| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 22% |
| South Africa | 2 | 7% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 4% |
| Iceland | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 18 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 12% |
| Philosophy | 10 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 131. 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 21 February 2024.
All research outputs
#320,630
of 25,540,105 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#7
of 667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,146
of 207,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,540,105 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 667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. 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 207,920 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.