4. Applications of existing and upcoming concern reintegration into society. This approach has been referred to as ‘neuroprevention’ by experts Ruiz and Muñoz in a recent article.207 When offering neurological interventions in place of conventional sentencing or incarceration, it may be questionable whether full and informed consent can be provided. Especially in cases where the consent to the use of neurotechnology could be used transactionally for sentence reduction or an earlier parole period, it could be argued that the offender is formally consenting to treatment despite their preference not to.208 However, there is debate as to whether ‘coercion’ of this kind is enough to invalidate consent. Analogising to a patient suffering from a severe illness, consent would not be considered invalid in circumstances where a patient is choosing between lifesaving treatments, despite the severely limited options and invasive nature.209 Offenders need to agree to such interventions voluntarily as they involve an invasive biological intervention compared to traditional psychotherapies, which are undertaken collaboratively with the patient, and other medical correctives.210 However, in a study published in 2019 surveying participants convicted of sexual offences, the participants believed that their freedom of choice would not be compromised on account of potential coercion of legally motivated treatment.211 Participants highlighted that there would need to be requirements for ‘thorough explanation[s] of the purpose, risks and benefits of the treatment options’, and ’adequate time to process this information’ so that they could receive medical advice.212 The treatment offered should therefore be the least invasive neurointervention, ensuring that the treatment prescribed is not disproportional to the severity of the crime committed. Australian Human Rights Commission 27