Abstract
As neuroscience progresses, we will not only gain a better understanding of how our brains work, but also a better understanding of how to modify them, and as a result, our mental states. An important question we are faced with is whether the state could be justified in implementing such methods on criminal offenders, without their consent, for the purposes of rehabilitation and reduction of recidivism; a practice that is already legal in some jurisdictions. By focusing on a prominent type of view of free action, which I call bypassing views, this paper evaluates how such interventions may negatively impact the freedom of their subjects. The paper concludes that there will be a tension between the goals of rehabilitation and reduction of recidivism, on the one hand, and the negative impact such interventions may have on free action, on the other. Other things equal, the better that a particular intervention is at achieving the former, the more likely it is to result in the latter.
Highlights
As neuroscience progresses, we will gain a better understanding of how our brains work, and a better understanding of how to modify them, and as a result, our mental states
I refer to the process of bypassing these capacities as bypassing,9 and I refer to views that appeal to bypassing in their explanation of Paul’s lack of freedom as bypassing views
A core feature of bypassing views is that they single out attitudes acquired via bypassing in accounting for the difference between typical agents like Pat and manipulated agents like Paul
Summary
We will gain a better understanding of how our brains work, and a better understanding of how to modify them, and as a result, our mental states. For instance, the use of drugs to increase offenders’ empathy, or brain stimulation to reduce aggressive impulses. Call such methods, intended to improve offender behavior via the modification of brain states, neurocorrectives. One important question concerns whether the state could be justified in using such methods without the offender’s consent; whether, that is, it could be justified in making them mandatory Call such correctives non-consensual neurocorrectives, or NNs, for short. The state has some reasons to implement NNs, if it has reasons to attempt to rehabilitate offenders and to reduce the rate of these offenses. According to some views of free action, NNs might reduce, or eliminate subjects’ freedom with respect to some actions.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have