In how far are neurological rehabilitation methods for criminal offenders compatible with the concept of human dignity?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26481/marble.2014.v5.209Abstract
In recent years neuroscience has experienced a drastic increase in popularity, driven by leaps of progress made in the field (Giordano, 2011, p. 412). By now, many interdisciplinary fields have emerged from it, two prominent examples being neurolaw and neuroethics (Shen, 2010, p. 352; Levy, 2008, p. 1). Neuroscience is nowadays also discussed in the context of the criminal justice system and may soon be used in the field of trial evidence, detecting biases in juries and judges, to make defendants competent for trial, and many other areas of the criminal law (Neurolaw: A video introduction). A very interesting field is rehabilitation of criminal offenders. The more neuroscience discovers about what is commonly termed the ‘criminal mind’, the more science attempts to find treatments that could help to correct deviant behaviour and reintegrate offenders into society (Greely, 2008, p. 1104). A number of direct as well as indirect methods of brain intervention are currently discussed in respect to their usefulness for this purpose. However, there are many caveats to such uses of brain intervention. This paper will deal with one of those caveats: the principle of human dignity. In this work, I wish to investigate in how far brain intervention for the purpose of rehabilitation of convicted criminal offenders is compatible with the notion of human dignity.
References
Case law:
BVerfGE 45, 187, 227f – Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)
Laaman v. Helgemoe , 269 (D.N.H. 1977)
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
Books and articles:
An Analysis of the Proposal of Deep Brain Stimulation for the Rehabilitation of Criminal Psychopaths, Retrieved from: http://www.destinationmi.com/documents/2011MANS presentation_ MarkHoeprich.pdf Attenborough, R. (2000). The Words of Gandhi. USA: Newmarket Press.
Bomann-Larsen, L. (2011). Voluntary Rehabilitation? On Neurotechnological Behavioural Treatment, Valid Consent and (In)approrpiate Offers. Neuroethics 6, pp. 65-77.
Bublitz, J.C. & Merkel, R. (2009). Autonomy and Authenticity of Enhanced Personality Traits. Bioethics 23 (6), pp. 360-374.
Cicero, M. T. & Miller, W. (1913). Cicero. De Officiis. With an English Translation by Walter Miller. London: Macmillan Company.
de Baets, A. (2007). A successful Utopia: The Doctrine of Human Dignity. Historein Vol. 7: History and Utopia, pp. 71-85.
Dürig, G. (1956). Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde. S.L.: Archiv fuer oeffentliches Recht 2, pp. 117-157.
Englard, I. (2000). Human Dignity: From Antiquity to Modern Israel´s Consitutional Framework. Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 21:1903, pp. 1903-1927.
Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 66, pp. 829-83.
Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. Journal of Philosphy 68(1), pp. 5-20.
Fischer, J. & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fountas, K. & Smith, J. (2007). Historical Evolution of Sterotactic Amygdalotomy for the management of Severe Aggression. 106. J. Neurosurg, 710, pp.710-713.
Giordano, J. (2012). Unpacking Neuroscience and Neurotechnology-Instructions not Included: Neuroethics Required. Neuroethics 6, pp. 441-414.
Greely, H. (2008). Neuroscience and Criminal Justice: Not Responsibility but Treatment´.
Kansas Law Review 56, pp. 1103-1138.
Gürber, R. (2009). Menschenwürde- Herzstück der Menschenrechte. VKAS/ AGEAS Tagung vom 07./08.11.2009 in Quarten.
Hall, W. (2006). Stereotactic Neurosurgical Treatment of Addiction: Minimizing the Chances of Another “Great and Desprerate Cure.”. Addiction 101, pp. 1-3.
Hammond, D., C. (2011). What is Neurofeedback: An Update. Journal of Neurotherapy: Investigations in Neuromodulation, Neurofeedback and Applied Neuroscience, 15:4, pp. 305-336.
Heinrich, H., et al. (2007). Annotation: Neurofeedback – Train your brain to train behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 48 (1), pp. 3-16.
Kant, I. (2011). Grundlegung zur Methaphysik der Sitten. In Werke, Band IV - Schriften zur Ethik und Religionsphilosophie [Ed.7] as compiled by Wilhelm Weischedel, Wiesbaden: Insel Verlag.
Heinz Klug, H. (2003). Symposium Article: The Dignity of the Montana Constitution: May Foreign Jurisprudence Lead the Way to an Expanded Interpretation. Montana Law Review, pp. 133-156.
Kringelbach, M., et al. (2007). Translational principles of deep brain stimulation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, pp. 623-635.
Levy, N. (2007). Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levy, N. (2008). Introducing Neuroethics. Neuroethics 1, pp. 1-8.
Levy, N. (2011). Enhancing Authenticity. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (3), pp. 308-318.
Locke, J. (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Great Books of Philosophy. S.L.: Prometheus Books.
Ruth Macklin, R. (2003). Dignity is a useless concept: It means nothing more than respect for persons or their autonomy. BMJ, pp. 1419-1420.
Martin, G. & Johnson, C. (2005). The Boys Totem Town Neurofeedback Project: A pilot study of EEG biofeedback with incarcerated juvenile felons. Journal of Neurotherapy, 9(3), pp. 71-86.
Martini, S. (s.d.) Die Formulierung der Menschenwürde bei Immanuel Kant´. Retrieved from: http://akj.rewi.huberlin.de/projekte/seminararbeiten/marini2.pdf
David Eagleman: The Brain and The Law: Neurolaw: A video introduction, Retrieved from: http://www.neulaw.org/ Nelson, L. (1924). System der philosophischen Rechtslehre und Politik. Gottingen: Offentliches Leben.
Nussbaum, M. (2008). Human Dignity and Political Entitlements. Washington DC.
„The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1949“. Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1949/
Ploch, P. (2012). Why Dignity Matters: Dignity and the right (or not) to rehabilitation from international and national perspectives. International Law and Politics, Vol. 44:887, pp. 887-948.
Douglas Quirk, D. (1995). Composite biofeedback conditioning and dangerous offenders: III. Journal of Neurotherapy 1(2), pp. 44-54.
Raaflaub, K. (1974). Dignitatis contentio. C. H. München: Beck´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Schachter, O. (1983). Human Dignity as a Normative Concept. The American Journal of International Law 77 (4), pp. 848-854.
Shaw, E. (2012). Direct Brain Interventions and Responsibility Enhancement. Criminal Law and Philosophy, pp. 1-21.
Shen, F. (2010). The Law and Neuroscience Bibliography: Navigating the Emerging Field of Neuroscience. International Journal of Legal Information 38, pp. 352-434.
Smith, P. & Sams, M. (2005). Neurofeedback with juvenile offenders: A pilot study in the use of QEEG-based and analog-based remedial neurofeedback training. Journal of Neurotherapy, 9(3), p. 87-99.
Spiegelberg, H. (2010). Human dignity: A challenge to contemporary philosophy. World Futures: The Journal of Global Education 9 (1-2), p. 39-64.
Swayze, V. (1995). Frontal Leukotomy and Related Psyhosurgical Procedures in the Era Before Antipsychotics (1935-1954): A Historical Overview’. American Journal of Psychiatry 152, pp. 505-515.
Vincent, N. (2009). Responsibility: Distinguishing Virtue from Capacity. Polish Journal Philosophy 3(1), pp. 111-126.
Waldron, J. (2013). Is Dignity the Foundation for Human Rights? [Working Paper]. Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series No. 12-73, pp. 1-29.
Wetz, F., J. (2001). Die Würde des Menschen-Ein Phantom?. ARSP, Vol. 87, pp. 311-327.
