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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Collective Crime and Collective Punishment.Jeff McMahon - 2008 - Criminal Justice Ethics 27 (1):4-12.
Justifying Punishment: A Response to Douglas Husak. [REVIEW]Kimberley Brownlee - 2008 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (2):123-129.
Criminal Justice in a Democracy: Towards a Relational Conception of Criminal Law and Punishment. [REVIEW]René Foqué - 2008 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):207-227.
Character, Purpose, and Criminal Responsibility.Michael D. Bayles - 1982 - Law and Philosophy 1 (1):5 - 20.
On the Relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility.Nicole A. Vincent - 2010 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (1):77-98.
Sentencing: Must Justice Be Even-Handed? [REVIEW]Michael Davis - 1982 - Law and Philosophy 1 (1):77 - 117.
The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law.Victor Tadros - 2011 - Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-12-02
Total downloads504 ( #3,233 of 2,158,385 )
Recent downloads (6 months)74 ( #2,534 of 2,158,385 )
How can I increase my downloads?