File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Book Chapter: Can Neurointerventions Communicate Censure? (And So What If They Can’t?)

TitleCan Neurointerventions Communicate Censure? (And So What If They Can’t?)
Authors
Issue Date22-Nov-2018
PublisherOxford University Press
Abstract

According to some philosophers, a necessary condition of morally permissible punishment is that it communicates deserved censure for the offender’s wrongdoing. The author calls this the Communicative Condition of punishment. The chapter considers whether the use of mandatory crime-preventing neurointerventions is compatible with the Communicative Condition. The author argues that it is not. If we accept the Communicative Condition, it follows that it is impermissible to administer mandatory neurointerventions on offenders as punishment. The author then considers whether it is permissible to offer an offender a neurointervention as a replacement for incarceration or in exchange for a shorter sentence. He notes that this could meet the Communicative Condition, although, somewhat oddly, only in cases where the neurointerventions have harmful effects.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/357158
ISBN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBirks, David Rhys-
dc.date.accessioned2025-06-23T08:53:42Z-
dc.date.available2025-06-23T08:53:42Z-
dc.date.issued2018-11-22-
dc.identifier.isbn9780198758617-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/357158-
dc.description.abstract<p>According to some philosophers, a necessary condition of morally permissible punishment is that it communicates deserved censure for the offender’s wrongdoing. The author calls this the Communicative Condition of punishment. The chapter considers whether the use of mandatory crime-preventing neurointerventions is compatible with the Communicative Condition. The author argues that it is not. If we accept the Communicative Condition, it follows that it is impermissible to administer mandatory neurointerventions on offenders as punishment. The author then considers whether it is permissible to offer an offender a neurointervention as a replacement for incarceration or in exchange for a shorter sentence. He notes that this could meet the Communicative Condition, although, somewhat oddly, only in cases where the neurointerventions have harmful effects.<br></p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherOxford University Press-
dc.relation.ispartofTreatment For Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice-
dc.titleCan Neurointerventions Communicate Censure? (And So What If They Can’t?)-
dc.typeBook_Chapter-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/oso/9780198758617.003.0020-
dc.identifier.spage351-
dc.identifier.epage368-
dc.identifier.eisbn9780191818530-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats