Neuroethics 13 (1):55-71 (2020)

Biomedical interventions, such as pharmacological and neurological interventions, are increasingly being offered or considered for offer to offenders in the criminal justice system as a means of reducing recidivism and achieving offender rehabilitation through treatment. An offender’s consent to treatment may affect decisions about diversion from the criminal justice system, sentence or parole, and so hope for a preferable treatment in the criminal justice system may influence the offender’s consent. This thematic analysis of three focus group interviews conducted in Canada with members of the public investigates how the public views the use of biomedical treatments within the criminal justice system, and the practice of encouraging offender consent to biomedical treatment through the hope of a reduced criminal sentence. The public focus group discussions followed a semi-structured interview guide, and were based on two hypothetical case examples involving individuals choosing whether to consent to a range of cocaine addiction or anti-libidinal treatments respectively in the hope of receiving a more lenient sentence. The discussions covered a wide range of themes, and here we present the participants’ evaluations of this type of biomedical treatment offer in light of three key theoretical sentencing objectives: the promotion of public safety, the infliction of retributive punishment, and the rehabilitation of offenders. We conclude that public safety was the predominant concern of the participants when evaluating biomedical treatment offered at the time of sentencing to offenders who had committed serious crimes. Another important observation was that the public tended to reframe and evaluate biomedical interventions in terms of retribution and punishment, rather than rehabilitation and reform.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s12152-018-9370-y
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,079
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

Direct Brain Interventions and Responsibility Enhancement.Elizabeth Shaw - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):1-20.
Mandatory Neurotechnological Treatment: Ethical Issues.Farah Focquaert - 2014 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 35 (1):59-72.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice.Nicola Lacey - 1991 - Philosophical Quarterly 41 (164):374.
The Political Logic of Victim Impact Statements.Brian Rosebury - 2011 - Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (1):39-67.


Added to PP index

Total views
17 ( #635,847 of 2,506,007 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,828 of 2,506,007 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes