Search

Achtergrond: Technologische ontwikkelingen gaan hand in hand met ethische en juridische uitdagingen. Dit geldt ook voor de inzet van technologie in de forensische psychiatrie vanwege de vaak verplichte aard van de behandeling binnen een juridisch kader. Doel: In kaart brengen van ethische en juridische aandachtspunten bij nieuwe, niet-talige technologieën (waarbij weinig tot geen gebruik wordt gemaakt van geschreven taal), gericht op de forensische psychiatrie. Methode: Beknopte ethische en juridische analyse van een aantal opkomende technologieën die binnen de forensische psychiatrie (kunnen) worden toegepast, gebaseerd op relevante wetenschappelijke literatuur. Resultaten: Technologieën zoals virtual reality, biosensoren en neuro-interventies bieden mogelijkheden om forensisch psychiatrische behandelingen te verbeteren. Er is echter nog weinig bekend over hun effectiviteit en inbedding in de behandeling, maar ook over bijbehorende ethische en juridische aspecten. Per technologie bespreken we drie aandachtspunten, onder andere gerelateerd aan persuasiviteit, informed consent, privacy, eigenaarschap van data en mentale integriteit. Deze thema’s dienen als aanknopingspunten voor verdiepend vervolgonderzoek. Conclusie: Om tijdig inzicht te krijgen in ethische en juridische aandachtspunten en deze mee te nemen in ontwikkel- en implementatieprocessen, is het van belang om kennis van onder andere ethici, juristen, zorgverleners, patiënten, onderzoekers, technologieontwikkelaars en beleidsmakers te integreren.

Crime comes with enormous costs, not only financial but also in terms of loss of mental and physical health and, in some cases, even loss of life. Recidivism is responsible for a considerable percentage of the crimes, and therefore, society deems reducing recidivism a priority. To reduce recidivism, several types of interventions can be used, such as education and employment-focused rehabilitation programs which are intended to improve psychological and social factors. Another way to prevent reoffending is to influence the offender’s brain functions. For example, medication can be offered to treat delusions or to diminish sexual drive. In the near future, innovative neurotechnologies are expected to improve prediction and prevention of reoffending. Potential positive effects of such neurotechniques include a safer society and earlier release of prisoners who are no longer “at high risk” to relapse into criminal behavior. Meanwhile, employing these neurotechniques in the criminal justice system raises fundamental concerns, for example, about autonomy, privacy and mental integrity. This chapter aims to identify some of the ethical and legal challenges of using neurotechnologies to reduce recidivism

There is growing interest in the use of neurointerventions to reduce the risk that criminal offenders will reoffend. Commentators have raised several ethical concerns regarding this practice. One prominent concern is that, when imposed without the offender’s valid consent, neurointerventions might infringe offenders’ right to bodily integrity. While it is commonly held that we possess a moral right to bodily integrity, the extent to which this right would protect against such neurointerventions is as-yet unclear. In this paper, we will assess whether, why, and how severely three forms of neurointervention might infringe the right to bodily integrity. We show that the severity of the infringement of the right to bodily integrity differs across different forms of neurointervention. Moreover, we argue that mental and behavioral effects of neurointerventions could in some cases be relevant to determining the severity of infringements of the right to bodily integrity.

In recent years, we have witnessed considerable progress in neurotechnologies that visualize or alter a person's brain and mental features. In the near future, some of these technologies could possibly be used to change neural parameters of high-risk behavior in criminal offenders, often referred to as neurointerventions. The idea of delivering neurointerventions to criminal justice populations has raised fundamental normative concerns, but some authors have argued that offering neurointerventions to convicted offenders could be permissible. However, such offers raise normative concerns too. One prominent worry that is often emphasized in the literature, relates to the vulnerability of convicted offenders in prison and forensic patients in mental health facilities. In this paper, we aim to show that as far as vulnerability is considered relevant within the context of offering medical interventions to offenders, it could contribute to arguments against as well as in favor of these offers.

Insanity evaluations are often criticized for their—alleged—lack of objectivity, reliability and transparency. Structured tools to guide and support forensic evaluators during these evaluations have been developed—but they are rarely employed in forensic practice. In the present article, we consider the value of these tools for forensic practice in terms of opportunities and limitations. First, we briefly describe different insanity criteria used in Western countries. Next, we will review five structured instruments to guide insanity assessment together with their performance measures. Finally, we draw conclusions on the value of such instruments for forensic practice.