Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:05:38.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neuroscience and Social Problems: The Case of Neuropunishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2018

ALENA BUYX  and
DAVID BIRKS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Neuroscientific interventions are increasingly proposed as solutions for social problems, beyond their application in biomedicine. For example, there is increasing interest, particularly from outside commentators, in harnessing neuroscientific advances as an alternative method of punishing criminal offenders. Such neuropunishments are seen as a potentially more effective, less costly, and more humane alternative to incarceration, with overall better results for offender, communities, and societies. This article considers whether neuroscience as a field should engage more actively with such proposals, and whether more research should be done to explore the use of neurointerventions for punishment. It concludes that neuroscientists and those working at the intersection of neuroscience and the clinic should actively shape these debates.

Keywords

neuropunishmentsneurointerventions for punishmentneurosciencebiomedicine
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 27 , Special Issue 4: Clinical Neuroethics , October 2018 , pp. 628 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank an anonymous reviewer for her/his helpful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Mona Rudolf for her research assistance. The article was written while supported by the German Research Foundation (BU 2450/2-1).

References

Notes

1. Greenly, H, Sahakian, B, Harris, J, Kessler, RC, Gazzaniga, M, Campbell, P, et al. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 2008;11:702–5;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Buyx, A. Smart drugs: ethical issues and suggestions for policy makings. In Clausen, J, Levy, N (eds.) (2014) Handbook on Neuroethics, (New York/London: Springer): 1191–1206.Google Scholar

2. Reardon, S. Neuroscienence in court: the painful truth. Nature 2015;518(7540):474–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Brunsvold, ML. Medicating to Execute: Singleton v. Norris. Chicago–Kent Law Review 2004;79:1291–311.Google Scholar

4. Zoltan, I. How Brain Implants (and other technology) could make the death penalty obsolete. Motherboard. July 21, 2015; available at http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-brain-implants-and-other-technology-could-make-the-death-penalty-obsolete (last accessed 30 May 2016).Google Scholar

5. Birks, D, Douglas, T. (eds.) Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays in Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Key Statistics 2014, available at http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=488 (last accessed 30 May 2016).Google Scholar

7. James, N. The federal prison population buildup. Options for Congress. Congressional Research Service 2013;42937:7–5700.Google Scholar

8. Institute for Criminal Policy Research. World Prison Brief Data 2016; available at http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/occupancylevel?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All (last accessed 30 May 2016).Google Scholar

9. Henrichson, C, Delaney, R. The price of prisons: What incarceration costs taxpayers. New York: Vera Institute of Justice; 2012.Google Scholar

10. deVuono-powell, S, Schweidler, S, Walters, A, Zohrabi, A. Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on Families. Oakland, CA: Ella Baker Center; 2015.Google Scholar

11. Durose, MR, Cooper, AD, Snyder, HS. Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. U.S. Department of Justice 2014;244205:1–31.Google Scholar

12. Fazel, S, Zetterqvist, J, Larsson, H, Langström, N, Lichtenstein, P. Antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and risk of violent crime. Lancet 2014;27:1206–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. See note 5, Birks, Douglas 2018.

14. Glenn, AL, Raine, A. Neurocriminology: Implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014;15:54–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. Douglas, T. Criminal rehabilitation through medical intervention: Moral liability and the right to bodily integrity. Journal of Ethics 2014;18(2):101–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. Hall, RC, Hall, RC. A profile of paedophilia: definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2007;82:457–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. See note 12, Fazel et al. 2014.

18. Crockett, M, Clark, L, Hauser, M, Robbins, TW. Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behaviour through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 2010;107(40):17,433–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

19. Holoyda, BJ, Kellaher, DC. The biological treatment of paraphilic disorders: An updates review. Current Psychiatry Reports 2016;18:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. De Grazia, DJ. Moral enhancement, freedom, and what we (should) value in moral behaviour. Journal of Medical Ethics 2014;40:361–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Ryberg, J. Punishment, pharmacological treatment, and early release. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 2012;26:231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Ruff, CC, Ugazio, G, Fehr, E. Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation. Science 2013;342:482–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Franzini, A, Broggi, G, Cordella, R, Dones, I, Messina, G. Deep-brain stimulation for aggressive and disruptive behavior. World Neurosurgery 2013;80:S29.e11–S29.e14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. Abend, G. Thick concepts and the moral brain. European Journal of Sociology 2001;3:133–50.Google Scholar

25. Ruiz, S, Sitaram, R, Birbaumer, N. Learned brain self-regulation for emotional processing and attentional modulation: From theory to clinical applications. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 2016;10:62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. See note 19, Holoyda, Kellaher 2016.

27. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans, Fourth Edition. Geneva: CIOMS; 2016.Google Scholar

28. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. See note 9, Henrichson C, Delaney R (2012).

30. Bomann-Larsen, L. Voluntary rehabilitation? On neurotechnical behavioural treatment, valid consent and (in)appropriate offer. Neuroethics 2013;6:65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Pugh, J, Douglas, T. ‘Neurointerventions as Criminal Rehabilitation: An Ethical Review’, in Jacobs, J, Jackson, J. (eds.) (2016), The Routledge Handbook of Criminal Justice Ethics (Abingdon: Routledge): 101.Google Scholar

32. Sitaram, R, Caria, A, Veit, R, Gaber, T, Rota, G, Kuebler, A, et al. fMRI Brain–computer interface: A tool for neuroscientific research and treatment. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2007;2007:25487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. See note 27, CIOMS 2016, at Guideline 15.

34. See note 7, James N 2013.

35. Gawande, A. When law and ethics collide—why physicians participate in executions. The New England Journal of Medicine 2006;354:1221–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

36. May, WF. Beleaguered Rulers: The Public Obligation of the Professional. London: John Knox Press; 2001.Google Scholar

37. Giordano, J. Toward an operational neuroethical risk analysis and mitigation paradigm for emerging neuroscience and technology (Neuros/T) Experimental Neurology 2017;287:492–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar