, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 79–83 | Cite as

Neurotechnological Behavioural Treatment of Criminal Offenders—A Comment on Bomann-Larsen

  • Jesper RybergEmail author
  • Thomas S. Petersen
Original Paper


Whether it is morally acceptable to offer rehabilitation by CNS-intervention to criminals as a condition for early release constitutes an important neuroethical question. Bomann-Larsen has recently suggested that such interventions are unacceptable if the offered treatment is not narrowly targeted at the behaviour for which the criminal is convicted. In this article it is argued that Bomann-Larsen’s analysis of the morality of offers does not provide a solid base for this conclusion and that, even if the analysis is assumed to be correct, it still does not follow that voluntary rehabilitation schemes targeting behaviour beyond the act for which a criminal is convicted are inappropriate.


Bomann-Larsen Inappropriate offers Neurotechnological treatment Rehabilitation 


  1. 1.
    Bomann-Larsen, Lene. 2011. Voluntary rehabilitation? On neurotechnological behavioural treatment, valid consent and (in)appropriate offers. Neuroethics, First Online (18 March).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farah, M. 2007. Emerging ethical issues in Neuroscience. In Defining right and wrong in brain science. Essential readings in neuroethics, ed. W. Glannon, 16–36. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Von Hirsch, A., and L. Maher. 1998. Should Penal Rehabilitation be Revived? In Principled Sentencing, ed. A. von Hirsch and A. Ashworth. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Depatment of PhilosophyRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations