Biocriminology does not purport to have a general explanation for crimes, but rather draws on contemporary human genetics and neurobiology to account for what is represented as a growing social problem of violent and antisocial conduct. Jurisprudential notions of free will and responsibility are not being displaced by genetic essentialism in the courtroom, where the tendency is for an increased emphasis on moral responsibility of all offenders for their actions; however, in other areas of the criminal justice system, there are emerging new conceptions of the individual "genetically at risk" of offending, as well as the development of crime prevention strategies based on a rationale of public health. This is not a new eugenics, but rather a control strategy that aims to identify, treat, and control individuals predisposed to impulsive or aggressive conduct. The implications of the new biological criminology may be seen in the form of genetic discrimination, genetic screening in risk assessments, and the use of quasi-consensual "treatment" for supposed biological tendencies as conditions for a non-custodial sentence, loss of employment, or denial of insurance or other benefits. The search for biological dispositions may also play a part in the increased use of preventive detention and other pre-emptive interventions for "the protection of the public" against those whose conduct seems to show wanton disregard for the moral constraints on the conduct of free individuals in a liberal society. 32 notes and 97 references