Neurointerventions as criminal rehabilitation: An ethical review

This chapter analyzes the problem of remedies for state wrongs in criminal justice institutions. The problem of remedies is analytically distinct from questions of what the substantive rules should be in the first instance. Jurisdictions differ in how much authority they assign to police, prosecutors, and other key actors in the criminal justice system. The chapter discusses why criminal justice institutions should include remedies for serious malfeasance and neglect in the first instance and why do these rights violations even provide a cause for remedial design expenditures. It explores two pivotal institutional design choices that a democratic principal must make: should policy responses or remedies be ex ante or ex post; and should they be public or privatized. The chapter explains the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The political, sociological, and historical circumstances of criminal justice diverge widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The ensuing variance precludes across-the-board responses.