Abstract
Convicted offenders who consent to medical treatment may secure a preferable sentence. They make these decisions within a hybrid medico-legal system that often views offenders as neurobiological subjects and deviant behavior as a medical problem that may be addressed, in part, through biological intervention. In this article, we use Foucault’s concepts of biopower and governmentality to explore how 15 men and 10 women convicted of criminal offenses view “coerced” consent to biological interventions in the criminal justice context. The participants largely accepted the key components of the medico-legal system of social control, including the medicalization of criminalized behavior, the utility of rehabilitation via medical treatment, and the internalization of the governmental ideals of self-control and responsibility. None challenged the use of biological treatments, although many rejected invasive and risky therapies, and most felt that biological approaches should be accompanied by psychological counseling. While governmental ideals were largely internalized, the participants expressed resistance in several ways, through statements of distrust of the system and resentment of pressure to consent to treatment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For example, chlorpromazine was used originally for allergy relief before it became an antipsychotic drug, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were prescribed initially for depression and are now sometimes used to suppress libido in sex offenders.
The acronym LTO refers to a “long term offender” under the Criminal Code of Canada. An LTO is typically subject to a “long term supervision order” at the conclusion of the sentence, which requires that the individual be monitored for up to ten years upon release from prison.
References
Bailey, D. J. S., Lytle, R., & Sample, L. L. (2014). Policy implications of sociological theories of crime: Why are they so seldom considered or discussed? In K. M. Beaver, J. C. Barnes, & B. B. Boutwell (Eds.), The nurture versus biosocial debate in criminology: On the origins of criminal behaviour and criminality (pp. 415–430). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Bari, A. A., et al. (2018). Charting the road forward in psychiatric neurosurgery: Proceedings of the 2016 American Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery workshop on neuromodulation for psychiatric disorders. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 89, 886–896.
Barnes, J. C., Boutwell, B. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2015). Contemporary biosocial criminology: a systematic review of the literature, 2000–2012. In A. R. Piquero (Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 75–99). Wiley and Blackwell: West Sussex.
Boisvert, D., & Vaske, J. C. (2017). Policy implications of biosocial research. In S. A. Peterson & A. Somit (Eds.), Handbook of biology and politics (pp. 345–359). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Edgar Publishing.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(1), 77–101.
Carrier, N., & Walby, K. (2014). Ptolemizing Lombroso: The pseudo-revolution of biosocial criminology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 6(1), 1–45.
Chandler, J. A. (2014). Legally-coerced consent to treatment in the criminal justice system. In D. Holmes, A. Perron, & J.-D. Jacob (Eds.), Power and the psychiatric apparatus: Repression, transformation and assistance (pp. 199–216). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Cleveland, H. H., Schlomer, G. L., Vandenberg, D. J., et al. (2016). Gene X intervention designs: A promising step toward understanding etiology and building better preventive interventions. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(3), 711–720.
Deacon v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FCA 265.
Foucault, M. (1978). [1990] The history of sexuality, Vol 1: An introduction, Robert Hurley, trans. New York: Vintage Books.
Garland, D. (1997). ‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 173–214.
Gaylin, W., & Blatte, H. (1975). Behavior modification in prison. American Criminal Law Review, 13, 11–35.
Grossman, N., et al. (2017). Noninvasive deep brain stimulation via temporally interfering electric fields. Cell, 169(6), 1029–1041.e16.
Kilty, J. M. (2012). “It’s like they don’t want you to get better”: Practising ‘psy’ in the carceral context. Feminism & Psychology, 22(2), 162–182.
McCallum, D. (1997). Mental health, criminality and the human sciences. In A. Petersen & R. Bunton (Eds.), Foucault, health and medicine (pp. 53–73). London and New York: Routledge.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2018). “Rehabilitation” Oxford English Dictionary Online.Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved on November 7, 2019, from https://www.oed.com.
Pravetoni, M. (2016). Biologics to treat substance use disorders: Current status and new directions. Human Vaccines and Immunotherapies, 12(12), 3005–3019.
R. v. K.O. 2013 ONSC 955.
Rabinow, P., & Rose, N. (2006). Biopower today. Biosocieties, 1(2), 195–217.
Rafter, N., Posick, C., & Rocque, M. (2016). The criminal brain (2nd ed.). New York: NYU Press.
Rebellon, C. J., Barnes, J. C., & Agnew, R. (2015). A unified theory of crime and delinquency: Foundation of a biosocial criminology. In M. Delishi & M. G. Vaughn (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of bioscocial criminology (pp. 3–21). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Rocque, M., Welsh, B. C., & Raine, A. (2012). Biosocial criminology and modern crime prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(4), 306–312.
Rose, N. (2000). The biology of culpability: Pathological identity and crime control in a biological culture. Theoretical Criminology, 4(1), 5–34.
Rudo-Hutt, A. S., Portnoy, J., Chen, F. R., et al. (2015). Biosocial criminology as a paradigm shift. In M. Delishi & M. G. Vaughn (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of bioscocial criminology (pp. 22–31). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Scott, C. L., & Holmberg, T. (2003). Castration of sex offenders: Prisoners’ rights versus public safety. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31(4), 502–509.
Timmermans, S., & Gabe, J. (2002). Connecting criminology and sociology of health and illness. Sociology of Health & Illness, 24(5), 501–516.
Walby, K., & Carrier, N. (2010). The rise of biocriminology: Capturing observable bodily economies of ‘criminal man’. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 10(3), 261–285.
Walter, H. (2013). The third wave of biological psychiatry. Frontiers in Psychology 4 (article 582): 1–8.
Weisman, R. (1995). Reflections on the Oak Ridge experiment with mentally disordered offenders, 1965–1968. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 18(3), 265–290.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the participants for sharing their views with us and to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for financial support for this research. We also acknowledge the invaluable research assistance of Natasha Knack and Adina Ilea.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chandler, J.A., Kilty, J. & Holmes, D. Medicalized Metamorphosis: Biological Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders. Crit Crim 29, 549–567 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09479-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-019-09479-z