76 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Who would get to decide what got "fixed" ?

Me of course.
Seriously though, I don't know. I suppose the same jury that could decide on the sentence originally. There is just as serious of a threat of abuse of sentences now as there would be for these types of sentences.

What standards would we have for what constituted a reasonable threat to society? 

This would need to be decided, I suppose, but probably something along the lines of what currently constitutes a threat to society which warrents a prison sentence or death sentence. (mass murderers, child sex offenders, etc.)

Could this not be abused by the state to create a passive public?

Yes, it could. Certain things are not tolerated by society, however. Either you can choose to live within societal standards (not kill other people, rape people, etc.) by going through the treatment, or you can go to prison. From societies standpoint, either way you are no longer a threat to them.

[Karomesis]

Yes, it could. Certain things are not tolerated by society, however. Either you can choose to live within societal standards (not kill other people, rape people, etc.) by going through the treatment, or you can go to prison. From societies standpoint, either way you are no longer a threat to them.

.....perhaps.


or, perhaps the individuals who engage in such antisocial behavoir could give a fucking shit what society thinks or does.


The menace constituted by the likes of a future pol pot would be overwhelming for the populace to say the very least.

[Live Forever]

or, perhaps the individuals who engage in such antisocial behavoir could give a fucking shit what society thinks or does.

That is the point, these types of people are most likely violently inclined, have mental instabilities, or are otherwise chemically unbalanced. "Curing" these types of things is the type of "cure" I was originally talking about.

I am not saying there shouldn't be safeguards in place, but given the choice of going to prison or being "cured" (or perhaps being "cured" and having a drastically shorter sentence) I personally would choose the latter. I would think most people would rather be cured than sit for the rest of their (now infinite) life in prison, or be put to death.

[Karomesis]

Liveforever, what, in your opinion, is the reason for the massive rate of incarceration per capita in the united states?

I am unsure if I am on the same page with you and would like to legitimately discuss these matters further.

[Live Forever]

Liveforever, what, in your opinion, is the reason for the massive rate of incarceration per capita in the united states?

I am unsure if I am on the same page with you and would like to legitimately discuss these matters further.

Well I personally think that it is because putting people in prison is seen as a way of "punishing" ciminals.

As has been brought up already, it is interesting as to whether incarceration is viewed as either punishment, rehabilitation, or seperation from the rest of society and how that affects how one views it in relation to this viewpoint. For instance, if you view prison as punishment, then you would probably not care if they were able to be "cured" and put back into society, but if you saw it as simply rehabilitation or seperation from society for the sake of the safety of society, then you might be more willing to give those who commit crimes a chance at redemption and being "cured".

You are right, karomesis, there is an interesting split in the way prison can be viewed, and how this influences how you are more (or less) apt to view a "cure" to violent behaviour (or whatever else) as a positive thing vs. sending the person to prison.

[goth_slut]

Controlling a person, and defining a person however, are two different things. At least, from my personal P.O.V.

I don't want my beleifs, feelings or thoughts to be forcefully altered in any manner, regardless of weather or not I'm in compliance with the "rules."

The capacity for abuse, however, is far more terrifying to me though. Things like the MKULTRA program scare me enough, in the concept. Mind controll always fascinated me, but remains my own personal nightmare at the same time.

I personally think I would preffer to be executed in favor of re-programed on the genetic level.




Love,
Goth_Slut

[Utnapishtim]

Goth

Wouldnt that depend on how you felt about the trait in question...?
What if you felt that certain feelings or thoughts were contributing to either your own or another's misery and you were ashamed of them? Wouldnt you be happy to have them changed?
To take a VERY extreme example there are adults who feel sexually drawn to young children... Many of them are deeply ashamed of this attraction. If you were in their position wouldnt you want to use the available technologies to change?

[goth_slut]

Goth

Wouldnt that depend on how you felt about the trait in question...?
What if you felt that certain feelings or thoughts were contributing to either your own or another's misery and you were ashamed of them? Wouldnt you be happy to have them changed?
To take a VERY extreme example there are adults who feel sexually drawn to young children... Many of them are deeply ashamed of this attraction. If you were in their position wouldnt you want to use the available technologies to change?

Voluntary self alteration is one thing, and I'm a big proponent of being in full control of what happens to your own body, and the mind in particular.

Involuntary however, seems just barbaric. I view the mind as the seat of the self. Flawed or not, it's still the primary seat of who you are.

I take meds for things, but that's a voluntary choice. If it were forced on me, I think I would preffer the consequences of refusing.




Love,
Goth_Slut

[Live Forever]

Voluntary self alteration is one thing, and I'm a big proponent of being in full control of what happens to your own body, and the mind in particular.

Involuntary however, seems just barbaric.  I view the mind as the seat of the self.  Flawed or not, it's still the primary seat of who you are.

I take meds for things, but that's a voluntary choice.  If it were forced on me, I think I would preffer the consequences of refusing.




Love,
Goth_Slut

I agree with that statement, goth. If I could envision the optimal scenario, it would be one that gave a choice to the convicted. Choice #1: Take the "cure" (therapies, mind alterations, etc.), or Choice #2: Take the prison sentence or death sentence.

You have to appreciate that society will never simply let people off the hook that have been convicted of commiting violent crimes (rape, murder, etc.) without one of the 2.

I have seen on the news occasionally where people are required to either 1) wear a sign that says "I stole from this store" and walk around for a few hours in front of the store they shoplifted from (or go to therapy, or do community service, or any of a number of things), or 2) spend 30 (or 60 or whatever) days in jail. Most people choose the former, as it gets them off quicker. I envision a "cure" for violent (or other) behaviour in much the same way. I think most people would choose to be cured, but if some chose to have long prison sentences, or death sentences instead, then so be it.

[william7]

At the very end of this video, it sounds like Stephen Hawking is suggesting that geneticists find a way to modify everyones genes in society for the aggressive instinct, not just the criminal. I don't know what anybody else thinks, but I think this genetic modification thing sounds too much like psychosurgery and psychotropics repackaged with a new brand name. What else in the brain gets modified along with the aggression? I say modify nurture and leave nature alone!

[Live Forever]

If someone wants to be modified, I see no problem with it, but I agree, forced modifications should not take place. (except perhaps in very extreme circumstances)

[Infernity]

Goth_Slut,

Until the average man can afford this medical treatment, it will another century.... This obviously will begin as something for the rich. Just when it will become a common thing and there will be competition- the prices will fall and that would be available for all (average people- poor ones- will take even longer) Now, until a poor guy in jail can.........

Think about it


-Infernity

[william7]

I don't see how after the fact modification of violent antisocial behavior will ever be of any real use from a victim standpoint. Once the crime has been committed the harm is done and can't be reversed. I also can't see how it will be possible to screen all juveniles who've suffered some form of abuse or mistreatment for genes that make them prone to violence. And what about the George W. Bushs of the world? How will we ever modify their genes in time to prevent major blunders and acts of aggression? Modifying nurture seems to be the only sure solution.

[Live Forever]

I don't see how after the fact modification of violent antisocial behavior will ever be of any real use from a victim standpoint.

Then you are in the "punishment" camp as opposed to the "seperation from society" or the "rehabilitation" camps for the purpose of prison. As I stated previously, someone who thinks the purpose of prison is punishment would have a hard time seeing the value in such treatments.

Once the crime has been committed the harm is done and can't be reversed.

The old cliche' "Two wrongs don't make a right" could be applied here, if one were so inclined to view things as such. Again, this goes back to the debate on what the purpose of prison is. (punishment, rehabilitation, or seperation from society)

I also can't see how it will be possible to screen all juveniles who've suffered some form of abuse or mistreatment for genes that make them prone to violence.

Not with today's technology, but this should change with coming technologies, which is what this discussion is focused on.

And what about the George W. Bushs of the world? How will we ever modify their genes in time to prevent major blunders and acts of aggression?

Well, this discussion is mainly on those who have committed crimes, and sentenced to prison sentences. I suppose you could take a wider view of things, but again, I am opposed to people being modified against their will.

Modifying nurture seems to be the only sure solution.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[william7]

Then you are in the "punishment" camp as opposed to the "seperation from society" or the "rehabilitation" camps for the purpose of prison. As I stated previously, someone who thinks the purpose of prison is punishment would have a hard time seeing the value in such treatments.

I'm definitely not in the punishment camp as you suggest. Punishment always comes after the bad behavior occurs. I have to fully agree with the Wikipedia entry on punishment that william cites here. Punishment is ineffective in controlling human behavior and has many unwanted side effects. The criminal justice literature and history does clearly support this.

Why can't nurture or the environment be modified or shaped in such a way as to prevent the bad behavior from occurring - which would then eliminate the need for punishment? Isn't this what B.F. Skinner argued for in his behavioral philosophy? Socialists and sociologists say we can eliminate crime and aggression through a restructering of society along with the right type of education. Some religionists say the right type of religious upbringing will do the job much better.

I just don't like the idea of modifying genes or tampering with the brain in any way as I mentioned previously. I don't really know much about this genetic modification thing, but it seems like we could end up a bunch of passive, unthinking zombies, if we're not careful. Then only State sanctioned aggression and oppression would be acceptable if, of course, that can be accomplished by a society of genetically engineered zombies?

[Live Forever]

I agree we should proceed with caution, and I am also very anti-zombie. [tung]

[JohnDoe1234]

If someone deprives someone else of the privelidge of life in a pre-meditated or non-self-defense manner... They deserve to die.
With the above method, we don't have to support nearly as many murderers with our tax-dollars, and and it's more of an incentive to keep from killing people. Sh*t like this should not be tolerated, I see no reason to feed, cloth, and maintain someone who has essentially no concept of the value of life and allows that to affect someone else.

They just need to be killed, or kept indefinitly as a non-paid labor force that cleans highways, builds schools, or anyting else the government needs them for... essentially slaves but nicely fed and clothed with some basic needs met.... and give them the choice of the two.

[william7]

They just need to be killed, or kept indefinitly as a non-paid labor force that cleans highways, builds schools, or anyting else the government needs them for... essentially slaves but nicely fed and clothed with some basic needs met.... and give them the choice of the two.

Are you saying violent crime and sadistic punishment should continue as usual and society should never make the necessary changes to prevent it? Prisoners serving life sentences can and do escape from custody and often have a very negative impact on prison guards and younger prisoners not serving life sentences. Society and innocent victims still suffer. It's such a shocking problem that a commission was recently assembled to investigate and address the matter. Notice william's post on page 3 (second post from the top) of this thread or http://www.prisoncom....org/report.asp.

Most prisoners equate prisons with slavery. Many call them modern day plantations. And,"it has been observed that when one man holds another in bondage, it often turns the master into a worse brute than the slave." Can you deny that the corrections officers in the video mentioned here are not acting much like a brutal, sadistic slavemaster? Of course, the slavemaster-jailor response as shown in the video is, most likely, to some rebellious act by one or more of the prisoner-slaves. No matter how trival the rebellious act was or how many of the prisoner-slaves were involved all suffered for it the same.

The prison literature has consistently shown that prison life is very stressful for both the keeper and the kept. Scientists have recently pointed out that stress can shrink your brain cells, prematurely age your immune system, and, thereby, decrease your lifespan. See the longevity meme and the Forbes article cited therein. It only makes good sense to abolish prisons and punishment - just like slavery - so society can progress and attain its goal of life, liberty and happiness as mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence.

[william7]

The video of the corrections officers mistreating the prisoners mentioned above can be found at http://prisonlegalne...nload.cfm?Vid=1. You must hit the "Download" link right away to get the main video otherwise you'll get a much shorter version that isn't much. There's actually 3 separate videos. They're all worth watching.

[Vgamer1]

Yesterday this thought came to my mind when my friends and I were discussing Bernie Madoff.

He has a 150 year prison sentence: http://en.wikipedia..../Bernard_Madoff

But let's imagine that, as we hope, people will start to live for hundreds of years. People like Madoff will surely still have the money to pay for such technologies (assuming he lives long enough).

-Will inmates be allowed access to life-extension technologies?
-If no, would it be ethical if we are considering these technologies a human right?
-If yes, what are we to do when inmates live to be 1000? Or longer? Is a life sentence then unethical?

Let's say in 140 years Madoff is still alive in prison. What should we do? Try to extend his sentence? Give him a life sentence? Let him go when his sentece is up?

What do you guys think?

[Cyberbrain]

I like this question, it's very thought provoking and is certainly something that the longevity community will eventually have to fully address.

But let's imagine that, as we hope, people will start to live for hundreds of years. People like Madoff will surely still have the money to pay for such technologies (assuming he lives long enough).

-Will inmates be allowed access to life-extension technologies?
-If no, would it be ethical if we are considering these technologies a human right?
-If yes, what are we to do when inmates live to be 1000? Or longer? Is a life sentence then unethical?

Let's say in 140 years Madoff is still alive in prison. What should we do? Try to extend his sentence? Give him a life sentence? Let him go when his sentece is up?

I think inmates still have humanitarian rights and when the technology becomes affordable on a universal scale than inmates should be allowed access to it just like medicine (but not enhancement technologies). Their sentence should obviously be based on the crime. However, in a world of advancing technologies, inmates will have to be subject to either rehabilitation or reprogramming because there's no point in holding them an infinite amount of years. Actually post-singularity, most criminals would probably undergo reprogramming (which it itself is another ethical issue to take under consideration because you get involved in the whole 'what makes me me' issue).

[forever freedom]

I think that those sentenced to life today will certainly not be held away for all eternity. Life sentence today doesn't consider an eternal life. I don't know how new penalties will be but i'm sure they'll not be carried the same way as they're now, for those sentenced before immortality becomes common.


I also assume that in the future there will be much more effective ways to monitor people -what they're doing and thinking. So maybe those sentenced for life today may spend x amount of time in jail and then be released under the condition that they'll be monitored 24/7 for another y amount of time. After that, if they commit another crime, punishment will be more severe.

[TheFountain]

Yesterday this thought came to my mind when my friends and I were discussing Bernie Madoff.

He has a 150 year prison sentence: http://en.wikipedia..../Bernard_Madoff

But let's imagine that, as we hope, people will start to live for hundreds of years. People like Madoff will surely still have the money to pay for such technologies (assuming he lives long enough).

-Will inmates be allowed access to life-extension technologies?
-If no, would it be ethical if we are considering these technologies a human right?
-If yes, what are we to do when inmates live to be 1000? Or longer? Is a life sentence then unethical?

Let's say in 140 years Madoff is still alive in prison. What should we do? Try to extend his sentence? Give him a life sentence? Let him go when his sentece is up?

What do you guys think?

I think by that time, if life extension were a viable option, there will more than likely also be psychiatric break throughs which correct for whatever neuro-chemical imbalance that causes people to behave the way these people do. A sort of chemical reform that is much more advanced than todays crude methods. As long as the only thing they do is correct an imbalance without robbing an individual of their free will. If you think about it these people do not possess the capacity of choice with regard to violence or other such behaviour. They are driven by a catalyst into it.

Edited by TheFountain, 21 September 2009 - 07:43 PM.

[Vgamer1]

I think by that time, if life extension were a viable option, there will more than likely also be psychiatric break throughs which correct for whatever neuro-chemical imbalance that causes people to behave the way these people do. A sort of chemical reform that is much more advanced than todays crude methods. As long as the only thing they do is correct an imbalance without robbing an individual of their free will. If you think about it these people do not possess the capacity of choice with regard to violence or other such behaviour. They are driven by a catalyst into it.

I personally do not believe in true free will. I think that our actions are governed by the deterministic physics of our brains and bodies.

Having said that, I believe that personal identity does exist. Restoring a "chemical balance" for some criminals may work, but for others it may not. Some criminals are probably driven to violence because of a simple chemical imbalance, while others commit violent acts more deliberately.

In either case, we must be careful not to destroy an individual's identity in trying to "correct" their misbehavior, for that would be a crime as well.

[n25philly]

I personally think that when life extension becomes available prison sentences should be adjusted. More so for non-violent crimes. I say that if we are talking about a murderer is a case that is premeditated, it's best to make sure they are safe to release for releasing them before doing so. No point is getting life extension if some crazy you just released is going to kill you. Maybe we can find a way to get criminals times shortened in exchange for testing the life extension therapies as they start to become available?

[Vgamer1]

I personally think that when life extension becomes available prison sentences should be adjusted. More so for non-violent crimes. I say that if we are talking about a murderer is a case that is premeditated, it's best to make sure they are safe to release for releasing them before doing so. No point is getting life extension if some crazy you just released is going to kill you. Maybe we can find a way to get criminals times shortened in exchange for testing the life extension therapies as they start to become available?

Sure we can try to "make sure" convicts are safe to be released, but how can we be sure? Even if we make somebody "normal" that might not stop violent crimes entirely. Criminals were just normal people before they committed their crimes.

You have a point though, we don't want to release anyone who would surely kill, but the issue of being able to tell who will be a future killer seems pretty difficult to me.

Your second thought seems downright unethical to me. Having prisoners be test subjects in exchange for time off their sentence? That's not right dude. Anyway, there will be countless people lining up to be voluntary test subjects - those who are already dying and have no other choice.

The issue of determining which prisoners have been "rehabilitated" is one to discuss though.

[TheFountain]

I personally do not believe in true free will. I think that our actions are governed by the deterministic physics of our brains and bodies.

Sounds like a new age religion.

Some criminals are probably driven to violence because of a simple chemical imbalance, while others commit violent acts more deliberately.

How could you believe this when your previous statement contradicts this belief?

In either case, we must be careful not to destroy an individual's identity in trying to "correct" their misbehavior, for that would be a crime as well.

What identity? If free will is completely predetermined then why isn't 'personal identity' predetermined as well? In this case what does it matter what personality is there or not? Your argument is that 'I' am merely a puppet being tugged about by some deterministic law. Why then was 'I' provided a personal identity? It is a conundrum that makes no sense.

Either our personal identities were granted to us for the purpose of making decisions or we do not have personal identities, we only think we do. But then why would we have to think we have personal identities at all? Wouldn't it be easier if we were governed like insects? Or the Borg from Star Trek? One shared delusion? There has to be a reason why we were given individual identities.

Edited by TheFountain, 22 September 2009 - 02:50 AM.

[castrensis]

- Will inmates be allowed access to life-extension technologies?
- If no, would it be ethical if we are considering these technologies a human right?
- If yes, what are we to do when inmates live to be 1000? Or longer? Is a life sentence then unethical?

Thought-provoking question!

When radical life-extension technologies come to fruition we may have to reconsider the length of sentences for specific crimes. Is the intention of a 140 year sentence for the offending person to spend the rest of their life in prison? If the answer is affirmative then these inmates should probably be denied access to life extension technologies.

Radical life-extension technologies shouldn't ever be considered as a right, merely as a privilege. Perhaps access to radical life extension technologies could be considered a right, but (IMO) provision of enhancement technologies to individuals shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. However, prisoners' access to radical life extension technologies are contingent on the answer to the preceding & certain rights are commonly denied prisoners, e.g. Right to Privacy.

If we deny access to prisoners but agree that offenders shouldn't die sequestered in a secure facility then the answer probably isn't provision of radical life extension technologies to prisoners but a reform of the system, perhaps utilizing reprogramming technologies once available.

[Vgamer1]

This is in response to TheFountain in case I don't finish before someone else posts...

I do not think the idea of free will is incompatible with identity. Really we lack good terminology to discuss this issue in depth.

You asked how I can believe that some convicts are driven my chemical imbalances and some act more deliberately and yet still hold that three is no free will. I will explain.

Like I said, the terminology we have confuses a lot of things. For example, I say that I don't believe in free will, but it is obvious that we make choices every day. This is not a contradiction. I could say that the choice is an illusion, but you've heard that simple statement before. I believe it is something like that, but not so simple.

Even though I think free will doesn't exist, that doesn't stop us from needed to make choices in our lives. Imagine you're at sitting down at a restaurant and the waiter comes up to you ask asks, "What will you have tonight?"

As much as I believe in determinism, I must make a choice of my own will. That is choice, but not free will.

Now, let's say someone, call him Bob, had implanted a chip in my brain and can control my body. So when the waiter asks me what I want, Bob pushed a button and makes me say "steak." This was not my choice, nor was it free will.

I'm considering the first example, of me making my own choice. That is a deliberate act, but still bound by determinism. The second example is not the "fault" of the actor, but rather some other force beyond the actor's control.

So with the example of violent acts. One person's actions may be very deliberate and intentional and another person's acts may governed more by hormones and chemicals in their brain that they are not in full control over.

Ultimately neither have free will, and I see your point. My point was only that some violent criminals are not merely driven by simple "chemical imbalances" that can be easily fixed. Some people seem to be truly intent on harming others, and didn't just commit violence out of simple rage.

There's a lot of issues here. Let's take things slowly and cautiously, being careful not to misunderstand.

Now your issue about "identity."

What identity? If free will is completely predetermined then why isn't 'personal identity' predetermined as well? In this case what does it matter what personality is there or not? Your argument is that 'I' am merely a puppet being tugged about by some deterministic law. Why then was 'I' provided a personal identity? It is a conundrum that makes no sense.

I believe personal identity is "predetermined." That doesn't prevent unique personalities from existing. You're asking "why" we are provided a personal identity? I think you might mean "how." Let me know, because I'm confused by that last bit.

Either our personal identities were granted to us for the purpose of making decisions or we do not have personal identities, we only think we do. But then why would we have to think we have personal identities at all? Wouldn't it be easier if we were governed like insects? Or the Borg from Star Trek? One shared delusion? There has to be a reason why we were given individual identities.

I think you're asking why we are conscious. Or rather how we are conscious when our actions are determined by physics. Why do we even think we can make decisions? What advantage does it give us? I think that's what you're asking.

Here is my answer. It's not that consciousness is an extra, unnecessary thing that sits on top of the rest of our brain. It's that it is an integral part of us. Without a conscious mind you couldn't make intelligent decisions, plan for the future, remember the past, or love a person. Somebody has to be aware of the whole goings-on. And guess what? That somebody is you.

[Vgamer1]

When radical life-extension technologies come to fruition we may have to reconsider the length of sentences for specific crimes. Is the intention of a 140 year sentence for the offending person to spend the rest of their life in prison? If the answer is affirmative then these inmates should probably be denied access to life extension technologies.

I don't know about denying access to life extension. Yes, we deny prisoners other rights, but we do not deny them the right to live (in most cases). However, I don't agree with the death penalty in any case.

About the adjusting of sentencing. This is a possibility, but think of the legal implications. A sentence was determined for a person, how could any institution extend that sentence legally? Unless in light of the coming singularity laws are adjusted, I don't see it happening.

Radical life-extension technologies shouldn't ever be considered as a right, merely as a privilege. Perhaps access to radical life extension technologies could be considered a right, but (IMO) provision of enhancement technologies to individuals shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. However, prisoners' access to radical life extension technologies are contingent on the answer to the preceding & certain rights are commonly denied prisoners, e.g. Right to Privacy.

If we deny access to prisoners but agree that offenders shouldn't die sequestered in a secure facility then the answer probably isn't provision of radical life extension technologies to prisoners but a reform of the system, perhaps utilizing reprogramming technologies once available.

I think radical life-extension technologies should be considered a right eventually. That is when is it possible for all to access it. I don't know who's going to pay for it, but I'd hope the technology would become so cheap that even the lowest of the low can access it.

Again, we're going to have to be very careful with "reprogramming" technologies. In some cases, it would be as unethical as a death sentence.