The Big Minority View: Do Prescientific Beliefs Underpin Criminal Justice Cruelty, and Is the Public Health Quarantine Model a Remedy?

Famed lawyer Clarence Darrow (1857–1938) argued strongly for an early-life public health approach to crime prevention, one that focused on education, poverty reduction, and equity of resources. Due to his defense of marginalized persons and his positions that were often at odds with his legal colleagues and public opinion, he was known as the Big Minority Man. He argued that the assumption of free will—humans as free moral agents—justifies systems of inequity, retributive punishment, and “unadulterated brutality.” Here, the authors revisit Darrow’s views and expand upon them via contemporary research. We examine increasingly louder argumentation—from scholars across multiple disciplines—contending that prescientific notions of willpower, free will, blameworthiness, and moral responsibility, are contributing to social harms. We draw from biopsychosocial perspectives and recent scientific consensus papers calling for the dismantling of folk psychology ideas of willpower and blameworthiness in obesity. We scrutinize how the status quo of the legal system is justified and argue that outdated notions of ‘moral fiber’ need to be addressed at the root. The authors examine recent arguments for one of Darrow’s ideas—a public health quarantine model of public safety and carceral care that considers the ‘causes of the causes’ and risk assessments through a public health lens. In our view, public health needs to vigorously scrutinize the prescientific “normative” underpinnings of the criminal justice system.