Abstract
In this issue, Elizabeth Shaw and Gulzaar Barn offer a number of replies to my arguments in ‘Criminal Rehabilitation Through Medical Intervention: Moral Liability and the Right to Bodily Integrity’, Journal of Ethics (2014). In this article I respond to some of their criticisms.
Highlights
In this issue, Elizabeth Shaw and Gulzaar Barn offer a number of replies to my arguments in ‘Criminal Rehabilitation Through Medical Intervention: Moral Liability and the Right to Bodily Integrity’, Journal of Ethics (2014)
Much of my paper was spent assessing the robustness claim: It takes more serious criminal offending for the rights to bodily integrity that protect against injection [the method via which I assumed neurocorrectives would be administered] to lose their protective force than for the rights to free movement and association that protect against minimal incarceration to lose theirs (p. 110)
Besides an appeal to intuition, I considered two other ways in which my imagined opponent might seek to defend the robustness claim—the claim that it takes more serious criminal offending for the rights to bodily integrity that protect against injection to lose their protective force than for the rights to free movement and association that protect against minimal incarceration to lose theirs
Summary
Much of my paper was spent assessing the robustness claim: It takes more serious criminal offending for the rights to bodily integrity that protect against injection [the method via which I assumed neurocorrectives would be administered] to lose their protective force than for the rights to free movement and association that protect against minimal incarceration to lose theirs (p. 110). For example, that the following hold: (i) the right to freedom of movement and association is less robust, so that it would, absent the possibility of imposing a disjunctive requirement, take a lesser catastrophe to justify impositions on freedom of movement and association than to justify interference with bodily integrity, but (ii) it is always preferable to impose the disjunctive requirement to imposing either quarantine or treatment alone, so that once the threshold for imposing quarantine is met, we should offer the alternative of treatment as well Given this sort of possibility, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the robustness claim from three-option cases. It seems to me that there is considerable scope for doubt as to whether there is any such rights violation in this case, and this may reasonably colour our intuitions about the driving scenario It may make prohibiting Joe from using a car seem substantially less problematic than subjecting him to the kinds of constraints on movement and association involved in minimal incarceration
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: 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.
