Cosmetic Psychopharmacology for Prisoners: Reducing Crime and Recidivism Through Cognitive Intervention

A systematic review of the effect of dietary and nutritional interventions on the behaviours and mental health of prisoners

Prisoners experience a higher burden of poor health, aggressive behaviours and worsening mental health than the general population. This systematic review aimed to identify research that used nutrition-based interventions in prisons, focusing on outcomes of mental health and behaviours. The systematic review was registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 26 January 2022: CRD42022293370. Inclusion criteria comprised of current prisoners with no limit on time, location, age, sex or ethnicity. Only quantitative research in the English language was included. PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched, retrieving 933 results, with 11 included for qualitative synthesis. Studies were checked for quality using the revised tool to assess risk of bias in randomised trials or risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool. Of the included studies, seven used nutritional supplements, three included diet changes, and one used education. Of the seven supplement-based studies, six included rule violations as an outcome, and only three demonstrated significant improvements. One study included mental health as an outcome; however, results did not reach significance. Of the three diet change studies, two investigated cognitive function as an outcome, with both reaching significance. Anxiety was included in one diet change study, which found a significant improvement through consuming oily fish. One study using diet education did not find a significant improvement in overall mental resilience. Overall, results are mixed, with the included studies presenting several limitations and heterogeneity. Future research should aim to consider increased homogeneity in research design, allowing for a higher quality of evidence to assess the role nutrition can play in improving the health of prisoners.

Would Nonconsensual Criminal Neurorehabilitation Express a more Degrading Attitude Towards Offenders than Consensual Criminal Neurorehabilitation?

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.