It has been proposed that reoffending could be reduced by manipulating the neural underpinnings of offenders’ criminogenic mental features with what have been called neurocorrectives. The legitimacy of such use of neurotechnology – criminal neurorehabilitation, as the use is called – is usually seen to presuppose valid consent by the offenders subjected to it. According to a central criticism of nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation, nonconsensual use of neurocorrectives would express a degrading attitude towards offenders. In this article, I consider this criticism of nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation. By using cases of autonomous persons who lead a subservient existence as an example, I propose that nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation need not express a more degrading attitude towards offenders than consensual criminal neurorehabilitation. The argument of this article does not show that nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation is morally or legally acceptable. Yet, in view of the argument, criticizing nonconsensual criminal neurorehabilitation for expressing a degrading attitude towards offenders is not compatible with simultaneously endorsing consensual criminal neurorehabilitation.

已经提出，可以通过使用所谓的神经矫正剂来操纵罪犯的犯罪心理特征的神经基础，来减少再犯。通常认为，这种使用神经技术的合法性（即所谓的犯罪性神经康复）以受其攻击者的有效同意为前提。根据对未经许可的刑事神经康复的批评，未经许可使用神经矫正剂将对罪犯表现出贬低的态度。在本文中，我认为是对未经同意的刑事神经康复的批评。以领导下属生存的自治者为例，我认为，非自愿的刑事神经康复措施无需比自愿的刑事神经康复措施对罪犯表现出更卑鄙的态度。本文的论点并未表明未经同意的刑事神经康复在道德或法律上是可以接受的。然而，根据该论点，批评未经同意的犯罪神经康复对表达对罪犯的贬低态度与同时认可自愿的犯罪神经康复并不相容。