强迫和神经矫正提议

J. Pugh
{"title":"强迫和神经矫正提议","authors":"J. Pugh","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198758617.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to what Douglas calls ‘the consent requirement’, neurocorrectives can only permissibly be provided with the valid consent of the offender who will undergo the intervention. Some of those who endorse the consent requirement have claimed that even though the requirement prohibits the imposition of mandatory neurocorrectives on criminal offenders, it may yet be permissible to offer offenders the opportunity to consent to undergoing such an intervention, in return for a reduction to their penal sentence. The author calls this the neurocorrective offer. The chapter considers the coercion-based objection to the neurocorrective offer, which claims that offenders cannot provide valid consent to undergoing a neurocorrective on the basis of this offer because it is inherently coercive. Having outlined early formulations of this argument, the author points out that there are in fact two different versions of this objection, which appeal to different understandings of the concepts of coercion, consent, and voluntariness.","PeriodicalId":308769,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Scholarship Online","volume":"76 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coercion and the Neurocorrective Offer\",\"authors\":\"J. Pugh\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198758617.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to what Douglas calls ‘the consent requirement’, neurocorrectives can only permissibly be provided with the valid consent of the offender who will undergo the intervention. Some of those who endorse the consent requirement have claimed that even though the requirement prohibits the imposition of mandatory neurocorrectives on criminal offenders, it may yet be permissible to offer offenders the opportunity to consent to undergoing such an intervention, in return for a reduction to their penal sentence. The author calls this the neurocorrective offer. The chapter considers the coercion-based objection to the neurocorrective offer, which claims that offenders cannot provide valid consent to undergoing a neurocorrective on the basis of this offer because it is inherently coercive. Having outlined early formulations of this argument, the author points out that there are in fact two different versions of this objection, which appeal to different understandings of the concepts of coercion, consent, and voluntariness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":308769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Scholarship Online\",\"volume\":\"76 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Scholarship Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198758617.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Scholarship Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198758617.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

根据道格拉斯所说的“同意要求”,只有在接受干预的罪犯的有效同意下,才能允许向神经矫正者提供治疗。一些支持同意要求的人声称,尽管该要求禁止对刑事罪犯强制实施神经矫正,但可能允许向罪犯提供同意进行这种干预的机会,以换取减刑。作者称之为神经矫正疗法。这一章考虑了基于强制的对神经矫正提议的反对,它声称犯罪者不能在此提议的基础上提供接受神经矫正的有效同意,因为它本质上是强制性的。在概述了这一论点的早期表述后,作者指出,事实上,这一反对意见有两种不同的版本,它们适用于对强制、同意和自愿等概念的不同理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coercion and the Neurocorrective Offer
According to what Douglas calls ‘the consent requirement’, neurocorrectives can only permissibly be provided with the valid consent of the offender who will undergo the intervention. Some of those who endorse the consent requirement have claimed that even though the requirement prohibits the imposition of mandatory neurocorrectives on criminal offenders, it may yet be permissible to offer offenders the opportunity to consent to undergoing such an intervention, in return for a reduction to their penal sentence. The author calls this the neurocorrective offer. The chapter considers the coercion-based objection to the neurocorrective offer, which claims that offenders cannot provide valid consent to undergoing a neurocorrective on the basis of this offer because it is inherently coercive. Having outlined early formulations of this argument, the author points out that there are in fact two different versions of this objection, which appeal to different understandings of the concepts of coercion, consent, and voluntariness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信