Abstract
This chapter concerns the controversial question whether compulsory use of neurointerventions in the treatment of offenders can ever be morally justified. That there are strong reasons against such use is hard to reject. But does this imply that such treatment is wrong everything considered? And if so, why is this the case? A number of objections are discussed concerning respectively, the lack of a proper moral yardstick, the freedom of the offender, and the personal identify of the offender. Subsequently, it is considered whether—as several theorists have suggested—it is plausible to hold that compulsory use of neurointerventions violates an offender’s moral right to either physical integrity or mental self-determination.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
