I have just listened to BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze in which the above question is being interrogated by the panelists.
It’s a good listen (as are all the episodes, each considering a different subject) and I will try to post the link.
In my profession I see more than most, the impact of upbringing - or Lived Experience as we call it now- and understand the correlations between poor parenting, absent fathers, poor socio economic conditions, exclusion from school, material/ emotional needs not being met etc as well
as outright abuse and neglect etc.
For this reason we do already have pre- sentencing reports in some cases for judges to consider when sentencing.
However what worries me is if this argument is taken to its full conclusion and ‘Lived experience’ is seen as a mitigating factor in all cases how would this impact on he following :
Abuse of a child where the perp was abused themselves
Domestic violence against an intimate partner by someone who was systematically exposed to this in their own home growing up.
A rapist/ paedophile who was sexually abused as a child/ teen
A mugger of old ladies who has experienced extreme material deprivation all their life
A persistent stalker who has a learning need and attachment issues.
A house burglar/mugger who is funding a substance use issue due to self-
medicating childhood trauma
I mean apart from obvious way this would fail victims and the public at large in terms of reducing risk of sentences were shorter, what about free will and agency.
Would this not actually conversely suggest that people from a challenging background present more of an innate risk to the general public as are less in control than the general population?