You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Memory Interventions in the Criminal Justice System: Some Practical Ethical Considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9680-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Y. Cabrera, Bernice S. Elger |
| Abstract |
In recent years, discussion around memory modification interventions has gained attention. However, discussion around the use of memory interventions in the criminal justice system has been mostly absent. In this paper we start by highlighting the importance memory has for human well-being and personal identity, as well as its role within the criminal forensic setting; in particular, for claiming and accepting legal responsibility, for moral learning, and for retribution. We provide examples of memory interventions that are currently available for medical purposes, but that in the future could be used in the forensic setting to modify criminal offenders' memories. In this section we contrast the cases of (1) dampening and (2) enhancing memories of criminal offenders. We then present from a pragmatic approach some pressing ethical issues associated with these types of memory interventions. The paper ends up highlighting how these pragmatic considerations can help establish ethically justified criteria regarding the possibility of interventions aimed at modifying criminal offenders' memories. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 44 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 11% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 August 2021.
All research outputs
#15,354,849
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#438
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,417
of 392,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#26
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 392,771 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.