• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gedankenexperiment and Poll

What is your decision?

  • Punish

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Treat

    Votes: 27 87.1%

  • On planet X there are no crimes

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .

IllegalArgument

Graduate Poster
IllegalArgument
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
1,895
I stole this poll from here:
http://siderea.livejournal.com/394627.html

So there you are, a human living and working on some other extra-terrestrial civilizations' homeworld, on their equivalent of a green card. You get a summons to the local equivalent of a law court.

The judge explains to you that they've just had a trial and found one of your fellow human beings guilty of being a horrific serial killer, torturer and rapist of children. He was caught red-handed -- and red-them-most-of-the-rest-of-him -- with the still-steaming body of his last victim. The evidence is incontrovertable and at the climax of the trial, he started bragging of his atrocities. He remains utterly without remorse.

The judge further goes on to explain that when the defendant in a violent crime case is a human guest worker, by intergalactic treaty, the key sentencing decision is made by a randomly selected peer of the defendant's own species and planet-of-origin. That would be you.

The decision is this: Either the defendant can be sentenced under either the law of the jurisdiction of the trial, or he can be extradited back to his place of citizenship sentenced there.

As it happens, the country on Earth from which this criminal hails is the US, and the minimum sentence is life in prison, but he may even face the death penulty. If extradited to the US, he will be punished to the full extent of the law.

The judge explains that if, however, you choose to remand him to the local court for sentencing, there is also a mandatory sentence. The criminal will be sentenced to treatment for his criminality. Thanks to the superior technology of this civilization, they can fix his brain such that he will never have the faintest desire to commit such crimes ever again. The treatment is safe and 100% effective: 0% recidivism. However, in light of how effective such treatment is, they consider it pointless and, indeed, an injustice, to punish the recipient of such treatment. Why would you punish someone for something they do not want to ever do again? At least, that's how they see it. Once treated, he will be released back into the community, a contributing and healthy member.

Oh, and if you fail to pick? Will be held in contempt of court (a truly universal idea).
 
I suppose I'm not the only one thinking "Clockwork Orange" when I read this.

Despite the associations that leads to, I think I'd go for treatment. Provided he can understand the severety of his earlier behavior and honestly apologize, I don't see why that would be worse than executing him.
 
I voted treat, but the more I think about it, you have to punish. If you know that if you commit a murder, they will just fix your defective brain, that's a free pass. If you don't like somebody, kill them.
 
I have to vote for treatment. Yes, it may give some people the necessary impetus to go over the edge and take the more extreme illegal action; but the idea of brain tampering is one that scares most people anyway; besides, after treatment, you're likely to never be ABLE to commit such crimes again, and you'll feel personally remorseful after the fact.

In all, the better of two choices, I think, should be treatment.
 
My first thought was to treat the criminal, but then I started wondering, what deterrence would there be with such a system?

Normally, we treat (as best we can) criminals who are insane and therefore not responsible for their actions. But if we extend this to sane people, and it could be done effectively and quickly, why would someone with a desire (rather than an overwhelming compulsion) to commit mass murder resist their urges? What have they really got to lose?

So, I think I'd try to decide on the same basis that we do in our earth courts - was the defendant responsible for his actions. Decide if he is sick or criminal and sentence him accordingly.
 
Having seen this done on B5-only his victims or their living relatives should be able to make that decision and if he is killed by them after treatment when they did not get the right to make the choice, they should receive no treatment or other punishment.
 
Fry him; it's the only 100% effective cure for any recidivist tendencies. And that's one thing I'm 100% sure of.
 
The difference between the guy on B5 and this example is that the treatment described in the OP leaves the person intact except for their ability to murder. The guy in B5 was completely destroyed and another, innocent, person created in the wreckage.
 
With some hesitation I voted for treatment. A slightly simplified question I think...

I believe that a combination of treatment and punishment is the way to go. The criminal get "cured" both physically and mentally - an operation to medically take away the urges to kill AND a long time in prison with psychologic/psychiatric treatment, to make him understand the severe nature of his crimes.
 
Punish him. Discouraging people from commiting the same crime is only one part of the purpose of prison. Punishing people is also an important part.
 
I say treat him. All other things being equal, mercy is the way to go.
 
Of course you treat. Spreading around extra unhappiness and death is never a good idea. Plus I am firmly opposed to the death penalty in general (you could maybe convince me of it's validity in certain cases - if keeping the guy/gal alive would somehow cause further suffering, but I can't actually think of any. Maybe Hitler, Stalin etc. But then you get the problem of martyrs. Anyway) and as such would definitely not want him sent back to face it. I also would begin campaigning immediately for a less random justice system on Omicron Persei 8 or wherever we happen to be, 'cause they really haven't thought it through.
 
Last edited:
Rufo said:
I suppose I'm not the only one thinking "Clockwork Orange" when I read this.

Despite the associations that leads to, I think I'd go for treatment. Provided he can understand the severety of his earlier behavior and honestly apologize, I don't see why that would be worse than executing him.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, if he apologizes. :rolleyes:

I agree to treat, I just thought the added apology was a bit of frosting. If he's totally remorseless in his untreated condition, would an apology be sincere? If he apologizes post-treatment, is he really the same person as the criminal?

Chriswl,
The conditions of the OP have to be used. The treatment or punish option will always be there. Therefor the incentive to murder someone who scuffs your shoe wouldn't be so great. What if they didn't have a bunch of JREFers as the sentencing team, but Judge Roy Bean or GWB instead?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Chriswl,
The conditions of the OP have to be used. The treatment or punish option will always be there. Therefor the incentive to murder someone who scuffs your shoe wouldn't be so great. What if they didn't have a bunch of JREFers as the sentencing team, but Judge Roy Bean or GWB instead?
Click to expand...
That doesn't affect my choice. If I went for the treatment option on the grounds that other juries wouldn't, so there would still be plenty of deterrence in the system, I would then have to ask myself the question: what if everybody though like that, where would we be?

In questions like this you are being asked not just "what would you do" but "what should one do, what is the morally correct choice".
 
It's pretty clear that punishment is not a very good deterrent. It might work for some minor crimes of convenience but just doesn't stop people like serial killers. Either they're gonna commit the crime or they're not, somebody else getting executed for the same crime isn't going to stop them.
 
chriswl said:
That doesn't affect my choice. If I went for the treatment option on the grounds that other juries wouldn't, so there would still be plenty of deterrence in the system, I would then have to ask myself the question: what if everybody though like that, where would we be?

In questions like this you are being asked not just "what would you do" but "what should one do, what is the morally correct choice".
Click to expand...

I don't think you have the gist of it.

I was pointing out the fallacy in your logic. e.g. that it would encourage murderers because they'd know they would "get off" with treatment instead of jail or capital punishment. It wouldn't if the conditions of the OP are followed. There would be a random same-species individual doing the sentencing, and that individual(you, in the conditions of the OP) could decide to send the perpetrator back to receive punishment. Therefore, would I murder a rude waitress knowing that I'd get a "cure"? No. There's an equal chance that I'd be sent home to Planet Xerxenferf to have my intestines ripped out by lava lizards (or whatever the penalty is on my home planet).

You're assuming that you're acting as the jury. You're not - you're the sentencing arm of the judiciary, essentially, if you read the conditions stated in the OP.

As to the punish versus treat debate, this is just taking an old argument a step farther. By introducing a guaranteed result ("cure" instead of merely "treat"), the question now boils down to its moral essence. Those who are concerned or purport to be concerned about recividism should logically opt for treatment. (Again assuming the conditions of the OP.)

Ergo, it's a tricky little moral test.
For a Non-Theist, it comes to: Do you really want to cure sick individuals, or do you want revenge?
For most Theists it comes to: Do you believe that all crimes, no matter how long ago or no matter in what state of mind/sanity they were committed, require punishment?

I always read reports of 'the courts' finding someone like Dahmer or Gacey legally "sane" with gob-smacked awe. How could anyone who is not completely out of their gourds (to use the medical terminology) have performed the deeds they'd done?
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
The difference between the guy on B5 and this example is that the treatment described in the OP leaves the person intact except for their ability to murder. The guy in B5 was completely destroyed and another, innocent, person created in the wreckage.
Click to expand...

If it's a treatment that leaves people intact, other than their ability to murder, why not apply it in advance as a vaccine ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom