughts on Fading Selves and the Challenge of Responsibility Interpretations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Theories of the Self and Autonomy in Medical Ethics

Part of the book series: The International Library of Bioethics ((ILB,volume 83))

  • 503 Accesses

Abstract

In this contribution, I investigate the way in which our understanding of a dementia patient’s self holds relevance to issues of punishment and responsibility. This topic is motivated by the fact that some countries with particularly large prison populations—such as the United States—are starting to build specialized prison tracts for inmates with dementia. In other countries that do not have such specialized facilities, authorities are trying to find the least badly-equipped facility for such patients, and they are turning to ordinary retirement homes, forensic hospitals as well as ordinary psychiatric and geriatric hospital wards. The problem is expected to become increasingly urgent as the population ages and the number of dementia patients increases. I analyse the way in which justifications of legal (or private) punishment for offenders with dementia can depend on an account of relevant psychological features of the self. I argue that especially retributivist and expressivist justifications of punishment require the offender’s ability to comprehend that he or she is being punished for a particular action in the past and that it was him or herself who committed this action. In the second part of my paper, I distinguish between different accounts of responsibility and argue that accounts of relevant features of the self are also needed here to answer the question of whether offenders with dementia are still responsible for past or current inappropriate behavior. In the final part of the paper, I argue that potentially existing private punishment intuitions among caretakers as well as certain puzzles of responsibility interpretation can make it plausible to relieve certain caretakers from primary responsibility for offenders with dementia, especially caretakers who belong to a relevant former victim group of the offender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A policy-related problem can arise in cases in which offenders do not have any personal funds and the respective jurisdiction does not have a welfare system that will pay for accommodation outside a prison. In such cases, a prison release would require a family member prepared to take care of the patient; otherwise, further imprisonment would seem to be the only ethically defensible option, due to lack of any other possibilities short of dumping an incompetent patient onto the street. The lack of alternatives could also be a terrible burden on potentially available family members.

  2. 2.

    As I have argued elsewhere, the most convincing and humane justifications of legal punishment require an element of subjective comprehension and self-identifying recollection on behalf of the criminal, which implies that a prison is no longer the suitable place for them (Dufner 2013).

  3. 3.

    An attempt to defend such a view has been presented by Hallich, who argues that special prison units where the treatment of the demented would be humane and where they would not be subjected to increased disease-related suffering might send a proper reprobative signal to society at large (Hallich 2018).

  4. 4.

    In may be worth pointing out that the opposite situation can also be psychologically challenging. If a former offender wtih dementia is a particularly friendly patient, a self observation by the caretaker such as “I like this former murderer” may also be experienced as troublesome.

References

  • Alzheimer’s Association. 2020. Alzheimer’s Disease Facts and Figures. In Alzheimer’s Dementia vol. 16, 1–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, Sharon. 2018. California Deals with Dementia Among Aging Inmates. Reuters. U.S. News. June 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berryessa, Colleen. 2016. Behavioral and Neural Impairments of Frontotemporal Dementia: Potential Implications for Criminal Law and Sentencing. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 46: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Toit, Sanetta, Adrienne Withall, Kate O’Loughlin, Nikola Ninaus, Meryl Lovarini, Philip Snoyman, Tony Butler, Katrina Forsyth, and Claire Surr. 2019. Best Care Options for Older Prisoners with Dementia: A scoping Review. International Psychogeriatrics 31: 1081–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, Anthony. 2001. Punishment, Communication, and Community. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufner, Annette. 2013. Should the Late Stage Demented be Punished for Past Crimes?” Criminal Law and Philosophy 7: 137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, Joel. 1970. The Expressive Function of Punishment. In Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility, ed. by Joel Feinberg, 95–118. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallich, Oliver. 2018. Dementia and Punishment. Zeitschrift für praktische Philosophie, 5: 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaouad, Suleika. 2018. The Prisoners Who Care for the Dying and Get Another Chance at Life. The New York Times. May 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madeleine, Liljegren, Georges Naasan, Julia Temlett, David C. Perry, Katherine P. Rankin, Jennifer Merrilees, Lea T. Grinberg, William W. Seeley, Elisabet Englund, and Bruce L. Miller. 2016. Criminal Behavior in Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer Disease. JAMA Neurology 72: 295–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maschi, Tina, Jung Kwak, Eunjeong Ko, and Mary Morrissey. 2012. Forget me not: Dementia in Prison. The Gerontologist 52: 441–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, Shelley, Alexandra Hodson, Rhoda MacRae, and Cindy Peternelj-Taylor. 2018. Living with Dementia in Correctional Settings: A Case Report. Journal of Forensic Nursing 14: 180–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, Peter. 1962. Freedom and Resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy 48: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, David. 2015. Responsibility from the Margins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, Gary. 2004. Two faces of responsibility. In Agency and Answerability, ed by Gary Watson, 260–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. 2019. International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics, 11th revision, Retrieved from https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en (June 1, 2020).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette Dufner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dufner, A. (2020). Who Should Take Care of Offenders with Dementia?. In: Kühler, M., Mitrović, V.L. (eds) Theories of the Self and Autonomy in Medical Ethics. The International Library of Bioethics, vol 83. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56703-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics