76 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum for this, perhaps it is more of a political/social science issue than philosophical?

I have wondered this for a little while, though. If someone tomorrow came up with a pill that would allow you to live forever, how would prison sentences, and for that matter crime in general change?

Would the threat of a 20 year prison sentence in a sheltered environment carry any weight with you as a penalty if you could live forever?

Would there still be "life sentences"? If you sentence someone to life in prison, and they live forever (they are in a sheltered environment, so there are less chances for accidents, natural disasters, etc.) would this make any sense?

Also, there are those that have been sentenced to 150, 200, etc. years in prison now that are assumed to be there for the rest of their life. How would you feel if someone who has violently murdered people, and been sentenced to say 150 years (which in today's standards would be a life sentence) was released in 150 years to terrorize people again?

What would be better options for punishment? Would the infliction of pain or some other punishment that is today considered inhumane be a better deterent for crimes?


I really do not know, because it seems like it would not be much of a punishment to sentence someone to 20 (30, 40, 50, etc.) years in prison if you could live pretty much as long as you wanted. Also, if someone is a violent criminal that has commited murders, I would not want them back out anytime, but putting them away for "life" which may turn out to be 1000 (1200?, 2000?, 5000?) years would seem kind of a waste of resources to keep them alive.

In any event, I think it is an interesting debate to have.







During the chariot scene in 'Ben Hur' a small red car can be seen in the distance.

[situationalist]

In reality there are a very small amount of the prison population in westernised countries that actually carry out thier whole term. In sentencing of serious offenders a judge will give a small number of sentences without the possibility of parole. In the crimal justice system that is torn between two notions of criminal intent - one being the classical perspective which assumes that all citizens recognise wright from wrong and that they in tern conciously decide to commit crime or to abide by the law and the other being a psychological positivist perspective which questions individuals ability to know wright from wrong, this allows room for criminals with mental health issues and sexual predators. Under positivism, criminals should be 'treated' and nnot punnished, for some this is seen as a 'soft option' for criminologists this raises concern as to the undeterminate sentences - theoretically a person caould be 'treated' for ever. At least with the rational choice (classicalist) pospective the punnishment is proportionate to the crime and the time they spent in jail is thier punnishment. If people have more time on earth (ie, living forever) should thier time in jail reflect this?

It depends on what you belive an offender is. They sadly do not fit into a neat little package as the media would have us believe. A 'criminal' is as much a woman involved in a domestic violence disput resulting in her killing her violent spouse as much as it is an abusive husband killing his wife in a domestic dispute. Sentences do not reflect these two (in my believe) very different 'criminals'. Could we expect it to deal with immortality? The CJS falls short in many areas. Women for example are subjugated in a legal discursive framework that was created by men to punnish men. Women were merely an afte-thought, and this is evident most areas of law and the society in which it exists... I appologise, this isn't a feminist room!

With a sophmore level of criminolgy I can tell you that the problems that exist within the criminal justice system are exhaustive.

Simplistically I can only offer that criminal law is reflexive, that is it usually reacts to an event that has alwready occured. In order o tackle your question perhaps it is best to look at the the level of criminality that occurs when a peron is immortal. Arguabley the CJS attempts to promote social cohesion and solidarity, it penalises those who jepardise this serenity and simultaneously uses them as an example to deter prospective criminals. It essentially works on fear. The fear of going to jail for a 30 years doesn't have the same ring to it if you are going to live forever (whatever 'forever' means).

Also too, if everyone lives forever and the population keeps expanding, not only are thier more criminals BORN but their is less risk in committing crime as the punnishment is less intrusive, so thier are more criminals MADE or created through thier environment.

(where is the spell check option?).

[Infernity]

You missed one point, Nate.

Those who are in jail wouldn't have the right to get that "immortality pill". So they will probably not hold on to 200 years...

Yours
~Infernity

[Infernity]

By the way, I think this issue would have fit better in the Social Science forum.

~Infernity

[Live Forever]

infernity,

Those who are in jail wouldn't have the right to get that "immortality pill". So they will probably not hold on to 200 years...

I think that they would have the right to the "immortality pill". We allow criminals to have rights (within reason) such as religious rights, dietary rights, etc. etc. Whether or not you think this is just or not is another topic altogether, but I have no doubt that the courts would uphold the rights of the imprisoned to have access to an "immortality pill" if one was widely available. To not do so would be (in the eyes of the court) cruel and unusual.

It would, however (in my opinion) be a very good option. Commit a bad enough crime, and you are not eligible for immortality. That would be a hindrance to commiting a crime I would think.


situationalist,

In reality there are a very small amount of the prison population in westernised countries that actually carry out thier whole term. In sentencing of serious offenders a judge will give a small number of sentences without the possibility of parole.

I understand that it is a small amount, but there are a lot of examples of people who are murderers sentenced to 120 years, or 150 years, or 200 years, or whatever the case may be without a possibility of parole. This is (in today's standards) effectively a life sentence, but what if it wasn't? What if all of a sudden, it was very likely that they would get out? This was not taken into account during their original sentence, so what should be done for these people? (Note: I have no idea what the answer is, just making the argument for arguments' sake )

Under positivism, criminals should be 'treated' and nnot punnished, for some this is seen as a 'soft option' for criminologists this raises concern as to the undeterminate sentences - theoretically a person caould be 'treated' for ever. At least with the rational choice (classicalist) pospective the punnishment is proportionate to the crime and the time they spent in jail is thier punnishment.

So, you contend that according to the first viewpoint we should have someone imprisoned until they are "treated", and under the second viewpoint they should be imprisoned for a length of time deemed necessary to "punish" them. The problem with the first, I guess is (as you touched on), What if they never get well? Would we treat them forever? The problem with the second is that no matter how long the sentence, as long as you are in prison you are effectively cut off from society and the dangers that are there, so no matter the sentence you will have a very good chance of living to see freedom.

Also too, if everyone lives forever and the population keeps expanding, not only are thier more criminals BORN but their is less risk in committing crime as the punnishment is less intrusive, so thier are more criminals MADE or created through thier environment.

That is very interesting, I had not thought of that. Indeed, that would be very troubling to have an increase in criminality because of immortality. Perhaps, as infernity brought up above, the right to have the "immortality pill" could be taken away. This would serve both to keep people from commiting crime, as well as to effectively "kill off" those guilty of commiting crime. I would suspect that a black market would become available for these people to get access to the "immortality pills" though.









The first CD pressed in the US was Bruce Springstein's 'Born in the USA.'

[mnosal]

  Would the threat of a 20 year prison sentence in a sheltered environment carry any weight with you as a penalty if you could live forever?

Would there still be "life sentences"? If you sentence someone to life in prison, and they live forever (they are in a sheltered environment, so there are less chances for accidents, natural disasters, etc.) would this make any sense?

I find it incredibly naive that anyone could see American prisons as a "sheltered environment".

Does living amongst violent sexual predators, homicidal sociopaths guard dogs, corrupt prison COs and the ever present "Gun Tower" sound like a picnic to you? I think 50% of the ones who survive the daily fight for life would be dead from Hypertension(poor diet and constant stress) by 70yrs anyway. Around 30% will die at the hands of Guards or fellow inmates. The last 20% of survivors would be the most dangerous men/women on the planet.

Either through brute force and coersion(master criminals) or complete separation from thier minds(completely insane), the "kings of the hill" would still likely not be provided(nor truely desire) the "immortatlity pill.

Those who survived their prescribed time behind bars should be free to go. If they were housed by level of criminal activity(ie not putting a check forger in with the same wing as a serial rapist) instead of stacked like cordwood in Corporate Prisons, we might look towards actual rehab instead of the current system of "Crime School" America uses today.

[Infernity]

Nate,

As I believe this pill costs money, as health caring do, they will have to pay.

However, if they do, let them stay there for 500 years, it would probably teach them a lesson.
If they repeat it- let them not ever get out. But let them have the possibility to kill themselves if they really want.

Yours
~Infernity

[enigma]

Prison Sentences & crime rates, How would they change with immortality?

Charges would likely be harsher, just think, every time you wander out of the house you run the risk of being subject to a violent crime. If you are immortal, you have much more to lose, if you want to preserve your immortality for as long as possible you would only want to take the smallest risks. Societies all around the world would likely see this and increase penalties so as to decrease the risk, allow people more freedom to wander out of the house without running an unacceptable risk.

Also, more attention would be paid to the causes of crime as to reduce this risk. For example, economic inequality is one of the biggest causes of crime (this is partly opinion) because those who are desperate have so much to gain and so little to lose from crime. So, societies would likely shift to a more socialist stance, welfare payments would be increased and the rich would be taxed at higher rates. This would be to reduce peoples desperation as to reduce the risk of them committing crimes of desperation. In reducing this risk it becomes more acceptable for an immortal person to wander from the house, they are now running a lower risk. If you want to preserve your immortality you would only want to run very low risks. Democracies and probably autocracies would see this and adjust laws accordingly.

In general, immortality would greatly raise the bar for what is generally accepted as moral, a morality created out of the self-interest of a majority.

At the same time, having children would likely have to be outlawed if everyone is to have access to immortality, this could largley be considered immoral and
completley unnaceptable in many religious communities.

[REGIMEN]

Anyone seen the film "Zardoz"? In this film there is a particular immortal colony that subjugates those unwilling to partake in the highly principled social structure by increasing their physical age in some process and banishing them to a region where all other "dirty oldies" are kept. We can do that, right, when the time comes?

And yes, the prison environment is I beleive far more caustic and stressful than the outside world.

[eternaltraveler]

the age you would have to worry about petty crime as an immortal would be a short lived one. Our technology will soon be superior to our bodies.

I'd worry more about grey goo than I would about getting mugged )

[mnosal]

Don't eat the soylent green...its made from prisoners

[Karomesis]

liplex, if those you are attempting to banish are superior in intelligence to you they go where they want when they want, where does a 500 lb gorilla sit? wherever he wants.

In the not too distant future, information and the speed at which it is processed will become the dominant factor in human interactions. Those who process and create information the fastest will be the ones who call the shots. Prison, like religion will be different meaning words altogether. Although it's amusing to discuss it as a form of entertainment, arguing realistically about such issues is probably worthless.

I can't even begin to fathom existence in 100 years, kind of like a bacterium imagining life like a human someday. And if the word prison is even used in 100 years my guess is its meaning will have changed so drastically as to be unrecognizable from its original form.

[REGIMEN]

Hi karomesis. If those of superior intelligence were also possessive of physically superior differentiating qualities then yes, let the 500 lb genius sit where he pleases. Zardoz is a movie. They didn't care to give an in-depth explanation of how such a societal order could feasibly be structured for such a group. They probably figured that everyone would be too busy admiring Sean Connery's moustache to care about that plot hole. The relinquishment of individual needs for group concensus was the presented norm here and well, a society of consenting geniuses could easily overtake one solitary genius, right? I'm beginning to think maybe my point wasn't relayed effectively enough seeing that such a statement has even arisen.
Oh well.
I think prison and poverty will be here to stay for there will always be class and culture division and thus feelings of resentment towards the "other guy", be it based in jealousy or ignorance. We just have to teach tolerance and also have to sooner or later turn down the competitive anxiety somehow without dimming our drive to be creatively and fulfillingly successful at the expense of the "loser" majority (not everyone can be the "winner", right?) . Sounds too idealistic, like an appendicitis of ingrained Darwinistic principles, but tolerance of and place for a multiplicity of kinds makes the world richer without destroying those that are less profitable(oooh, if only there *were* less place for schlock for which tv plays revolving door incubator! a fine teacher of platitudes and fear it's become, eh?). But, a world without ignorance seems kind of static and dull to me. I prefer the lurking physical and intellectual threats of being in this crazyass world to the terror of obliviousness in an utopia. I really don't know where I'm going with this(...)

[Karomesis]

I think inequality will always exist as well, but with one small change from its present. The wealthy will become unimaginably wealthy, with the disparity between the wealthy and the poor being so large as to resemble an ant next to a redwood. there may be power in numbers at present with democratic institutions but even hundreds of millions of ants next to a redwood are still almost nothing.

I suppose one way to ensure this does not happen is to stop buying microsoft product and shopping at wal-mart. If bill gates invested a few hundred million here and there in various startups and ipo's that succeed with dramatic breakthroughs or even thier current rate of progress, then he may well become the first trillionaire in history. I am not an economist, but I think that's more than the entire GDP of Africa. [:o] a consortium of trillionaires has the ability to consume all the wealth in entire continents not just small countries. When the poor in africa literally don't have a pot to piss in.

[Live Forever]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread and all, but I was thinking more about this subject today for no apparent reason.

I was thinking about how the majority of the population see prison as a "punishment" (whether or not it is designed as "punishment", "forced seclusion for the protection of society", "deterrent for crimes" or "rehabilitation" can be debated I suppose, but most people view it as "punishment"-poll) and how that might affect people's perception of if people are "being punished enough".

For instance, say someone is convicted of armed robbery, or murder, or something when they are, say, 30, and sentenced to a 100 year prison term. (often when people are sentenced to "life" sentences, it is just assumed they will die before the prison term expires)

Now, if aging is cured in the mean time, what will the victims, and society at large think about these people getting out of prison when they are 130 (or 150, or 200, or whatever) because the cure of aging was not taken into account during their sentencing? I don't think the law would allow for re-sentencing, or keeping them from being able to have the anti-aging treatments (would be considered "cruel and unusual" I am willing to bet). The same argument also holds true for lighter sentences, because the public at large would think the people are "not being punished enough" I am willing to bet.

Of course, this won't be as much of a problem, I think, for after the therapies are developed, because the law will change to catch up, but for the people that are sentenced before aging is cured, and are in prison while it is cured, I see a public backlash.

[rjws]

As long as law enforcement is done by flawed humans, There is a chance of inncoent people being in there. Prison is a waste anyway most go right back. We need a new way of Rehabing in the future.

[stephen]

I was thinking about how the majority of the population see prison as a "punishment" (whether or not it is designed as "punishment") and how that might affect people's perception of if people are "being punished enough".

That's quite interesting. I've always considered the sole purpose of prison to be to provide a incentive to be well-behaved. If say... a Bhuddist monk... murdered someone in a fit of rare and unprecedented rage, and we knew with 100% certainty that he would not commit the crime again, I would be fine with him serving zero time. His religious guilt from committing the crime might make him a more valuable asset to society than he was before... certainly more valuable than if he was sitting in a prison cell.

I feel the same way about white-collar criminals (like Kenneth Lay). It's highly unlikely that he'll *ever* be able to engage in corporate fraud again. If he can ever get a similiar C-level position, you can bet that his actions will be audited to no end. Still, he's obvious brilliant. Who gains from having him put in prison and gangraped? A couple people get a feeling of "justice". Who would gain if he's out of prison? We all might... he could be the next Sam Walton or Bill Gates! Who knows...

HOWEVER, if we let him get away with zero time, others might lose the incentive to "play nice". That's where time served comes in. Thoughts?

[Live Forever]

That seems like a very reasonable approach, stephen. I have always thought that prisons should focus more on the "rehabilitation" side of things, because when those who are in there get out, I would think they would be much less likely to commit crime if they were able to get jobs (from getting their GED or some skill set) and had been through therapy (anger management, or whatever).

However, no matter how we feel individually, society at large thinks of prison sentences as "punishment", or for people deemed to violent to be in society (and given the 100 or 200 year sentences or whatever meant to be "life" sentences) a "seperation from the rest of society", and how they will react taking into account the people already sentenced when aging is cured might be different than you or I.

[william]

Why don't we consider taking our immortality pills and/or practice Calorie Restriction while living in a communal setting where crime is not a serious problem? Communal living is a less stressful, more harmonious way of life, conducive to longer, healthier, and happier lifespans. Crime doesn't thrive well under conditions such as this.

In the book "Kibbutz Goshen: An Israeli Commune" (1989), by Alison M. Bowes, the author points out that "the kibbutzim have a very low crime rate." On page 78 she says:

"The characteristics of kibbutz organization decrease the likelihood that anyone will be brought to the attention of law enforcement agencies. First, the scope for crime on the kibbutz is narrow. There is little money and no banks, there are no deserted places to mug people, no one has access to funds long enough to embezzle them, drug addiction is expensive, etc. Since everyone knows everyone else, secret plotting would be very difficult. Secondly, the kibbutzim are very jealous of their autonomy and reputation. One way to protect this is to deal with possible criminal activities internally and, more often than not, informally. On Goshen, petty thefts, cases of vandalism, minor assaults and a 'peeping Tom' were dealt with internally. The property was returned, the vandalism repaired, the quarrels patched up, and women were warned about the harmless 'peeping Tom' and simply drew the curtains before undressing."

We definitely must get beyond our punitive society to make substantial progress in life. "Punishment" has long been known to be a total failure in dealing with crime and other misbehavior. See http://en.wikipedia....box#Behaviorism. History amply and dramatically supports this failure.

What better way is there to deal with the problem of punishment than to put it to death completely in a communal setting, never to resurface again, through internal and informal nonpunitive methods? No more excessive law enforcement, unjust prosecutors, biased courts or abusive prisons. No more after the fact punishment that never really worked and created many additional and unexpected problems.

Edited by william, 24 June 2006 - 08:25 PM.

[rjws]

While I admire communal living for its stress free, and simplified way of life. most of us here would need a very advanced Commune lol.

[william]

rjws, who says we can't get an advanced commune? But, we're going to have to slow way down like the very old tortoise in this article. http://www.cbc.ca/st...iet-turtle.html. I can't see no way around it. The way we live now is too inconsistent with longevity.

And who you lol at?

Edited by william, 27 June 2006 - 05:53 PM.

[william]

If anybody is interested in conditions in U.S. prisons and why a society practicing immortality needs to be concerned, they should checkout the final report prepared by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons at http://www.prisoncom....org/report.asp. The April 25, 2005 issue of Newsweek (p.8) reported that the Commission was formed when reports of the abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison surfaced in the spring of 2004. It was revealed that a number of the solider/guards involved were prison guards in U.S. jails and prisons as civilians. Notice this statement from the report below:

Diverse Commission Reaches Consensus
“A year ago, a group of individuals with little in common promised to recommend strategies for operating correctional facilities that serve our country's best interests and reflect our highest values. Today, we speak in a single voice about the problems, our nation's ability to overcome them, and the risks for all of us if we fail to act. . . . What happens inside jails and prisons does not stay inside jails and prisons. We must create safe and productive conditions of confinement not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it influences the safety, health, and prosperity of us all.”

—from Confronting Confinement

[Live Forever]

Recently I was reading about the Standford prison experiment, after seeing the movie Das Experiment (which is very good, by the way).

I thought I would bring it up in this thread since it relates to how prisoners are treated, for anyone that had not heard of it before.

[william]

Recently I was reading about the Standford prison experiment]Das Experiment[/URL] (which is very good, by the way).

I thought I would bring it up in this thread since it relates to how prisoners are treated, for anyone that had not heard of it before.

Thanks for posting the information Live Forever. I've read alot over the years about the Standford prison experiment in psychology books and in law books on prisoners rights. It was mentioned in Newsweek and Time articles in connection with the Abu Ghraib scandal. I didn't know about the movie. If I get a chance, I'll probably watch it.

[Live Forever]

its in German, with subtitles, just to warn you

[nihilist]

i just read the first post.

if a pill or other simple inexpensive treatment were available to give you, say, 5000 years of life how would that effect criminal justice?

well, there wouldnt be life sentences anymore, there would be executions. at first, there would e a huge amount of legal cases, barring the withdrawl of the pill or treatment. at the end of the day, theyd either just execute you or give you the option of stopping the pill for 20 years, and aging, perhaps. im still saying a bullet will be the final solution, so to speak.

along these same lines, it would depend greatly on whos in power and supported. you might see a greater adoption of the death penalty for lesser crimes like child molestation or rape. attempted murder ofcourse would be first on the block, and a test case.

extreme longevity might bring up a harsh legalistic society.

in the breadth of an average lifespan, one year isnt much time. however, i dont see many felons laughing at a year sentence. why? because prison sucks. while rape isnt as rampant as is beleived in america, fighting is in all but the highest security prisons. ive also been told by some whove spent time, that its boring as hell. thats the thing they talk about most, was how boring it is. most of these ppl usually like to stay about half in the bag, and instant sobriety is quite the grind.

so basically, even if you can expect to live a thousand or 5 thousand years, 10 years of an involuntary vacation from freedom isnt something anyone takes lightly. there might not be quite the feeling of loss, since its a much smaller period of time vs your lifespan, but 10 years is still 3600 days of getting up in a small room, and smelling the farts of your cohabitator.

it might not bother 'dead enders' too bad, but most of the time those ppl take care of themselves in one way or another.

[Live Forever]

Also, at some point, there may be a way to "fix" people, or make them so that they do not have violent, or sexual, or whatever impulses anymore. This would especially true once we know more about the mind and how it works, I am willing to bet. I do not know if the society of the future would be compassionate enough in nature to be able to fix someone and leave it at that without any "punishment" element or not, but it is an option to think about.

[nihilist]

i read somewhere that low cholesterol in the elderly greatly raises risk of cataracts. im sure theres a link, but there certainly isnt a casual one or at all obvious to anyone, IMO.

my point in relation to this is that fixing a criminal, and whatever damage is done in relation to that might not be that big a loss. however, those wrongly convicted are sure to hold quite a grudge if the fix renders them greatly deficient in an important way. and of course, no ones gonna let it be imposed on someone, so there will have to be a plan B.

but if we start fixing ppl in thw womb, we run a risk of destroying great minds before they get a chance. i see the leap from criminals to screening kids, and altering them or aborting them as fairly small, especially in america.

i see alot of rose colored glasses when it comes to stuff like this, when i think were doing ourselves a disservice to a great degree. whats wrong with being average? because at the end of the day, thats what were talking about eliminating or at least considerably reducing.

i think before we try to 'play god' and tinker around with ppls personalities etc, we should try the old fashioned 'raise them properly' way of doing things and see ow that goes. i just read today the average child gets 19 mins of interaction with parents on a daily basis. i dont think thats nearly enough, i defy someone to tell me different.

[Athanasios]

In the book "Nature Via Nurture" it is brought up that we have found a gene, that with combination of an abusive childhood, predicts a greater than 90% chance for that child to later commit a violent crime. We have also found a way to alter that gene, so it is expressed in a similar way to those who, in the same situation, grow up without having violent tendencies. Then they brought up the question, should we screen abused kids for this gene, and make the drug mandatory?

I see this type of question has been dodged so far, but as we advance, I think it will have to be addressed.

[goth_slut]

Live Forever ]Also, at some point, there may be a way to "fix" people, or make them so that they do not have violent, or sexual, or whatever impulses anymore. This would especially true once we know more about the mind and how it works, I am willing to bet. I do not know if the society of the future would be compassionate enough in nature to be able to fix someone and leave it at that without any "punishment" element or not, but it is an option to think about.

Who would get to decide what got "fixed" ?
What standards would we have for what constituted a reasonable threat to society?
Could this not be abused by the state to create a passive public?

You missed one point, Nate.

Those who are in jail wouldn't have the right to get that "immortality pill". So they will probably not hold on to 200 years...

Yours
~Infernity

This would be essentially the same as execution, would it not?



With an increased life expectancy (immortality) the death sentance would arguably become *very* unpopular with the masses as immortality became more of a staple within society.


I see psychological reprogramming to see more use in the future, regardless of weather or not we acheive immortality. Overcrowding in prisons has allready led to very mild forms of this.

Forced mental re-conditioning would probably be used to speed up the "rehabilitation" process, with probably a "standard" imprisonment period close to our current level of punishment for that "punish the guilty" image that the masses require.


I would imagine that murder would become a capital offense in such a society and could possibly be the only crime that would have any potential of carrying any death penalty in any fashion.




Love,
Goth_Slut