David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In A. Santosuosso (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Law and Science Young Scholars Symposium. Pavia University Press (2012)
This chapter examines how advances in nanotechnology might impact criminal sentencing. While many scholars have considered the ethical implications of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, few have considered their potential impact on crucial institutions such as our criminal justice system. Specifically, I will discuss the implications of two types of technological advances for criminal sentencing: advanced tracking devices enabled by nanotechnology, and nano-neuroscience, including neural implants. The key justifications for criminal punishment- including incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution – apply very differently to criminal sentences using these emerging technologies than they do to imprisonment. Further, use of these technologies would represent a shift away from retribution as the primary justification for criminal punishment. In addition, the possibility of nano-neural implants entails a new model of rehabilitation: namely, involuntary rehabilitation aimed at changing an offender’s character, rather than his environment.
|Keywords||Criminal Punishment Responsibility Nanotechnology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Jeff McMahon (2008). Collective Crime and Collective Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics 27 (1):4-12.
Kimberley Brownlee (2008). Justifying Punishment: A Response to Douglas Husak. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (2):123-129.
René Foqué (2008). Criminal Justice in a Democracy: Towards a Relational Conception of Criminal Law and Punishment. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):207-227.
Douglas Lind (1994). Kant on Criminal Punishment. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:61-74.
Michael D. Bayles (1982). Character, Purpose, and Criminal Responsibility. Law and Philosophy 1 (1):5 - 20.
Nicole A. Vincent (2010). On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98.
Michael Davis (1982). Sentencing: Must Justice Be Even-Handed? [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 1 (1):77 - 117.
Victor Tadros (2011). The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-12-02
Total downloads200 ( #2,493 of 1,096,680 )
Recent downloads (6 months)43 ( #1,620 of 1,096,680 )
How can I increase my downloads?