Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Neurointerventions and the LawRegulating Human Mental Capacity$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Nicole A Vincent, Thomas Nadelhoffer, and Allan McCay

Print publication date: 2020

Print ISBN-13: 9780190651145

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: June 2020

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190651145.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 25 February 2021

Judicious Use of Neuropsychiatric Evidence When Sentencing Offenders With Addictive Behaviors

Judicious Use of Neuropsychiatric Evidence When Sentencing Offenders With Addictive Behaviors

Implications for Neurointerventions

Chapter:
(p.231) 10 Judicious Use of Neuropsychiatric Evidence When Sentencing Offenders With Addictive Behaviors
Source:
Neurointerventions and the Law
Author(s):

Andrew Dawson

Jennifer Chandler

Colin Gavaghan

Wayne Hall

Adrian Carter

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190651145.003.0010

This chapter examines how courts in commonwealth jurisdictions have used neuropsychiatric evidence as a mitigating factor in sentencing, in cases involving (a) drug- and gambling-addicted offenders and (b) offenders prescribed dopaminergic medication for a movement disorder. The authors first examine how courts have approached criminal offending linked in some way to drug or behavioral addictions. Generally, commonwealth courts see drug- or gambling-addicted offenders as morally blameworthy agents deserving of imprisonment. Some courts have occasionally adopted a medical stance and allowed an individual’s drug or gambling addiction to mitigate their sentence. The justification for adopting a medical stance has arguably been the greater economic and public health benefits of a medical approach rather than a strong embrace of neuropsychiatric evidence. In contrast, in two recent cases in which criminal offences have been attributed to dopaminergic medication prescribed for movement disorders, courts have strongly relied upon neuropsychiatric evidence as a mitigating factor at sentencing. Reliance on this evidence was unnecessary in these cases, as the noncustodial sentences imposed on patients could have been justified on other grounds. This evidence was also misapplied. The authors conclude with an analysis of the implications of this misapplication for the use of neurointerventions to reduce addiction-related offending. This analysis is vital to ensuring that future courts determining an appropriate neurointervention for a movement-disordered offender unwilling to reduce their medication will not be hamstrung by a conflation of causality and compulsion.

Keywords:   addiction, Parkinson’s disease, compulsive behavior, neuropsychiatry, sentencing, mitigating factors

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .