Changing the Criminal Character: Nanotechnology and Criminal Punishment
In A. Santosuosso (ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 Law and Science Young Scholars Symposium. Pavia University Press (2012)
| Abstract | 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 | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
  |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJeff McMahon (2008). Collective Crime and Collective Punishment. Criminal Justice Ethics 27 (1):4-12.
Kimberley Brownlee (2008). Justifying Punishment: A Response to Douglas Husak. 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. 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? Law and Philosophy 1 (1):77 - 117.
Victor Tadros (2011). The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-12-02Total downloads89 ( #7,919 of 549,196 )Recent downloads (6 months)70 ( #243 of 549,196 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
