An evaluation of the permissibility of nonconsensual medical interventions in criminal justice
It is a practice in criminal justice to sometimes require criminal offenders to undergo medical interventions that help in the rehabilitation process. With the advancement in neuroscience research and the shown efficacy of these medical interventions as compared to traditional measures in criminal j...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Final Year Project |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10356/76549 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | It is a practice in criminal justice to sometimes require criminal offenders to undergo medical interventions that help in the rehabilitation process. With the advancement in neuroscience research and the shown efficacy of these medical interventions as compared to traditional measures in criminal justice like incarceration, there could be a potential increase in the prevalence of such medical interventions. This paper focuses on the evaluation of the permissibility of nonconsensual medical interventions by considering the impacts of such medical interventions on the offender’s fundamental human rights and his autonomy. The paper also examines possible consequentialist and deontological justifications for and against the permissibility of nonconsensual medical interventions. The paper concludes that the state should not have the power to impose nonconsensual medical interventions because doing so would violate an offender’s basic rights, to an even greater extent than imposing nonconsensual incarceration on these offenders. |
|---|