Focquaert, F., Glenn, A. & Raine, A. (2013). Free will, responsibility, and the punishment of criminals (pp. 247-274). T. Nadelhoffer (Ed.). The Future of Punishment and Retribution. Oxford University Press.

The idea that our actions may not be as free as we perceive them to be raises questions not only of how we perceive our everyday behavior but also of how we perceive behavior that is considered unacceptable according to societal standards. If immoral or criminal behavior is the combined result of one's biological makeup and environment, and potentially some added randomness, should individuals be held responsible for their aberrant behavior? Should they be punished for their actions? How should we, as a society, and from an ethical point of view, deal with individuals who are almost inevitably destined for immoral and criminal behavior? Might we eliminate desert-based accounts of punishment because neuroscience shows us that free will doesn't exist, as argued by Greene and Cohen (2010)? Two questions inevitably arise: (1) Is it morally defensible for society to take a predominantly punitive approach to crime and recidivism involving mass incarceration? (2) Do we have more to gain from a different approach? We propose a long-term approach that focuses on (early) prevention, rehabilitation, and the humane treatment of offenders, rather than an approach involving massive incarceration without adequate rehabilitation and treatment.