, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 243–254 | Cite as

More Autonomous or more Fenced-in? Neuroscientific Instruments and Intervention in Criminal Justice

  • Catharina H. de KogelEmail author
Original Paper


Neuroscientific research in relation to antisocial behavior has strongly grown in the last decades. This has resulted in a better understanding of biological factors associated with antisocial behavior. Furthermore several neuroscientific instruments and interventions have been developed that have a relatively low threshold for use in the criminal justice system to contribute to prevention or reduction of antisocial and criminal behavior. When considering implementation in the criminal justice system, ethical aspects of the use of neuroscientific instruments and interventions need to be taken into account. With respect to ethics in relation to neurocriminology much of the literature focuses on identifying and debating risks and value conflicts. This is important and necessary, but the positive contribution of neuroscientific applications may therefore get less attention in the ethical literature. Yet, ethicists can help criminal justice researchers and practitioners to identify ways in which neuroscience could add positively to important values in (young) offender rehabilitation. It is argued that this role of ethicists in interdisciplinary teams deserves more emphasis. As an illustration, this contribution focuses on how neuroscientific knowledge, instruments and interventions may contribute to autonomy of (young) offenders.


Neuroscience Antisocial behavior Autonomy Rehabilitation Instruments Intervention 


  1. 1.
    van Goozen, S.H.M., G. Fairchild, H. Snoek, and G.T. Harold. 2007. The evidence for a neurobiological model of childhood antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin 133: 149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Gronde, T., M. Kempes, C. van El, T. Rinne, and T. Pieters. 2014. Neurobiological correlates in forensic assessment: A systematic review. PLoS One 9: 1–15.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bootsman, F. (2018). Neurobiological intervention and prediction of treatment outcome in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice.
  4. 4.
    Choy, O., F. Focquart, and A. Raine. 2018. Benigm biological interventions to reduce offending. Neuroethics.
  5. 5.
    Cornet, L.J.M. 2018. How to introduce neuroscientific measures in judicial practice? A perspective paper. Journal of Criminal Justice.
  6. 6.
    Cornet, L.J.M., F. Bootsman, D.A. Alberda, and C.H. De Kogel. 2016. Neurowetenschappelijke toepassingen in de jeugdstrafrechtketen: Inventarisatie van instrumenten, preventie en interventie. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horstkötter, D., A.G. Donker, C.H. de Kogel, and L. Nauta-Janssen. 2017. Hersenontwikkeling bij jongeren met antisicoaal gedrag, ethische aspecten. Podium voor Bio-ethiek 24 (4): 6–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Focquart, F., and M. Schermer. 2015. Moral enhancement: Do means matter morally? Neuroethics 8: 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Specker, J., F. Focquaert, S. Sterckx, and M.H.N. Schermer. 2018. Forensic practitioners‘ expectations and moral views regarding neurobiological interventions in offenders with mental disorders. BioSocieties 13 (1): 304–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeLisi, M., and M.G. Vaughn. 2015. The Routledge international handbook of biosocial criminology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A., 2015. Criminological theory: Context and consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Portnoy, J., F.R. Chen, and A. Raine. 2013. Biological protective factors for antisocial and criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice 41: 292–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marsh, A.A., and R.J.R. Blair. 2008. Deficits in facial affect recognition among antisocial populations: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 32: 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alink, L.R.A., M.H. van IJzendoorn, M.J. Bakermans-Kranenburg, J. Mesman, F. Juffer, and H.M. Koot. 2008. Cortisol and externalizing behavior in children and adolescents: Mixed meta-analytic evidence for the inverse relation of basal cortisol and cortisol reactivity with externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychobiology 50: 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorber, M.F. 2004. Psychophysiology of aggression, psychopathy, and conduct problems: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin 130: 531–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ortiz, J., and A. Raine. 2004. Heart rate level and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43: 154–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Portnoy, J., and D.P. Farrington. 2015. Resting heart rate and antisocial behavior: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior 22: 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mednick, S. 1977. A biosocial theory of the learning of law-abiding behavior, 1–8. New York: Gardener.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raine, A. 1993. The psychopathology of crime. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eysenck, H.J. 1977. Crime and personality. St Albans: Paladin.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ishikawa, S.S., and A. Raine. 2003. Prefrontal deficits and antisocial behavior: A causal model. In Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency, ed. B.B. Lahey, T.E. Moffitt, and A. Caspi, 277–304. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Morgan, A.B., and S.O. Lilienfeld. 2000. A meta-analytic review of the relation between antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function. Clinical Psychology Review 20: 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ogilvie, J.M., A.L. Stewart, R.C.K. Chan, and D. Shum. 2011. Neuropsychological measures of executive function and antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Criminology 49: 1063–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raine, A., and Y. Yang. 2009. Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research 174 (2): 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van de Wiel, N.M., S.H.M. van Goozen, W. Matthys, H. Snoek, and H. van Engeland. 2004. Cortisol and treatment effect in children with disruptive behavior disorders: A preliminary study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 43: 1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lewis, M.D., I. Granic, C. Lamm, P.D. Zelazo, J. Stieben, R.M. Todd, I. Moadabab, and D. Pepler. 2008. Changes in the neural bases of emotion regulation associated with clinical improvement in children with behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology 20: 913–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schaefer, G.O., G. Kahane, and J. Savalescu. 2014. Autonomy and enhancement. Neuroethics 7: 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Roskies, A., 2016. Neuroethics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University., Accessed on 15 January 2018.
  29. 29.
    Ward, T., and T.A. Gannon. 2006. Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior 11: 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ward, T., P.M. Yates, and G.M. Willis. 2011. The good lives model and the risk need responsivity model: A critical response to Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith. Criminal Justice and Behavior 39 (1): 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Andrews, D.A., and J. Bonta. 2010. The psychology of criminal conduct. 5th ed. New Providence: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rubin, J., F. Gallo, and A. Coults. 2008. Violent crime. Risk models, effective interventions, and risk management. London: RAND Europe.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Legault, L., and M. Inzlicht. 2013. Self-determination, self-regulation, and the brain: Autonomy improves performance by enhancing neuroaffective responsiveness to self-regulation failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105 (1): 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rocque, M., B.C. Welsh, and A. Raine. 2014. Policy implications of biosocial criminology: Crime prevention and offender rehabilitation. In The nurture vs biosocial debate in criminology: On the origins of criminal behavior and criminality, ed. K.M. Beaver, J.C. Barnes, and B.B. Boutwell, 431–446. California: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Porto, P.R., L. Oliveira, J. Mari, E. Volchan, I. Figueira, and P. Ventura. 2009. Does cognitive behavioral therapy change the brain? A systematic review of neuroimaging in anxiety disorders. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 21 (2): 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rutter, M.J. (2006). Genes and behavior. Nature-nurture interplay explained. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Szyf, M., P. McGowan, and M.J. Meaney. 2008. The social environment and the epigenome. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 49: 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weaver, I.C.G., N. Cervoni, F.A. Champagne, A.C. D'Alessio, S. Sharma, J.R. Seckl, S. Dymov, M. Szyf, and M.J. Meaney. 2004. Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nature Neuroscience 7: 847–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Loman, M.M., and M.R. Gunnar. 2010. Early experience and the development of stress reactivity and regulation in children. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 34 (6): 867–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Slopen, N., K.A. McLaughlin, and J.P. Shonkoff. 2014. Interventions to improve cortisol regulation in children: A systematic review. Pediatrics 133 (2): 312–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    O’Neal, C.R., L.M. Brotman, K.Y. Huang, K.K. Gouley, D. Kamboukos, E.J. Calzada, and D.S. Pine. 2010. Understanding relations among early family environment, cortisol response, and child aggression via a prevention experiment. Child Development 81: 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cornet, L.J.M., C.H. de Kogel, H.L.I. Nijman, A. Raine, and P.H. van der Laan. 2014. Neurobiological changes after intervention in individuals with antisocial behavior: Literature review. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 25 (1): 10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meijers, J. (2018). Do not restrain the prisoner’s brain. Executive functions, self-regulation and the impoverished prison environment. PhD Thesis VU- University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Umbach, R., A. Raine, and N.R. Leonard. 2017. Cognitive decline as a result of incarceration and the effects of a CBT/MT intervention. A cluster-randomized trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior 45 (1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cauffman, E., L. Steinberg, and A.R. Piquero. 2005. Psychological, neuropsychological and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of self-control. Criminology 43 (1): 133–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Meijers, J., J.M. Harte, F. Jonker, and G. Meynen. 2015. Prison brain? Executive dysfunction in prisoners. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Volkers, K., and E.J.A. Scherder. 2011. Impoverished environment, cognition, aging and dementia. Reviews in the Neurosciences 22 (3): 259–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Raine, A. 2002. The biological basis of crime. In Crime: Public policies for crime control, ed. J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia, 2nd ed., 43–74. Oakland: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wright, J.P., K.M. Beaver, M. DeLisi, M.G. Vaughn, D. Boisvert, and J. Vaske. 2008. Lombroso’s legacy: The miseducation of criminologists. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 19 (3): 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chandler, J.A. 2017. The impact of biological psychiatry on the law: Evidence, blame, and social solidarity. Alberta Law Review 54 (3): 831–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Farrell, N.R., A.A. Lee, and B.J. Deacon. 2015. Biological or psychological? Effects of eating disorder psychoeducation on self-blame and recovery expectations among symptomatic individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy 74: 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lebowitz, M.S., and W.K. Ahn. 2015. Emphasizing malleability in the biology of depression: Durable effects on perceived agency and prognostic pessimism. Behaviour Research and Therapy 71: 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rafter, N. 2008 The criminal brain: Understanding biological theories of crime. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Walsh, A., and Beaver, K. 2016. The Ashgate research companion to biosocial theories of crime. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Frankel, R.M., Quill, T.E., & McDaniel, S.H. (2003). The biopsychosocial approach: Past, present, and future. Rochester: The University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Scarpa, A., S.C. Tanaka, and A. Haden. 2008. Biosocial bases of reactive and proactive aggression: The roles of community violence exposure and heart rate. Journal of Community Psychology 36 (8): 969–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rudo-Hutt, A., Y. Gao, A. Glenn, M. Peskin, Y. Yang, and A. Raine. 2011. Biosocial interactions and correlates of crime. In The Ashgate companion to biosocial theories of crime, ed. K.M. Beaver and A. Walsh, 17–44. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Felsen, G., and P.B. Reiner. 2011. How the neuroscience of decision making informs our conception of autonomy. AJOB Neuroscience 2 (3): 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    van Gelder, J.l. 2017. Dual-process models in criminal decision making. In The Oxford handbook of offender decision making, ed. W. Bernasco, J.L. van Gelder, and H. Elffers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rudo-Hutt, A., J. Portnoy, F.R. Chen, and A. Raine. 2015. Biosocial criminology as a paradigm shift. In The Routledge international handbook of biosocial criminology, ed. M. DeLisi and M.G. Vaughn, 22–31. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Horstkötter, D., R. Berghmans, C. De Ruiter, A. Krumeich, and G. De Wert. 2012. “We are also normal humans, you know?” views and attitudes of young delinquents on antisocial behavior, neurobiology, and prevention. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 35: 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dekker, S. 2013. Brain Lessons. Neuropsychological insights and interventions for secondary education. Vrije Universiteit van Amsterdam: Proefschrift.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hubble, K., K.L. Bowen, S.C. Moore, and S.H. van Goozen. 2015. Improving negative emotion recognition in young offenders reduces subsequent crime. PLoS One 10: e013203e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ellis, B., and B. Boyce. 2008. Biological sensitivity to context. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17 (3): 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Belsky, J., and M. Pluess. 2009. Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin 135 (6): 885–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., M.H. van IJzendoorn, F.T.A. Pijlman, J. Mesman, and F. Juffer. 2008a. Experimental evidence for differential susceptibility: Dopamine D4 receptor polymorphism (DRD4 VNTR) moderates intervention effects on toddlers’ externalizing behavior in a randomized controlled trial. Developmental Psychology 44: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    van IJzendoorn, M.H., and M.J. Bakermans-Kranenburg. 2006. DRD4 7-repeat polymorphism moderates the association between maternal unresolved loss or trauma and infant disorganization. Attachment & Human Development 8: 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., M.H. van IJzendoorn, J. Mesman, L.R.A. Alink, and F. Juffer. 2008b. Effects of an attachment-based intervention on daily cortisol moderated by DRD4: A randomized control trial on 1-3-year olds screened for externalizing behavior. Development and Psychopathology 20: 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Cornet, L.J.M., N. Mandersloot, R. Pool, and C.H. de Kogel. 2018. De ‘zelfmetende justitiabele’: een verkennend onderzoek naar technologische zelfmeetmethoden binnen de justitiële context. Den Haag: WODC.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Buckaloo, B.J., Krug, K.S., and Nelson, K.B. 2009. Exercise and the low-security inmate: changes in depression, stress, and anxiety. The Prison Journal 89(3): 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    O’Neill, B., and G. Findlay. 2014. Singel case methodology in neurobehavioural rehabilitation: Prel;iminary findings on biofeedback in the treatment of challenging behavior. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 24 (3–4): 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pugh, J. 2014. Enhancing autonomy by reducing impulsivity: The case of ADHD. Neuroethics 7: 373–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Eberl, C., R.W. Wiers, S. Pawelczak, M. Rinck, E.S. Becker, and J. Lindenmeyer. 2013. Approach bias modification in alcohol dependence: Do clinical effects replicate and for whom does it work best? Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 4: 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Sterbenz, C. (2014). Why Norway’s prison system is so successful. Business Insider UK, 11 december., Accessed on 15 January 2018
  75. 75.
    Fazel, S., and A. Wolf. 2015. A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: Current difficulties and recommendations for best practice. PLoS One 10 (6): e0130390. Scholar
  76. 76.
    Boone, M., M. Althoff, and F. Koenraadt. 2016. Het leefklimaat in justitiële inrichtingen. Den Haag: Boom.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Horstkötter, D., Donker, A.G., Kogel, C.H. de, Nauta-Janssen, L. 2017. Hersenontwikkeling bij jongeren met antisociaal gedrag, ethische aspecten. Podium voor Bio-ethiek 24 (4): 6-9.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Horstkötter, D., R. Berghmans, F. Feron, and G. De Wert. 2014. ‘One can always say no.’ enriching the bioethical debate on antisocial behaviour, neurobiology and prevention: Views of juvenile delinquents. Bioethics 26: 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) Ministry of Justice and SecurityThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Maastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations