The use of brain interventions in offender rehabilitation programmes

should it be mandatory, voluntary or prohibited?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As our understanding of the brain increases, it seems likely that new biomedical techniques for altering human behavior will be developed. One potential application of such techniques is within the context of the rehabilitation of offenders. This prospect may seem attractive, given the social and economic costs of crime and the limited effectiveness of traditional punishments at reducing reoffending (see, e.g., Ministry of Justice. Proven re-offending statistics, quarterly bulletin. October 2010–September 2011. England and Wales. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2, 2013). On the other hand, the fact that the brain is so intimately connected with an individual’s identity, personality, and capacity for making autonomous choices gives rise to distinct concerns about the use of directly interfering with brain functioning. This chapter begins by indicating a number of neuroenhancements that might be used in rehabilitation programs in the future, if sufficiently safe and effective. Secondly, it outlines and replies to some of the main arguments for prohibiting neuroenhancement of offenders altogether. Thirdly, it examines the opposite position – that neuroenhancement of offenders should be mandatory. Fourthly, it argues that the case for mandatory interventions is ultimately unpersuasive. Provided sufficiently safe and effective interventions are developed, the best policy would be to provide such interventions on a voluntary basis. The chapter ends by discussing some of the issues that need to be addressed to ensure that offenders’ consent to neurointerventions is truly voluntary.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationHandbook of Neuroethics
EditorsJens Clausen, Neil Levy
PublisherSpringer Netherlands
Pages1381-1398
Number of pages18
ISBN (Electronic)978-94-007-4707-4
ISBN (Print)9400747063, 978-9400747067
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Oct 2014

Fingerprint

rehabilitation
offender
brain
bulletin
ministry
penalty
personality
justice
statistics
offense
costs
economics

Cite this

The use of brain interventions in offender rehabilitation programmes : should it be mandatory, voluntary or prohibited? / Shaw, Elizabeth .

Handbook of Neuroethics. ed. / Jens Clausen; Neil Levy. Springer Netherlands, 2014. p. 1381-1398.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Shaw, Elizabeth . / The use of brain interventions in offender rehabilitation programmes : should it be mandatory, voluntary or prohibited?. Handbook of Neuroethics. editor / Jens Clausen ; Neil Levy. Springer Netherlands, 2014. pp. 1381-1398
@inbook{53294100021c4666970deaa022222529,
title = "The use of brain interventions in offender rehabilitation programmes: should it be mandatory, voluntary or prohibited?",
abstract = "As our understanding of the brain increases, it seems likely that new biomedical techniques for altering human behavior will be developed. One potential application of such techniques is within the context of the rehabilitation of offenders. This prospect may seem attractive, given the social and economic costs of crime and the limited effectiveness of traditional punishments at reducing reoffending (see, e.g., Ministry of Justice. Proven re-offending statistics, quarterly bulletin. October 2010–September 2011. England and Wales. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2, 2013). On the other hand, the fact that the brain is so intimately connected with an individual’s identity, personality, and capacity for making autonomous choices gives rise to distinct concerns about the use of directly interfering with brain functioning. This chapter begins by indicating a number of neuroenhancements that might be used in rehabilitation programs in the future, if sufficiently safe and effective. Secondly, it outlines and replies to some of the main arguments for prohibiting neuroenhancement of offenders altogether. Thirdly, it examines the opposite position – that neuroenhancement of offenders should be mandatory. Fourthly, it argues that the case for mandatory interventions is ultimately unpersuasive. Provided sufficiently safe and effective interventions are developed, the best policy would be to provide such interventions on a voluntary basis. The chapter ends by discussing some of the issues that need to be addressed to ensure that offenders’ consent to neurointerventions is truly voluntary.",
author = "Elizabeth Shaw",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_169",
language = "English",
isbn = "9400747063",
pages = "1381--1398",
editor = "Jens Clausen and Levy, {Neil }",
booktitle = "Handbook of Neuroethics",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - The use of brain interventions in offender rehabilitation programmes

T2 - should it be mandatory, voluntary or prohibited?

AU - Shaw, Elizabeth

PY - 2014/10/28

Y1 - 2014/10/28

N2 - As our understanding of the brain increases, it seems likely that new biomedical techniques for altering human behavior will be developed. One potential application of such techniques is within the context of the rehabilitation of offenders. This prospect may seem attractive, given the social and economic costs of crime and the limited effectiveness of traditional punishments at reducing reoffending (see, e.g., Ministry of Justice. Proven re-offending statistics, quarterly bulletin. October 2010–September 2011. England and Wales. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2, 2013). On the other hand, the fact that the brain is so intimately connected with an individual’s identity, personality, and capacity for making autonomous choices gives rise to distinct concerns about the use of directly interfering with brain functioning. This chapter begins by indicating a number of neuroenhancements that might be used in rehabilitation programs in the future, if sufficiently safe and effective. Secondly, it outlines and replies to some of the main arguments for prohibiting neuroenhancement of offenders altogether. Thirdly, it examines the opposite position – that neuroenhancement of offenders should be mandatory. Fourthly, it argues that the case for mandatory interventions is ultimately unpersuasive. Provided sufficiently safe and effective interventions are developed, the best policy would be to provide such interventions on a voluntary basis. The chapter ends by discussing some of the issues that need to be addressed to ensure that offenders’ consent to neurointerventions is truly voluntary.

AB - As our understanding of the brain increases, it seems likely that new biomedical techniques for altering human behavior will be developed. One potential application of such techniques is within the context of the rehabilitation of offenders. This prospect may seem attractive, given the social and economic costs of crime and the limited effectiveness of traditional punishments at reducing reoffending (see, e.g., Ministry of Justice. Proven re-offending statistics, quarterly bulletin. October 2010–September 2011. England and Wales. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2, 2013). On the other hand, the fact that the brain is so intimately connected with an individual’s identity, personality, and capacity for making autonomous choices gives rise to distinct concerns about the use of directly interfering with brain functioning. This chapter begins by indicating a number of neuroenhancements that might be used in rehabilitation programs in the future, if sufficiently safe and effective. Secondly, it outlines and replies to some of the main arguments for prohibiting neuroenhancement of offenders altogether. Thirdly, it examines the opposite position – that neuroenhancement of offenders should be mandatory. Fourthly, it argues that the case for mandatory interventions is ultimately unpersuasive. Provided sufficiently safe and effective interventions are developed, the best policy would be to provide such interventions on a voluntary basis. The chapter ends by discussing some of the issues that need to be addressed to ensure that offenders’ consent to neurointerventions is truly voluntary.

U2 - 10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_169

DO - 10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_169

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9400747063

SN - 978-9400747067

SP - 1381

EP - 1398

BT - Handbook of Neuroethics

A2 - Clausen, Jens

A2 - Levy, Neil

PB - Springer Netherlands

ER -