Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 51–77 | Cite as

Crimes Against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms and a Human Right to Mental Self-Determination

Original Paper

Abstract

The neurosciences not only challenge assumptions about the mind’s place in the natural world but also urge us to reconsider its role in the normative world. Based on mind-brain dualism, the law affords only one-sided protection: it systematically protects bodies and brains, but only fragmentarily minds and mental states. The fundamental question, in what ways people may legitimately change mental states of others, is largely unexplored in legal thinking. With novel technologies to both intervene into minds and detect mental activity, the law should, we suggest, introduce stand alone protection for the inner sphere of persons. We shall address some metaphysical questions concerning physical and mental harm and demonstrate gaps in current doctrines, especially in regard to manipulative interferences with decision-making processes. We then outline some reasons for the law to recognize a human right to mental liberty and propose elements of a novel criminal offence proscribing severe interventions into other minds.

Keywords

Mental self-determination Mental integrity Cognitive liberty, manipulation Emotional harm Mental and bodily injury Dualism Freedom of thought 

References

  1. Baars, B. (1997). In the theater of consciousness: The workspace of the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargh, J. (2005). Bypassing the will: Toward demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. In R. Hassin, J. Uleman & J. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R., Gailliot, M., DeWall, N., Maner, J., Plant, A., Tice, D., et al. (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, M., & Hacker, P. (2003). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Blitz, M. (2010). Freedom of thought for the extended mind: Cognitive enhancement and the constitution. Wisconsin Law Review, 1049–1115.Google Scholar
  6. Boire, R. G. (2003). On Cognitive Liberty, Part I-V. Journal of Cognitive Liberties. www.cognitiveliberty.org.
  7. Borowitz, A. (1971). Psychological Kidnaping in Italy: The case of Aldo Braibanti. American Bar Association Journal, 57, 990–995.Google Scholar
  8. Bublitz, C. (2011a). Der (straf-)rechtliche Schutz der Psyche. Rechtswissenschaft, 2, 28–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bublitz, C. (2011b). My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept. In: Hildt/Franke. Cognitive Enhancement. Berlin: Springer (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, J. (2002). Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales. Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  11. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chalmers, D. (2010). The character of consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dijksterhuis, A., Aarts, H., & Smith, P. (2005). The power of the subliminal: On subliminal persuasion and other potential applications. In R. Hassin, J. Uleman & J. Bargh (Eds.) The new unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Duvert, C. (2004). Anti cultism in the French Parliament: Desperate last stand or an opportune leap forward? In J. T. Richardson (Ed.), Regulating religion. Kluwer, New York (pp. 41–51).Google Scholar
  15. Eisenberger, N., & Liebermann, M. (2009). Pains and pleasures of social life. Science, 323, 890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans, J. (2010). Thinking twice. Two minds in one brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fehr, E., Baumgartner, T., Heinrichs, M., Vonlanthen, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2008). Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans. Neuron, 58, 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fehr, E., Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P., & Fischbacher, U. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greely, H. (2008). Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. University of Kansas Law Review, 56, 1103–1138.Google Scholar
  20. Greely, H., & Illes, J. (2007). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 377.Google Scholar
  21. Grey, B. (2011). Neuroscience and emotional harm in tort law: Rethinking the American approach to free-standing emotional distress claims. In M. D. A. Freeman (Ed.) Law and neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gustavsson, A., et al. (2011). Cost of disorders of the brain in Europe 2010. Journal of European Neuropsychopharmacology. Google Scholar
  23. Hammer, L. (2001). The international human right to freedom of conscience. Dartmouth: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  24. Hurley, S. (2005). Bypassing conscious control: Media violence, unconscious imitation, and freedom of speech. In: S. Pockett, W. Banks & S. Gallagher (Eds.), Does consciousness cause behavior? Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
  26. Kant, I. (1797). Metaphysik der Sitten. Academy Edition, Vol. 6 (Transl. by Gregor, M. (1991) Metaphysics of Morals). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism or something near enough. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Klaming, L., & Vedder, A. (2010). Human enhancement for the common good—Using neurotechnologies to improve eyewitness memory. AJOB Neuroscience, 3, 22–33.Google Scholar
  29. Kohno, T., Denning, T., & Matsuoka, Y. (2009). Security and privacy for neural devices. Journal Neurosurgery Focus, 27, 1–4.Google Scholar
  30. Kolber, A. (2006). Therapeutic forgetting: The legal and ethical implications of memory dampening. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59(5), 1561.Google Scholar
  31. Kolber, A. (2008). Freedom of memory today. Neuroethics, 1, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lifton, R. (1961). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  34. Lilly, J. (1956). Mental effects of reduction of ordinary levels of physical stimuli on intact, healthy persons. Psychiatric Research Reports, 5, 1–9.Google Scholar
  35. Luber, B., Fisher, C., Appelbaum, P., Ploesser, M., & Lisanby, S. (2009). Non-invasive brain stimulation in the detection of deception. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Markowitsch, H., & Merkel, R. (2011). Das Gehirn auf der Anklagebank. In T. Bonhoeffer & P. Gruss (Eds.), Zukunft Gehirn. Munich: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  37. Marks, J. (1979). The search for the Manchurian candidate. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  38. Meerloo, J. (1956). Mental seduction and menticide. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  39. Merkel, R. (2007). Intervening into brains. Normative foundations and limits. In B. Nuttin, S. Hartmann, G. Boer, G. Fegert, S. Rosahl, T. Galert & R. Merkel (Eds.), Intervening in the brain. Changing psyche and society. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Merkel, R., Boer, G., Fegert, J., Rosahl, S., Hartmann, D., Nuttin, B., & Galert, T. (2009). Die Verbesserung der condicio humana und ihre strafrechtlichen Grenzen. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 121, 919–953.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, G. (2010). Mistreating psychology in the decade of the brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 716–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nahmias, E. (2007). Autonomous agency and social psychology. In M. Maraffa, M. De Caro & F. Ferretti (Eds.), Cartographies of the mind. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Perring, C. (2011). Mental illness. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/. Accessed 28 Dec 2011.
  44. Pettit, P., & Smith, M. (1996). Freedom of belief and desire. The Journal of Philosophy, 9, 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. President’s Council on Bioethics. (2008). Human dignity and bioethics. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  46. Repantis, D., Laisney, O., & Heuser, I. (2010a). Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research, 61, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Repantis, D., Laisney, O., & Heuser, I. (2010b). Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research, 62, 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Richardson, J., & Introvigne, M. (2001). “Brainwashing” theories in European parliamentary and reports. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(2), 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sargant, W. (1957). Battle for the mind. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  50. Savellos, E., & Yalcin, U. (Eds.). (1995). Supervenience. New essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sententia, W. (2004). Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1013, 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Society for Humanistic Psychology. (2011). Open letter to the DSM-5 Task Force and the American Psychiatric Association. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/.
  53. Taylor, K. (2004). Brainwashing. The science of thought control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Vermeulen, B. (2006). Commentary on Art. 9 ECHR. In F. van Dijk, F. van Hoof, A. van Rijn & L. Zwaak (Eds.), Theory and practice of the European convention on human rights, 4th Ed. Antwerpen: Intersentia Press.Google Scholar
  55. von Bar, C., Blackie, J., Swann, S., & European Study Group of Private Law. (2009). Principles of European law: Non-contractual liability arising out of damage caused to another.Google Scholar
  56. Wegner, D. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wegner, D. (2005). Who is the controller of controlled processes? In Hassin, Uleman & Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Weinberger, J., & Westen, D. (2008). RATS, we should have used clinton: Subliminal priming in political Campaigns. Political Psychology, 29(5).Google Scholar
  59. Wren, S., Cohen, B., Frost, M., Dhillo, G., & Bloom, A. (2001). Ghrelin enhances appetite and increases food intake in humans. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 86(12), 5992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zablocki, B. (1997). The blacklisting of a concept: The strange history of the brainwashing conjecture in the sociology of religion. Nova Religion, 10.Google Scholar
  61. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: How good people turn evil. London: Rider.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Law, Institute of Criminal Law and Legal PhilosophyUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations