↓ Skip to main content

Coercion, Incarceration, and Chemical Castration: An Argument From Autonomy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 344)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Coercion, Incarceration, and Chemical Castration: An Argument From Autonomy
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11673-013-9465-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Douglas, Pieter Bonte, Farah Focquaert, Katrien Devolder, Sigrid Sterckx

Abstract

In several jurisdictions, sex offenders may be offered chemical castration as an alternative to further incarceration. In some, agreement to chemical castration may be made a formal condition of parole or release. In others, refusal to undergo chemical castration can increase the likelihood of further incarceration though no formal link is made between the two. Offering chemical castration as an alternative to further incarceration is often said to be partially coercive, thus rendering the offender's consent invalid. The dominant response to this objection has been to argue that any coercion present in such cases is compatible with valid consent. In this article, we take a different tack, arguing that, even if consent would not be valid, offering chemical castration will often be supported by the very considerations that underpin concerns about consent: considerations of autonomy. This is because offering chemical castration will often increase the offender's autonomy, both at the time the offer is made and in the future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 24%
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 22%
Philosophy 10 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Social Sciences 7 14%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 13 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2019.
All research outputs
#168,241
of 13,216,354 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#3
of 344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,874
of 246,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,216,354 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them