Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Memory Interventions in the Criminal Justice System: Some Practical Ethical Considerations

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, discussion around memory modification interventions has gained attention. However, discussion around the use of memory interventions in the criminal justice system has been mostly absent. In this paper we start by highlighting the importance memory has for human well-being and personal identity, as well as its role within the criminal forensic setting; in particular, for claiming and accepting legal responsibility, for moral learning, and for retribution. We provide examples of memory interventions that are currently available for medical purposes, but that in the future could be used in the forensic setting to modify criminal offenders’ memories. In this section we contrast the cases of (1) dampening and (2) enhancing memories of criminal offenders. We then present from a pragmatic approach some pressing ethical issues associated with these types of memory interventions. The paper ends up highlighting how these pragmatic considerations can help establish ethically justified criteria regarding the possibility of interventions aimed at modifying criminal offenders’ memories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We owe the latter point to one of our reviewers who brought this to our attention.

  2. See http://www.hrw.org/united-states/us-program/prison-and-detention-conditions.

  3. Greely (2008) has put forward similar criteria, but he argues that the intervention should “not cause major … substantial loss of remembered personal history.” In the case of memory modification, this is a criterion that, depending on the memory modification at stake, might be hard if not impossible to fulfil.

References

  • Balconi, M., and C. Ferrari. 2012. Emotional memory retrieval: rTMS stimulation on left DLPFC increases the positive memories. Brain Imaging and Behavior 6(3): 454–461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasil-Neto, J.P. 2012. Learning, memory, and transcranial direct current stimulation. Frontiers in Psychiatry 3: 80. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00080.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. 2010. European convention on human rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufner, A. 2013. Should the late stage demented be punished for past crimes? Criminal Law and Philosophy 7(1): 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial. 2013. Focus on memory. Nature Neuroscience 16(2): 111.

  • Erler, A. 2011. Does memory modification threaten our authenticity? Neuroethics 4(3): 235–249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M.J., J. Illes, R. Cook-Deegan, H. Gardner, and E. Kandel. 2004. Neurocognitive enhancement: what can we do and what should we do? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5(5): 421–425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M.J. 2010. Neuroethics: An introduction with readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferruci, R., F. Mameli, I. Guidi, et al. 2008. Transcranial direct current stimulation improves recognition memory in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 71(7): 493–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H.G. 1971. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy 68(1): 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fregni, F., and A. Pascual-Leone. 2007. Technology insight: Noninvasive brain stimulation in neurology—perspectives on the therapeutic potential of rTMS and tDCS. Nature Clinical Practice Neurology 3(7): 383–393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, G., S. Blanchet, S. Grondin, and C. Schneider. 2010. Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex interferes with episodic encoding and retrieval for both verbal and non-verbal materials. Brain Research 1344: 148–158. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.04.041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, G., C. Schneider, S. Grondin, and S. Blanchet. 2011. Enhancement of episodic memory in young and healthy adults: A paired-pulse TMS study on encoding and retrieval performance. Neuroscience Letters 488(2): 138–142.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • George, M.S., F. Padberg, T.E. Schlaepfer, et al. 2009. Controversy: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation shows efficacy in treating psychiatric diseases (depression, mania, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic, posttraumatic stress disorder). Brain Stimulation 2(1): 14–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greely, H.T. 2008. Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. Kansas Law Review 56: 1103–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greely, H., B. Sahakian, J. Harris, et al. 2008. Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy. Nature 456(7223): 872–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handtke, V., W. Bretschneider, T. Wangmo, and B. Elger. 2012. Facing the challenges of an increasingly ageing prison population in Switzerland: In search of ethically acceptable solutions. Bioethica Forum 5(4): 134–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herculano-Houzel, S. 2003. What does the public want to know about the brain? Nature Neuroscience 6(4): 325.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch. 2012. Old behind bars: The aging prison population in the United States. New York: Human Rights Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javadi, A.H., and V. Walsch. 2012. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates declarative memory. Brain Stimulation 5(3): 231–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, E.R., and L.R. Squire. 2000. Neuroscience: Breaking down scientific barriers to the study of brain and mind. Science 290(5494): 1113–1120.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karton, I., and T. Bachmann. 2011. Effect of prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation on spontaneous truth-telling. Behavioural Brain Research 225(1): 209–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kolber, A. 2006. Therapeutic forgetting: The legal and ethical implications of memory dampening. Vanderbilt Law Review 59(5): 1561–1626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, N. 2007. Neuroethics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, S.M., and A. Sandberg. 2008. The normativity of memory modification. Neuroethics 1(2): 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. 1975. On identity and diversity. In Personal identity, edited by J. Perry, 32–52. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E.F. 2003. Make-believe memories. American Psychologist 58(11): 867–873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luber, B.C., P.S. Fisher, M. Appelbaum, M. Ploesser, and S.H. Lisanby. 2009. Non-invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception: Scientific challenges and ethical consequences. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 27(2): 191–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luna, F. 2009. Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2(1): 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luria, A.R. 1987. The mind of a mnemonist: A little book about a vast memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, G. 2002. Memory enhancement: The search for mechanism-based drugs. Nature Neuroscience 5(11s): 1035–1038.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, R., G. Boer, J. Fegert, et al. 2007. Intervening in the brain: Changing psyche and society. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2013. Novel neurotechnologies: Intervening in the brain. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 1977. Standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners. Geneva: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, E.A. 2004. Human emotion and memory: interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 14(2): 198–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pitman, R.K., K.M. Sanders, R.M. Zusman, et al. 2001. Pilot study of secondary prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder with pro-pranolol. Biological Psychiatry 51(2): 189–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K.R., and J.C. Eccles. 1985. The self and its brain. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S., A.R. Birt, J.C. Yuille, and H.F. Herve. 2001. Memory for murder: A psychological perspective on dissociative amnesia in legal contexts. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 24(1): 23–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Bioethics. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Bioethics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 2009. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reist, C., J.G. Duffy, L. Cahill, and K. Fujimoto. 2001. β–adrenergic blockade and emotional memory in PTSD. International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology 4(4): 377–383.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roache, R. 2008. Ethics, speculation, and values. Nanoethics 2(3): 317–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, S., M. Hallett, P.M. Rossini, et al. 2009. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology 120(12): 2008–2039.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, D.L. 2001. The seven sins of memory: How the mind forgets and remembers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechtman, M. 2007. The constitution of selves. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S.R. 1994. Effects of humor on sentence memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20(4): 953–967.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, E. 2014. Direct brain interventions and responsibility enhancement. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8(1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snead, O.C. 2011. Memory and punishment. Vanderbilt Law Review 64(4): 1195–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparing, R., and F.M. Mottaghy. 2008. Noninvasive brain stimulation with transcranial or direct current stimulation (TMS/tDCS)—from insights into human memory to therapy of its dysfunction. Methods 44(4): 329–337.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E. 1972. Episodic and semantic memory. In Organization of memory, edited by E. Tulving and W. Donaldson, 381–402. New York and London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. 2013. Handbook on strategies to reduce overcrowding in prisons. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaiva, G., F. Ducrocq, K. Jezekiel, et al. 2003. Immediate treatment with propranolol decreases post-traumatic stress disorder two months after trauma. Biological Psychiatry 54(9): 947–949.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, N. 2011. Capacitarianism, responsibility and restored mental capacities. In Technologies on the stand: Legaland ethical questions in neuroscience and robotics, edited by B. van den Berg and L. Klaming, 41–62. The Netherlands: WLP.

  • Williams, W., W. Huw, A.J. Mewse, et al. 2010. Traumatic brain injury in a prison population: Prevalence and risk for re-offending. Brain Injury 24(10): 1184–1188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We kindly thank comments from various commentators in different seminar presentations where earlier versions of this paper were presented, as well as the reviewers’ comments, which helped to improve this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences and Department of Translational Science and Molecular Medicine, Michigan State University, East Fee Hall, 965 Fee Road, Rm C211, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Laura Y. Cabrera

  2. Institute for Biomedical Ethics (IBMB), University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland

    Laura Y. Cabrera & Bernice S. Elger

Authors
  1. Laura Y. Cabrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernice S. Elger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Y. Cabrera.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cabrera, L.Y., Elger, B.S. Memory Interventions in the Criminal Justice System: Some Practical Ethical Considerations. Bioethical Inquiry 13, 95–103 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9680-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-015-9680-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation