Abstract
This chapter will focus on the biomedical moral enhancement of offenders – the idea that we could modify offenders’ brains in order to reduce the likelihood that they would engage in immoral, criminal behaviour. Discussions of the permissibility of using biomedical means to address criminal behaviour typically analyse the issues from the perspective of medical ethics, rather than penal theory. However, recently certain theorists have discussed whether brain interventions could be legitimately used for punitive purposes. For instance, Jesper Ryberg argues that there is nothing to prevent retributivists from endorsing brain interventions as a legitimate form of retributive punishment. Legal academics have not yet paid sufficient attention to whether this proposal would be compatible with international human rights law, nor have retributivist philosophers discussed whether their favoured penal theories have the conceptual resources to explain why brain interventions would not be an appropriate method of punishment. This chapter considers whether there is any indication that these interventions are being used at present for punitive purposes and whether this would violate the European Convention on Human Rights. It examines different versions of retributivism and considers which theory is in the best position to challenge the use of brain interventions as a form of punishment. Finally, it considers whether offering these interventions as an alternative to punishment would violate principles of proportionality.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s1358246118000383
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,066
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Punishment, Communication, and Community.R. A. Duff - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211):310-313.
Penal Disenfranchisement.Christopher Bennett - 2016 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 10 (3):411-425.
Punishment, Pharmacological Treatment, and Early Release.Jesper Ryberg - 2012 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):231-244.
Punishment as Language.Igor Primoratz - 1989 - Philosophy 64 (248):187 - 205.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Direct Brain Interventions and Responsibility Enhancement.Elizabeth Shaw - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):1-20.
Intention and Moral Enhancement.William Simkulet - 2016 - Bioethics 30 (9):714-720.
Desert of What? On Murphy’s Reluctant Retributivism.Linda Radzik - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (1):161-173.
Memory Enhancement: The Issues We Should Not Forget About.Laura Cabrera - 2011 - Journal of Evolution and Technology 22 (1):97-109.
Moral Perfection and the Demand for Human Enhancement.Adriana Warmbier - forthcoming - Ethics in Progress 2015 (No.1).
Moral Enhancement.Thomas Douglas - 2008 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 25 (3):228-245.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-10-17

Total views
13 ( #765,780 of 2,498,763 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #422,193 of 2,498,763 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes