Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Neuroscience and Social Problems: The Case of Neuropunishment

  • ALENA BUYX and DAVID BIRKS
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.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All

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).

Footnotes
References
Hide All

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; 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): 11911206.

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

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

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).

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

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).

7. James, N. The federal prison population buildup. Options for Congress. Congressional Research Service 2013;42937:75700.

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).

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

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.

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;244205:131.

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

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;15:5463.

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

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.

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.

19. Holoyda, BJ, Kellaher, DC. The biological treatment of paraphilic disorders: An updates review. Current Psychiatry Reports 2016;18:17.

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

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

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

23. Franzini, A, Broggi, G, Cordella, R, Dones, I, Messina, G. Deep-brain stimulation for aggressive and disruptive behavior. World Neurosurgery 2013;80:S29.e11S29.e14.

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

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.

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.

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

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;6:6577.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
  • ISSN: 0963-1801
  • EISSN: 1469-2147
  • URL: /core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed