Is it morally permissible to offer neurointerventions that reduce aggressive behaviour to offenders to reduce recidivism?

This blog was contributed by Brendan Emmanuel, a University of Oxford (Corpus Christi College) Medical Student, based on an essay submitted to the Andrew Markus Essay Prize in Medical Ethics 2024. The essay was awarded runner up in the competition. The Ethox Centre provides medical ethics and law teaching for medical students in Oxford. 

The connection between medical interventions and the penal system is a taboo subject painted broadly as being a violation of criminals’ right to bodily integrity, among other human rights. However, the recent advancements in neurotechnology has enabled us to circle back on this discussion because the level of invasiveness of these procedures is limited.

As a medical student, one of the reasons that I decided to write this essay is because I have a real interest in neuroscience and wanted to learn more about these new neurointerventions and how they could help people.

However, the most compelling reason for my pursuit of the ethical arguments surrounding this debate lies mainly in attempting to justify my own personal view of the goals of the penal system. Inherently, I have this feeling that imprisonment should be just as much, if not more so, about rehabilitation as it is about punishment.

I pose that inducing behavioural changes, in the form of psychotherapy, is not viewed as an infringement of the right to bodily or mental integrity. These changes are sought after: for the person, to reduce their risk of reoffending; and for society, to reduce rates of recidivism and reincarceration. Therefore, if neurointerventions were minimally invasive, why can they not be viewed as working in the same way as psychotherapy in changing behaviour?

Interesting points can be made against this including: it is as though the offender has not ‘earned’ this change as it is ‘too easy’, and that the voluntariness of the consent in the context of incarceration is undermined.

Overall, at face value, it seems like a ‘hot take’ to be defending medical interventions on prisoners, but there are many nuances here to be explored. This debate can be broadened to include discussions regarding prisoners engaging in clinical trials or offering neurointerventions prophylactically to at-risk populations.

The full essay can be downloaded as a pdf. If you need the essay in an alternative format for accessibility, please contact us.