Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):21-42 (2014)

Authors
Nicole A. Vincent
University of Technology Sydney
Abstract
Direct brain intervention based mental capacity restoration techniques-for instance, psycho-active drugs-are sometimes used in criminal cases to promote the aims of justice. For instance, they might be used to restore a person's competence to stand trial in order to assess the degree of their responsibility for what they did, or to restore their competence for punishment so that we can hold them responsible for it. Some also suggest that such interventions might be used for therapy or reform in criminal legal contexts-i.e. to make non-responsible and irresponsible people more responsible. However, I argue that such interventions may at least sometimes fail to promote these responsibility-related legal aims. This is because responsibility hinges on other factors than just what mental capacities a person has-in particular, it also hinges on such things as authenticity, personal identity, and mental capacity ownership-and some ways of restoring mental capacity may adversely affect these other factors. Put one way, my claim is that what might suffice for the restoration of competence need not necessarily suffice for the restoration of responsibility, or, put another way, that although responsibility indeed tracks mental capacity it may not always track restored mental capacities.
Keywords Capacitarianism  Responsibility  Mental capacity restoration  Direct brain intervention  Competence for trial  Competence for punishment  Competence for release  Justice  Therapy  Reform  Charactarianism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11572-012-9156-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,514
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st Century.Neil Levy - 2007 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 35 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Morality of Moral Neuroenhancement.Thomas Douglas - forthcoming - In Clausen Jens & Levy Neil (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Neurolaw and Direct Brain Interventions.Nicole A. Vincent - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):43-50.
Direct Brain Interventions and Responsibility Enhancement.Elizabeth Shaw - 2014 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (1):1-20.
Responsibility, Desert, and Justice.Carl Knight - 2011 - In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), Responsibility and Distributive Justice. Oxford University Press.
€œDo You Have a Healthy Smile?€.Jos V. M. Welie - 1999 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2 (2):169-180.
Common Morality and Moral Reform.K. A. Wallace - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (1):55-68.
Obesity and Health System Reform: Private Vs. Public Responsibility.Y. Tony Yang & Len M. Nichols - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (3):380-386.
Hurley on Justice and Responsibility. [REVIEW]Peter Vallentyne - 2006 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (2):433 - 438.
Rethinking Neuroethics in the Light of the Extended Mind Thesis.Neil Levy - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (9):3-11.
Justice and the Grey Box of Responsibility.Carl Knight - 2010 - Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 57 (124):86-112.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-05-25

Total views
50 ( #190,930 of 2,348,301 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #329,111 of 2,348,301 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes