When Should Neuroimaging be Applied in the Criminal Court?

On Ideal Comparison and the Shortcomings of Retributivism

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

When does neuroimaging constitute a sufficiently developed technology to be put into use in the work of determining whether or not a defendant is guilty of crime? This question constitutes the starting point of the present paper. First, it is suggested that an overall answer is provided by what is referred to as the “ideal comparative view.” Secondly, it is—on the ground of this view—argued that the answer as to whether neuroimaging technology should be applied presupposes penal theoretical considerations. Thirdly, it is argued that the retributivist theory of punishment is not well-suited for delivering the sort of theoretical guidance that is required for assessing the desirability of using neuroimaging in the work of the criminal court.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Ethics
Vol/bind18
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)81-99
ISSN1382-4554
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2014

Citer dette

@article{d3e7706b97e448a79bd6ad23071320fc,
title = "When Should Neuroimaging be Applied in the Criminal Court?: On Ideal Comparison and the Shortcomings of Retributivism",
abstract = "When does neuroimaging constitute a sufficiently developed technology to be put into use in the work of determining whether or not a defendant is guilty of crime? This question constitutes the starting point of the present paper. First, it is suggested that an overall answer is provided by what is referred to as the “ideal comparative view.” Secondly, it is—on the ground of this view—argued that the answer as to whether neuroimaging technology should be applied presupposes penal theoretical considerations. Thirdly, it is argued that the retributivist theory of punishment is not well-suited for delivering the sort of theoretical guidance that is required for assessing the desirability of using neuroimaging in the work of the criminal court.",
keywords = "Criminal court, Ideal comparison, Neuroimaging, Penal theory, Retributivism",
author = "Jesper Ryberg",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1007/s10892-014-9166-1",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "81--99",
journal = "Journal of Ethics",
issn = "1382-4554",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "2",

}

When Should Neuroimaging be Applied in the Criminal Court? On Ideal Comparison and the Shortcomings of Retributivism. / Ryberg, Jesper.

I: Journal of Ethics, Bind 18, Nr. 2, 2014, s. 81-99 .

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - When Should Neuroimaging be Applied in the Criminal Court?

T2 - On Ideal Comparison and the Shortcomings of Retributivism

AU - Ryberg, Jesper

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - When does neuroimaging constitute a sufficiently developed technology to be put into use in the work of determining whether or not a defendant is guilty of crime? This question constitutes the starting point of the present paper. First, it is suggested that an overall answer is provided by what is referred to as the “ideal comparative view.” Secondly, it is—on the ground of this view—argued that the answer as to whether neuroimaging technology should be applied presupposes penal theoretical considerations. Thirdly, it is argued that the retributivist theory of punishment is not well-suited for delivering the sort of theoretical guidance that is required for assessing the desirability of using neuroimaging in the work of the criminal court.

AB - When does neuroimaging constitute a sufficiently developed technology to be put into use in the work of determining whether or not a defendant is guilty of crime? This question constitutes the starting point of the present paper. First, it is suggested that an overall answer is provided by what is referred to as the “ideal comparative view.” Secondly, it is—on the ground of this view—argued that the answer as to whether neuroimaging technology should be applied presupposes penal theoretical considerations. Thirdly, it is argued that the retributivist theory of punishment is not well-suited for delivering the sort of theoretical guidance that is required for assessing the desirability of using neuroimaging in the work of the criminal court.

KW - Criminal court

KW - Ideal comparison

KW - Neuroimaging

KW - Penal theory

KW - Retributivism

U2 - 10.1007/s10892-014-9166-1

DO - 10.1007/s10892-014-9166-1

M3 - Journal article

VL - 18

SP - 81

EP - 99

JO - Journal of Ethics

JF - Journal of Ethics

SN - 1382-4554

IS - 2

ER -