Neuroethics

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 107–118 | Cite as

Incarceration, Direct Brain Intervention, and the Right to Mental Integrity – a Reply to Thomas Douglas

Original Paper

Abstract

In recent years, direct brain interventions (DBIs) have shown increased success in manipulating neurobiological processes often associated with moral reasoning and decision-making. As current DBIs are refined, and new technologies are developed, the state will have an interest in administering DBIs to criminal offenders for rehabilitative purposes. However, it is generally assumed that the state is not justified in directly intruding in an offender’s brain without valid consent. Thomas Douglas challenges this view. The state already forces criminal offenders to go to jail without their consent. This represents a serious interference with an offender’s rights. If criminal offenders are already morally liable to incarceration, why is the state not also entitled to administer DBIs without consent for the purposes of rehabilitation? Douglas argument focuses on the right to ‘bodily integrity’. He argues that there is no compelling reason to believe that bodily rights that protect an offender from non-consensual DBIs are stronger than rights that protect an offender from incarceration. This paper will extend Douglas’ analysis. It will consider the more fundamental right to ‘mental integrity’. The right to mental integrity defends an inner sphere of liberty. It protects critical capacities necessary for the exercise of autonomous human agency—without which a vast majority of moral rights could not exist. Thus, the right to mental integrity is ultimately more important for a moral assessment of DBIs. The right strongly suggests that both presently, and in the future, there may be many cases in which the state is not entitled to administer DBIs to criminal offenders without valid consent.

Keywords

Criminal sentencing Direct brain intervention Human rights Incarceration Mental integrity Neuro-intervention Neuroethics 

References

  1. 1.
    Darabont, F., and S. King. 1994. The Shawshank redemption. United States: Columbia TriStar Home Video.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Darabont, F., and S. King. 1996. The Shawshank redemption: The shooting script. United States: Nick Hern Books.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    King, S. 2010. Different seasons. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gillespie, W., and ebrary Inc. 2002. Prisonization individual and institutional factors affecting inmate conduct. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weizhi, D. 2010. Prisoners vs. the institution: Resistance in The Shawshank Redemption. Folio 9: 36–43.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bomann-Larsen, L. 2013. Voluntary rehabilitation? On neurotechnological behavioural treatment, valid consent and (In)appropriate offers. Neuroethics 6(1): 65–77. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9105-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Douglas, T. 2014. Criminal rehabilitation through medical intervention: Moral liability and the right to bodily integrity. The Journal of Ethics 18(2): 101–122. doi:10.1007/s10892-014-9161-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cowell, J.M., and J. Decety. 2015. The neuroscience of implicit moral evaluation and its relation to generosity in early childhood. Current Biology 25(1): 93–97. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glenn, A.L., A. Raine, and R.A. Schug. 2009. The neural correlates of moral decision-making in psychopathy. Molecular Psychiatry 14(1): 5–6. doi:10.1038/mp.2008.104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greene, J.D. 2012. The moral brain and how to use it. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kiehl, K.A. 2006. A cognitive neuroscience perspective on psychopathy: Evidence for paralimbic system dysfunction. Psychiatry Research 142(2–3): 107–128. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2005.09.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Terbeck, S., G. Kahane, S. McTavish, J. Savulescu, N. Levy, M. Hewstone, and P.J. Cowen. 2013. Beta adrenergic blockade reduces utilitarian judgement. Biological Psychology 92(2): 323–328. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berlin, F.S. 1997. “Chemical castration” for sex offenders. New England Journal of Medicine 336(14): 1030. doi:10.1056/NEJM199704033361420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manson, N.C., and O. O’Neill. 2007. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Douglas, T., P. Bonte, F. Focquaert, K. Devolder, and S. Sterckx. 2013. Coercion, incarceration, and chemical castration: An argument from autonomy. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10(3): 393–405. doi:10.1007/s11673-013-9465-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryberg, J. 2013. Punishment, pharmacological treatment, and early release. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26(2): 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryberg, J., and T. Petersen. 2013. Neurotechnological behavioural treatment of criminal offenders—a comment on Bomann-Larsen. Neuroethics 6(1): 79–83. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9146-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farah, M.J. 2002. Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience 5(11): 1123–1129. doi:10.1038/nn1102-1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Merkel, R. 2007. Intervening in the brain changing psyche and society. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rosati, C. 1994. A study of internal punishment. Wisconsin Law Review 123157.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vincent, N. 2014. Restoring responsibility: Promoting justice, therapy and reform through direct brain interventions. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8(1): 21–42. doi:10.1007/s11572-012-9156-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greely, H.T. 2008. Neuroscience and criminal justice: Not responsibility but treatment. Kansas Law Review 56: 1103–1138.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kiehl, K.A., and M.B. Hoffman. 2011. The criminal psychopath: History, neuroscience, treatment, and economics. Jurimetrics 51: 355–397.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levy, N. 2007. Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Greely, H.T. 2012. Direct brain interventions to “treat” disfavored human behaviors: Ethical and social issues. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 91(2): 163–165. doi:10.1038/clpt.2011.292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adams, F., and K. Aizawa. 2008. The bounds of cognition. Malden: Blackwell Pub.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dworkin, G. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge studies in philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kant, I., and H.J. Paton. 1964. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mill, J.S. 1859. On liberty.. London: Thinker’s library. (Reprinted by London: Cambridge University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Foster, C. 2013. Human dignity in bioethics and law. Journal of Medical Ethics. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101339.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sherwin, S. 1987. Science, morality & feminist theory. In Canadian journal of philosophy. Supplementary volume, eds. Marsha P. Hanen, and Kai Nielsen, 434 p., vol. 13. Calgary, Alta.: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shaw, E. 2014. Direct brain interventions and responsibility enhancement. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8(1): 1–20. doi:10.1007/s11572-012-9152-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bublitz, C., and R. Merkel. 2014. Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8(1): 51–77. doi:10.1007/s11572-012-9172-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Berofsky, B. 2007. Liberation from self: A theory of personal autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bublitz, J.C., and R. Merkel. 2009. Autonomy and authenticity of enhanced personality traits. Bioethics 23(6): 360–374. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01725.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Glannon, W. 2011. Brain, body, and mind neuroethics with a human face. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rose, S.P.R. 2005. The future of the brain: The promise and perils of tomorrow’s neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Levy, N. 2011. Hard luck how luck undermines free will and moral responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pereboom, D. 2014. Free will, agency, and meaning in life, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dubljević, V. 2013. Autonomy in neuroethics: Political and not metaphysical. AJOB Neuroscience 4(4): 44–51. doi:10.1080/21507740.2013.819390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morse, S.J. 2007. The non-problem of free will in forensic psychiatry and psychology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 25(2): 203–220. doi:10.1002/bsl.744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ivison, D. 2008. Rights. Central problems of philosophy. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gewirth, A. 1982. Human rights: Essays on justification and applications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    McLachlin, H.B. 2006. Medicine and the law: The challenges of mental illness. High Court Quarterly Review 2(86).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Buckholtz, J.W., M.T. Treadway, R.L. Cowan, N.D. Woodward, S.D. Benning, R. Li, M.S. Ansari, et al. 2010. Mesolimbic dopamine reward system hypersensitivity in individuals with psychopathic traits. Nature Neuroscience 13(4): 419–421. doi:10.1038/nn.2510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Crockett, M.J., L. Clark, M.D. Hauser, and T.W. Robbins. 2010. Serotonin selectively influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(40): 17433–17438. doi:10.1073/pnas.1009396107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Glannon, W. 2006. Psychopharmacology and memory. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(2): 74–78. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.012575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Beitchman, J.H., C.C. Zai, K. Muir, L. Berall, B. Nowrouzi, E. Choi, and J.L. Kennedy. 2012. Childhood aggression, callous-unemotional traits and oxytocin genes. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. doi:10.1007/s00787-012-0240-6.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Churchland, P.S., and ebrary Inc. 2011. Braintrust what neuroscience tells us about morality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ross, H.E., and L.J. Young. 2009. Oxytocin and the neural mechanisms regulating social cognition and affiliative behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 30(4): 534–547. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2009.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Karim, A., M. Schneider, J. Kipping, B. Kotchoubey, E. Khedr, A. Fallgatter, and N. Birbaumer. 2013. OP 4. Psychopathic traits and the psychophysiology of deception: A transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) study. Clinical Neurophysiology 124(10): e57-e58. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2013.04.071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Peng, H., H. Zheng, L. Li, J. Liu, Y. Zhang, B. Shan, L. Zhang, et al. 2012. High-frequency rTMS treatment increases white matter FA in the left middle frontal gyrus in young patients with treatment-resistant depression. Journal of Affective Disorders 136(3): 249–257. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Young, L., J.A. Camprodon, M. Hauser, A. Pascual-Leone, and R. Saxe. 2010. Disruption of the right temporoparietal junction with transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the role of beliefs in moral judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(15): 6753–6758. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914826107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Benabid, A., A. Benazzous, and P. Pollack. 2002. Mechanisms of deep brain stimulation. Movement Disorders 17: s73–s74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bewernick, B., R. Hurlemann, A. Matush, S. Kayser, C. Grubert, B. Hadrysiewicz, N. Axmacher, et al. 2010. Nucleus accumbens deep brain stimulation decreases ratings of depression and anxiety in treatment-resistant depression. Biological Psychiatry 67: 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Synofzik, M., and T.E. Schlaepfer. 2008. Stimulating personality: Ethical criteria for deep brain stimulation in psychiatric patients and for enhancement purposes. Biotechnology Journal 3(12): 1511–1520. doi:10.1002/biot.200800187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Baars, B.J. 1997. In the theater of consciousness: The workspace of the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Middleton, P. 2004. Healing our imprisoned minds: A people’s guide to hope and freedom. West Conshohocken PN: Infinity Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Roskies, A.L. 2002. Neuroethics for the new millennium. Neuron 35(1): 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Stuart, D. 1998. Politically expedient but potentially unjust criminal legislation against gangs. International Review of Penal Law 69: 245–258.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Paine, T. 1795. Dissertations on first principles of government. London: Daniel Isaac Eaton.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Berger, T. 1981. Fragile freedoms: Human rights and dissent in Canada. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations