Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Neuroenhancement, the Criminal Justice System, and the Problem of Alienation.Jukka Varelius - 2020 - Neuroethics 13 (3):325-335.
    It has been suggested that neuroenhancements could be used to improve the abilities of criminal justice authorities. Judges could be made more able to make adequately informed and unbiased decisions, for example. Yet, while such a prospect appears appealing, the views of neuroenhanced criminal justice authorities could also be alien to the unenhanced public. This could compromise the legitimacy and functioning of the criminal justice system. In this article, I assess possible solutions to this problem. I maintain that none of (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Neuroenhancement, the Criminal Justice System, and the Problem of Alienation.Jukka Varelius - 2020 - Neuroethics 13 (3):325-335.
    It has been suggested that neuroenhancements could be used to improve the abilities of criminal justice authorities. Judges could be made more able to make adequately informed and unbiased decisions, for example. Yet, while such a prospect appears appealing, the views of neuroenhanced criminal justice authorities could also be alien to the unenhanced public. This could compromise the legitimacy and functioning of the criminal justice system. In this article, I assess possible solutions to this problem. I maintain that none of (...)
    Download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Would Nonconsensual Criminal Neurorehabilitation Express a More Degrading Attitude Towards Offenders Than Consensual Criminal Neurorehabilitation?Jukka Varelius - forthcoming - Neuroethics:1-12.
    It has been proposed that reoffending could be reduced by manipulating the neural underpinnings of offenders’ criminogenic mental features with what have been called neurocorrectives. The legitimacy of such use of neurotechnology – criminal neurorehabilitation, as the use is called – is usually seen to presuppose valid consent by the offenders subjected to it. According to a central criticism of nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation, nonconsensual use of neurocorrectives would express a degrading attitude towards offenders. In this article, I consider this criticism (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark