Well, the issue of culpability is a fascinating one when you break it down. Most of the modern science we’ve received was born via a Calvinist mindset. [there _was_ a brief flirting with Romanticism and Science in the early 19th century, but it only survived in bits and pieces with the systemic Sciences like geology and such].
Calvinism has a strange rationalist bend to it: it’s very much a product of the “Age of Reason”.
Now from within this Calvinist modern Science mindset, all is potentially predetermined, but instead of God predetermining it’s Scientific principles and such. Same mindset, bears the thinking process of its origins.
Taken to its rational conclusion, some within the sciences (or rather, they’re philosophers of science when they speak of this stuff) have decided that “There’s No Free Will” – because we can’t find it therefore it does not exist. All part of rationalism.
Now what effect would it have on a society if we believed there was no culpability due to a lack of free will? There could not be Intent because intent is predeterminable under this schema.
Therefore, “not my fault”.
As this way of thinking increases and gains popularity within the courts, you’ll see more and more of it. Already in Italy, where brain scans are admissible as evidence, people have been getting off of crimes due to “not my fault, look at my brain scan” along with a convincing argument by a neuroscientist.
Does this mean they’re REALLY not responsible?
Culpability. The future looks interesting, depending on which road we end up taking.