Should coercive neurointerventions target the victims of wrongdoing?

Speaker

Zofia Stemplowska (University of Oxford)

Series 

Institute of Law, Politics and Philosophy

This event is open to all, no booking required.

To receive the paper and to be added to the email list for the UCL Institute of Law, Politics & Philosophy please email jeffrey.howard@ucl.ac.uk

About the paper

There is a growing literature on the problem of whether coercive neurointerventions (CNIs) can be justified with respect to wrongdoers: for example, could compulsory drugs be mandated to those prone to violence? But wrongdoing gives rise not only to duties that fall on the wrongdoers. It also gives rise to duties that fall on bystanders and on the victims of crime. And if people cannot enjoy a blanket ban on coercive neurointerventions designed to make them comply with their duties, may CNIs be permissible with respect to ensuring compliance from the innocent with their duties that arise as a result of someone else’s wrongdoing? I argue that CNIs aimed at the innocent may be permissible but that the victims of serious wrongdoing typically enjoy an immunity from CNIs that mere bystanders may lack. This is so for two reasons. First, we have wrongdoer-centered reasons to frustrate the wrongdoer’s projects. Second, we have victim-centered reasons to protect the victim from the wrong. In practice, victims of serious wrongdoing will likely enjoy immunity from CNIs that aim to ensure compliance with their duties towards the wrongdoers.

About the Institute

The Institute brings together political and legal theorists from Law, Political Science and Philosophy