Human improvement and criminal liability: new challenges in treating guilt and dangerous
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14422/pen.v78.i298.y2022.025Keywords:
Transhumanism, Criminal responsibility, Criminal responsibility system, Capacity and responsibility, Legal improvementAbstract
The purpose of this analysis is to examine —naturally, in an introductory way— what the impact of eventual advances may be on transhumanist objectives in the field of criminal responsibility. In my opinion, the analysis of the possible consequences of transhumanism in the domain of criminal law affects two different spheres: (i) first, it can affect the factors that, nowadays, underlie the imputation of criminal responsibility; (ii) on the other hand, it is necessary to address the repercussion that transhumanism could have no longer in the trial for the imputation of criminal responsibility, but in the determination of the consequences assigned to those criminally responsible and in their execution process. As will be seen later, this reflection today raises more questions than answers.
Downloads
References
Benítez Ortúzar, I. F. (1977). Aspectos jurídico-penales de la reproducción asistida y la manipulación genética humana. Madrid: Edersa.
Bublitz, C. (2013). «My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept», en: Hildt, E., Francke, A. (eds), Cognitive Enhancement, Springer, pp. 233-264.
Cancio Meliá, M. (2013). «Psicopatía y Derecho penal: algunas cuestiones introductorias», en: Neurociencias y Derecho Penal, Demetrio Crespo (Dir.). Madrid: Edisofer, pp. 529-546.
Douglas, T. (2008). «Moral Enhancement», en: Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25, 3, pp. 228-245.
Douglas, T. «Moral bioenhancement, freedom and reasoning», en: Journal of Medical Ethics, 40, 6, 2014, pp. 359-360.
Douglas, T. «Criminal rehabilitation through medical intervention: moral liability and the right to bodily integrity», en: The Journal of Ethics, 18, 2014, pp. 101-122.
Douglas, T. «Enhancing moral conformity and enhancing moral worth», en: Neuroethics, 7, 2014, pp. 75-91.
Duff, A. (2001). «Punishment, communication and community». Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duff, A. (2010). «Psychopathy and answerability», en: Responsibility and Psychopathy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 199-212.
Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J. y Douglas, T. (2016). «Why is cognitive enhancement unacceptable? The role of fairness, deservingness, and hollow achievements», en: Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 232, pp. 1-12.
Gómez Lanz, J. y Halty Barrutieta, L. (2016). «Impacto del avance de las neurociencias en la imputabilidad jurídico-penal del sujeto psicópata», en: Derecho y Salud, 26, pp. 81-92.
Goold, I. y Maslen, H. (2014). «Must the surgeon take the pill? Negligence Duty in the context of cognitive enhancement», en: The Modern Law Review, 77, 1, pp. 60-86.
Goold, I. y Maslen, H. (2014). «Obliging surgeons to enhance: negligence liability for uncorrected fatigue and problems with proving causation», en: Medical Law Review, 23, 3, pp. 427-454.
Guisasola Lerma, C. (2005). La imprudencia profesional. Valencia: Tirant lo blanch.
Hassemer, W. (2001). «Neurociencias y culpabilidad en Derecho penal», en: InDret, pp. 1-14.
Hava García, E. (2001). La imprudencia médica. Valencia: Tirant lo blanch.
Jefferson, W., Douglas, T., Kahane, G. y Savulescu, J. (2014). «Enhancement and civic virtue», en: Social theory and practice, 40, 3, pp. 499-527.
Maslen, H., Santoni de Sio y F., Faber, N. (2015). «With cognitive enhancement comes great responsibility?», en: Responsible innovation, 2, pp. 121-138.
Merkel, R. (2013). «Nuevas intervenciones en el cerebro. Mejora de la condición mental humana y límites del derecho penal», en: Neurociencias y Derecho Penal, Demetrio Crespo (Dir.). Madrid: Edisofer, pp. 71-104.
Mir Puig, S. (2015). Derecho Penal. Parte General, 10ª ed.
Moreno, C. y Bueno Guerra, N. (2018). «Consecuencias psicológicas del encarcelamiento de larga duración y propuestas de mejora», paper presentado al XI Congreso Internacional de Psicología Jurídica y Forense.
Nozick, R. (2001). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Persson, I. y Savulescu, J. (2016). «Moral bioenhancement, freedom and reason», en: Neuroethics, 9, pp. 263-268.
Romeo Casabona, C. (2004). Los delitos contra la vida y la integridad personal y los relativos a la manipulación genética. Granada: Comares.
«Consideraciones jurídicas sobre los procedimientos experimentales de mejora (“enhancement”) en neurociencias», en: Neurociencias y Derecho Penal, Demetrio Crespo (Dir.). Madrid: Edisofer, 2013, pp. 161-184.
Roxin, C. (1997). Derecho Penal. Parte General, Tomo I, trad. Luzón Peña, D. M. (Dir.), 2ª ed. Madrid: Civitas.
Santoni de Sio, F., Faulmüller, N., Vincent, N.A. (2014). «How cognitive enhancement can change our duties?», en: Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 131, pp. 1-4.
Vincent, N. (2010). «On the relevance of Neuroscience to Criminal Responsibility», en: Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4, pp. 77-98.
«Restoring responsibility: promoting justice, therapy and reform through direct brain intervention», en: Criminal Law and Philosophy, 8, 2014, pp. 21-42.
Roxin, C. (1997). Derecho Penal. Parte General, Tomo I, trad. Luzón Peña, D. M. (Dir.), 2ª ed. Madrid: Civitas.
Wikler, D. (2009). «Paternalism in the age of cognitive enhancement: Do civil liberties presuppose roughly equal mental ability?», en: Human Enhancement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 341-355.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The publishing Universidad Pontificia Comillas retain the copyright of articles published in Pensamiento. Reuse of content is allowed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivates 3.0 Unported. Authors are encouraged to publish their work on the Internet (for example, on institutional or personal pages, repositories, etc.) respecting the conditions of this license and quoting appropriately the original source.
