Punishing Intentions and Neurointerventions

REFERENCES

• Adebowale, V. 2010. Diversion, not detention. Public Policy Research 17(2): 71–74.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, C. 2018. Intrusive intervention and opacity respect. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, ed. D. Birks and T. Douglas, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, J. 1995. The act itself. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, G., and A. Dar. 2016. Prison population statistics. London: House of Commons Library.
   Google Scholar
• Birks, D., and T. Douglas. 2017. Two ways to frustrate a desire. The Journal of Value Inquiry 51(3): 417–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boonin, D. 2008. The problem of punishment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Briken, P., and M. P. Kafka. 2007. Pharmacological treatments for paraphilic patients and sexual offenders. Curr Opin Psychiatry 20(6): 609–613. http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=med5&NEWS=N&AN=17921764. Accessed 19 July 2016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bublitz, C. J., and R. Merkel. 2014. Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-Determination. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8(1): 51–77.
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2009. Key Statistics: Estimated number of persons under correctional supervision in the United States, 1980-2014. www.bjs.gov. Accessed 19 July 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Christman, J. 1991. Autonomy and personal history. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21(1): 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner, M. W., D.-C. Catherine., and L. C. Green, et al. 2012. Drug toxicity. In Principles of pharmacology: The pathophysiologic basis of drug therapy, ed. D. E. Golan and A. H. Tashjian Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health.
   Google Scholar
• Crockett, M. J. 2014. Moral bioenhancement: A neuroscientific perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics 40(6): 370–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, T. 2014. Criminal rehabilitation through medical intervention: Moral liability and the right to bodily integrity. The Journal of Ethics 18(2): 101–122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Douglas, T. 2018. Neural and environmental modulation of motivation: What’s the moral difference? In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, ed. D. Birks and T. Douglas, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, T., and D. Birks. 2018. Introduction. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, ed. D. Birks and T. Douglas, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duggan, C. 2011. Dangerous and severe personality disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science 198(6): 431–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duke, A., L. Bègue, R. Bell, and T. Eisenlohr-Moul. 2013. Revisiting the serotonin-Aggression Relation in humans: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 139(5): 1148–1172. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23379963. Accessed 19 July 2016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durose, M. R., A. D. Cooper, and H. N. Snyder. 2014. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Special Report. NCJ 244205.
   Google Scholar
• Ekstrom, L. W. 2005. Autonomy and personal integration in James Stacey Taylor, ed., Personal Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick, W. J. 2006. The intend/foresee distinction and the problem of ‘closeness. Philosophical Studies 128(3): 585–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foot, P. 2002. Virtue and vices and other essays in moral philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Golan, D. E., and A. H. Tashjian. 2012. Principles of pharmacology: The pathophysiologic basis of drug therapy. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health.
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. 1984. The moral education theory of punishment. Philosophy and Public Affairs 13(3): 208–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haney, C. 2003. The psychological impact of incarceration: Implications for post-prison adjustment. In Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities, ed. J. Travis and M. Waul, 33–66. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henrichson, C., and R. Delaney. 2012. The price of prisons: What incarceration costs taxpayers. New York, NT: Vera Institute of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Husak, D. 2009. The costs to criminal theory of supposing that intentions are irrelevant to permissibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy 3(1): 51–70.
   Google Scholar
• James, N. 2013. The federal prison population buildup: Options for congress. Congressional Research Service 42937: 7–5700. http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/occupancy-level?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All. Accessed 30 May 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Kane, S. 2013. Interview with the most rehabilitated prisoner in america, ann arbor. Litigation 39(3): 16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Krakowski, M. I., and P. Czobor. 2014. Depression and impulsivity as pathways to violence: Implications for antiaggressive treatment. Schizophrenia Bulletin 40(4): 886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, N. 2007. Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lippert-Rasmussen, K. 2018. The self-Ownership Trilemma, extended minds, and neurointerventions in treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, ed. D. Birks and T. Douglas, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McMahan, J. 1994. Revising the doctrine of double effect. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11(2): 201–212.
   Google Scholar
• McMahan, J. 2018. Moral Liability to ‘Crime-Preventing Neurointervention”. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice., ed. D. Birks and T. Douglas, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelkin, D. K., and S. C. Rickless. 2015. So close, yet so far: Why solutions to the closeness problem for the doctrine of double effect fall short. NOUS 49(2): 376–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oshana, M. 2006. Personal autonomy in society. Aldershot: Ashgate Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, T. S., and K. Kragh. 2017. Should violent offenders be forced to undergo neurotechnological treatment? A critical discussion of the ‘freedom of thought’ objection. Journal of Medical Ethics 43(1): 30–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinn, W. 1993. Actions, intentions and consequences: The doctrine of double effect in morality and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raz, J. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryberg, J. 2012. Punishment, pharmacological treatment, and early release. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26(2): 231–44.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, E. 2014. Direct brain interventions and responsibility enhancement. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8(1): 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, E. 2018. Against the mandatory use of neurointerventions in criminal sentencing. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, ed. D. Birks and T. Douglas Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sitaram, R., A. Caria, and R. Veit, et al. 2014. Volitional control of the anterior insula in criminal psychopaths using real-time fMRI neurofeedback: A pilot study. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8: 344. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R., R. Grimshaw, R. Romeo, and M. Knapp. 2017. Poverty and Disadvantage among Prisoners’ Families. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Tadros, V. 2015. Wrongful intentions without closeness. Philosophy & Public Affairs 43(1): 52–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tadros, V. 2016. Wrongs and crimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, J. J. 1985. The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal 94(6): 1395–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallentyne, P. 2018. Neurointerventions, self-ownership, and enforcement rights. In Treatment for crime: Philosophical essays on neurointerventions in criminal justice, ed. D. Birks and T. Douglas, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar