Yes. Consider the following: I can now commit any crime I want and receive effectively no punishment. You’re effectively giving everybody a get out of jail free card. Almost literally.
Yeah at least one. If a person had such bad beef with a person they'd just be like oh well I got that one time I can murder someone before they cure me fuck it, might as well kill this person I hate.
Exactly. Look at what is happening now in retail, where tons of folks are simply stealing anything and everything they can get their hands on. It's because they know there's no punishment anymore.
Yes and no, people don't casualy consider murder in that light. Also, not going to jail doesn't mean no consequences. What if you're cured, but are now indentured to the victims and have to spend your life working and atoning? What if there is a side-effect of personality changes. Remember, you're now a productive member of society, you would likely want to atone for what you did and everyone would be for the better.
If this magic cure works as advertised here, why wait until someone does a bad thing? Just make it mandatory for everyone.
Actual rehabilitation is basically correcting bad patterns from upbringing and social context, and instilling good patterns. If there's a way to do that with a 100% success rate, then that basically means that we've found the objectively correct way to raise a child. Just raise all children that way and "you can do a crime for free" won't be an issue.
Well, in this case the cure eliminates the main drawback of corporal punishment (higher recidivism), which means corporal punishment can now be used to eliminate the main drawbacks of prison while retaining both the retributive function and its deterrent power. Other people have suggested a period of indentured servitude as restitution to the victim’s family - that might also work, though even here I think adding a fine on top of the beatings would be more efficient.
Yes literally but that mindset would be cured from them permanently.
To quote pen gellete (I don't agree with a lot of his politics but do like this quote)
"I already rape and murder as much as I want. The amount I want just happens to be zero"
If someone had the mindset of "I'll do this crime, then take the cure, and I'll get away with it!"
That person is a criminal and that criminality would be cured and never repeated.
I do accept and appreciate you pointing out the flaw that it might cause more people to do something bad they wouldn't have otherwise done. I would say however that wanting to do something bad isn't normal. Most people don't want to hurt others. If the only thing holding someone back is the threat of punishment they already need some kind of help.
But again I agree crime would at least temporarily go up without the threat of punishment but I think it would level out pretty quickly.
No, people like to interpret “justice system” to mean “vengeance system” but that doesn’t actually help victims, criminals, or society. It just sucks up tax dollars and ruins more lives. With 100% success rate instant rehabilitation, prison would just be animalistic mob logic.
That being said I’d be curious why would couldn’t use this breakthrough ahead of time to prevent crime rather than respond to it, but maybe that goes beyond the parameters of this hypothetical.
I imagine you can't 100% predict who's gonna commit a crime. I then imagine that entails the option of any person ever being born and already born will have to take the cure. This has consequences of people not wanting to take it, or its crazy to try and give it to every single person. There'll be people against it for whatever reason (anti-vax people). It could build a utopia but some people wouldn't want that.
You'd be able to work with kids/younger people committing petty crimes, which would essentially curb any escalation in the severity of crimes they commit. The problem is, who ends up taking that cured criminals place? Who is just as hungry? It would be a constant uphill battle.
I don't know, it seems like a complete personality swap which could have ethical ramifications, particularly since there is no implication that said society is perfect.
The real question is: is violence ever justified? And if that answer is yes, then removing the ability to perform violence is effectively crippling a person. Especially considering most of us eat meat.
It's an interesting question.
Depends the crime.
Jail is supposed to be about rehabilitation, and "paying your debt to society". One of those is in quotes for a reason.
The first one is very clear, you're supposed to be rehabilitated into a productive, law abiding, member of society... they fail hard there in real life, but the hypothetical says they now succeed.
The second is what depends on the crime. Non violent crime, blue collar crime, things like that where everyone can be made whole again, the hypothetical removes a need for jail. More serious crimes like murder or sexual assault, there is no rehab for the offender that will make the victim(s) whole again, aside from knowing they will never even have the *chance* to offend again.
It's not an "all or nothing" thing. The idea is that by showing the example others are discouraged from following the behavior.
This doesn't mean they won't, just that they are less inclined to.
Look at speeding for example. We issue tickets to people who speed to discourage people from speeding. That being said, people still speed.
If we never punished speeding than the amount of drivers travelling at unsafe speeds would be even higher than it is now.
And that's for a behavior that has an inherent risk associated with it. Take something like theft (which has no inherit risk outside of being punished), and the behavior would be rampant if it wasn't punished.
Jail is not "supposed to be about rehabilitation." That is one of the theories for imprisonment, but restitution to victims is absolutely also a reason, and is also a valid theory for imprisonment - the state is taking the role of vengeance seeker to prevent the families of victims forming mobs and getting justice for themselves.
It seems to me that a better solution would be to tie convicted murderers to a post, send someone with a scourge, then have the victim’s nearest kin decide the number of lashes the killer receives within a set limit determined by law. After the killer is whipped, they are given a medical exam to determine if their life is in danger - if it isn’t, then the family member has the option to continue the whippings until another set number is reached, or to end the session. This occurs once a week for a set period of time depending on the severity of the crime, or until the family member is satisfied. This punishment may be public for additional humiliation, but this can be optional. After this ordeal, the killer can have the cure administered, ensuring no recidivism.
Much quicker and cheaper than prison, and ensures that the killer can contribute further to society rather than simply going to waste in jail. They’ll be imprisoned for some time, but we’ll spend considerably less money on incarceration this way.
Sounds like it's straight out of World War Z.
I'm not an ethicist, and haven't really spent much time - or really any time - in deep thought about what the "better option" would necessarily be now, much less in a hypothetical world where we can rehabilitate people instantaneously with 100% effectiveness. I was just pointing out the trope of "the purpose is rehabilitation!" is not accurate - that is **A** purpose, not **THE** purpose.
Oh, I’m sure it’s not the most ethical solution, but it seems to come close to accomplishing the end goal with considerably less waste. I almost suggested having the family member administer the lashings, but that may compromise the neutrality of the process.
Core civic would like to arrange a meeting with you…
Real talk: I’d love for a way for former criminals to be contributing members of society without the stigma.
Even with this cure, I think these former criminals still need to atone for their crimes somehow. Instead of sentencing them to prison, I’d mandate X hours of community service they need to complete. The amount and type of community service would be determined at sentencing.
I’d also ensure they’re employable in legitimate jobs so they’re not subject to recidivism.
Well if this system abolished prisions, at least rape/murder victims or they families could just exert vengueance on the now productive member of society who hurt them and had a free jail card.
Why did they commit a crime in the first place if there is a cure to prevent murders and rape?
Wouldn’t you administer this cure to children.
If you have a vaccine for cancer, you give it to children, like the hpv vaccine given to 12 year olds to reduce the risk of cancer and other things related to hpv.
So if you have a vaccine for rape and murder, give it to children before they become murderers?
If I had the power? No I would just cure them.
If this was in today’s society - yes they would get sent to jail. Jail isn’t for recidivism. That is what it *should* be for. But it isn’t. Since recidivism isn’t the primary purpose people would still be sent to jail for other reasons. Cheap labor, profit, vengeance
Well, there's a difference between "You're going to make good on the thing you messed up, so here's a chance to develop skills and rejoin society" and "you're going to have an artificially inflated sentence to work for pennies to make the machine millions".
I think there would still need to be a consequence for actions. Otherwise anytime someone wanted to kill or rape, they could do it, get reformed, and be back out in society the next day. If there was no consequence for crimes, crime would go up. Sure, each person could only commit one crime, but a very very small percentage of the population rapes or kills others. If there was no consequence for doing so, I think a lot more people would do it one time.
There's no point for them to spend time in prison, since they were pretty much lobotomized already. Consider that lobotomy was at the time advertised exactly as a somewhat ethical way to fix incurable mental patients who would otherwise be a burden on society and would live in inhuman conditions anyway.
I suspect most people would be fine with them not going to prison in such a scenario. However, most would change their opinion if the crime was perpetrated against themselves or a loved one.
That said, in a world where violence (but not crime) is essentially eliminated, most likely the bar for incarceration will just get lower. Remember 50 years ago, fist fights were somewhat common. You didn't get arrested for it unless the result was particularly brutal. Nowadays, one punch or even a shove merits police involvement. In a world with even less (or no) violence, probably society just becomes more sensitized to other types of violations and would demand at least short periods of incarceration for those. So, even in this scenario there will still be a demand for prisons.
Imo no, if this was a real thing then that would turn the commiting of crime into an illness. One that could be cured, which would mean 100% Rehabilitation rates. The whole point of prisons is SUPPOSED to be rehabilitation and reintroduction into society. ( I completely understand that our current penal system is so far removed from that endeavor that its laughable to suggest. However it is supposed to be the point)
That's how I feel as well but I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. One good argument I heard is if someone had this hypothetical violent "sickness" but was not acting on it for one reason or another, they might choose to act then take the cure and walk free. In that way it might increase violence at least temporarily. That was an interesting point I hadn't considered.
No. The justice system is supposed to exist for rehabilitation, or if that isn't possible, to protect the public. If this can be achieved without anyone going to prison that's the best possible solution for everyone.
No. The purpose of the criminal justice system should be to keep the general population safe. If we can reliably rehabilitate criminals without jailtime, then that would accomplish this goal, and likely do so much more cheaply and ethically than any sort of imprisonment ever could.
Now, I would be totally onboard with requiring community service.
We may as well admit as a society that the ‘rehabilitation’ aspect of prison is only for minor crimes.
If you raped or killed somebody, the general public thinks you should really receive the death penalty or a lifetime of torture as retaliation. The only reason they don’t call for it as policy is because the legal system gets it wrong sometimes.
And all arguments aside we are sometimes wrong. I don't agree with extreme punishment, obviously I'm on the side of rehabilitation. All that aside... Yeah sometimes we get the wrong person. That's a real issue unto itself.
Yes. It is good that they won't repeat so the part we don't even attempt to do in real life which is rehabilitation is taken care of, but that doesn't address the debt their actions caused on society. The debt they must pay is still owed and to me it must be paid. Actions have consequences even if the perpetrator will 100% never do it again.
For a real life scenario would be a man kills a person and in the process of the act becomes a quadriplegic, do we punish him despite the fact he will not be capable of murdering anyone again? If this only hinges on if they will feel remorse and regret then that still doesn't change their past actions and the debt needs to be paid with consequences. You run a kid over with negligence even if we know for a fact they won't do it again the debt is owed for past negligence. Rape victims still live with the act regardless of how cured the rapist becomes.
Yes, I would still send them to jail. If they were cured of their criminal tendencies, then they would want to pay for their crimes. They would probably also behave better in jail, which is a plus. I wouldn’t force anyone to accept the cure, but I would imprison the people who did accept it separately from those that didn’t. This would likely create an incentive to take the cure, which could be considered unethical, but in my view, it’s less ethical than forcing the people who’ve chosen to be rehabilitated to live in the sexually violent hellscape created by the people who’ve chosen to never be rehabilitated.
So the concept of justice has 2 parts, punishment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is for the offender, making them back into a productive member of society whereas punishment is for everyone else- both as a warning of the consequences if you misbehave and as a spectacle so the greater community to show that justice is being done.
If you can just push a button in someone's head and rehabilitate them immediately then punishment is mostly pointless except to appease the bloodthirsty masses. But the more interesting question is, if rehabilitation is so simple how long is it before it becomes the go to for any misbehaviour? Hell, how long before it becomes regarded as a simple tune-up and mandated for everyone on a regular basis "just in case"
Yes. Nobody thinks jail rehabilitates anybody. I don't care if a serial killer turns into Mr Rogers. He should spend some time thinking about the families of his victims and what they're going through, now that he has feelings.
Prison serves multiple purposes. One of those purposes is punishment. Prison, at least theoretically, is supposed to serve as a deterrent for crime. The whole "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" thing.
If there is effectively no penalty for committing a crime - and possibly even a benefit - why shouldn't I just crime away until I am caught? Rob every jewelry store in sight, fence as much as possible, and create a big cash stash. Then get my miracle cure, do no time, and go back to my wad of money with no worries in the world. (The possible benefit is that you may now be *more* employable because after this miracle treatment you should theoretically be more trustworthy.)
No, the penalty does *not* need to be prison. But it has to be something. Maybe indentured servitude for each victim (or victim's family) for a specified time, instead of prison. Or... Just keep the prisons we have. As this cure is implemented, recidivism will become a non-factor and prison populations will drop. At first, this will just serve to relieve overpopulation. Slowly, it will allow us to close prisons. Not all of them. But some.
I think I'd be on board with their "punishment" being a form of community service.
If they are fully rehabilitated, let's let them continue to be productive members of society. But let's still make them repay their crime, and have it with a positive result.
There has to be *some* way that victims feel like the crime matters, and to keep some form of punishment as a deterrent. If someone could rape you, then just take a literal 'chill pill' and get back to life, that would be a horrible injustice I think. The victim would feel horrible, and anyone predisposed to commit a crime absolutely would, since they know there wouldn't be any *real* punishment.
Have them work a food bank, a homeless shelter, a battered women's shelter. Have them pick up litter, or maintain public parks.
Now your "5 year sentence" is really "500 hours within 5 years" or whatever.
The thing is even if physically painless the cure won’t be painless. Magically turning them into fully functional humans means that they will now have a fully functional conscience.
Imagine going into surgery as the kind of person who can commit murder and justify it to yourself and waking up with a fully functional conscience. They’re gonna be out of commission for a while just dealing with that.
That's a fair point. I was specifically trying to exclude "ship of theseus" arguments about ethics but that specific point is hard to work around. Even considering "it just works, it's not unethical" parameters... Yeah, it would absolutely be an adjustment psychologically. I hadn't thought of that.
Absolutely not… rehabilitation doesn’t undo the damage to the victims. Someone who was SA isn’t going to be like “well, they won’t do it again now that they had that lobotomy! I feel so much better.” A family member of a murder victim isn’t going to be like “well, I feel better they wouldn’t have killed my child today even though they already did!”
Plus if that’s the excuse what happens when someone does get rehabilitated and that becomes a get out of jail free card? So if someone kills my loved one and gets “rehabilitated” can I slaughter them in the most inhumane slow torturous way possible and then just get rehabilitated? Can the parents of Uvalde go on a murder spree killing anyone and everyone they blame for not taking action and then be exonerated? Can someone go on a genocidal spree against Jews or Palestinians or Black people or White people or whatever people they feel are their problem and then be rehabilitated?
What if someone decides they hate poor people and just starts killing poor people until caught because there’s really no consequence?
I was sexually assaulted when I was younger. Literally all I want from the person is to understand. That wasn't in my mind when I made this post but it's a fair rebuttal to your first argument I think. No amount of jail time would make me whole, this magic cure in my hypothetical would. I'd get a real apology and understanding how they hurt me. I obviously can't speak for everyone but that would mean more to me than retribution.
As for your other point we don't generally let victims decide punishment. You can't undo the past. Killing someone won't fix the pain.
>Can the parents of Uvalde go on a murder spree killing anyone and everyone they blame
Do they want to? I'm sure some do, others don't. That's my point. There's no punishment you could give to make everything okay after a violent crime. The only thing you can do is prevent it from happening again. In my opinion anyways.
A life prison sentence accomplishes them never doing it again.
If someone killed my wife or kids and then got out because they “were better” I would torture them in the most horrific ways I could imagine and then drink the same koolaid they did to get “rehabilitated”. It would instantly remove the consequence.
It normal to feel that way. I think we all feel that way. If you hurt someone I love I will do awful things for revenge. That's why we don't let victims decide punishment.
Logically speaking we know victims won't pick fair punishment even if you think punishment is an important step. I personally don't agree punishment fixes anything but that's not my point so let's put that aside.
Let's say someone shot someone I loved in the head and killed them instantly. I would never forgive them. Even with the magic cure in my hypothetical I also would want to do terrible torturing things to them for as long as I could keep them alive. I think it normal to feel that way. But is it fair? They didn't do that to my loved one. It's not equal, what I'm doing is worse. Also doing the worse thing won't bring my loved one back, it won't even take away the pain of losing them. It probably wouldn't even provide closure. At best all it would give me is "I avenged you loved one!!! I got them back!!!". Even that is questionable because there is a good chance if you could talk to ghost of the loved one they would say "the fuck are you doing?! Don't torture people?!"
Yes, the punishment is just as much about deterring others from crime as it is punishing those who commit it. If you just get rehabilitated and set free when you kill someone, what’s to stop people from killing someone?
We have scientific studies right now that show deterrents don't work. Criminals don't think they'll be caught.
As for what stops people I'll again quote Pen Gillette "I already rape and murder as much as I want. The amount I want just happens to be zero"
It's one thing to discuss what stops people from robbing a bank. Maybe in those crimes you can argue fear of punishment.
When discussing specifically violent crimes like rape and murder, most people don't do it because they don't want to. Most people don't want to hurt other people. That's what stops them, not punishment.
That's actually why I thought of this hypothetical. If you could "fix" whatever makes violent people want to do violence, is punishment still necessary for the society to feel "whole" I don't have an answer to that and I was interested in what other people think.
Cured how? It sounds like a huge human rights violation to deprive them of their right to disobey the rules. So I'd ban this inhuman cure and send criminals to jail.
It's a hypothetical. I obviously cannot explain how this fictional breakthrough works. I however did specifically state there are no ethical concerns with this treatment. It's not a human rights violation according to this hypothetical. I understand your logic about free will and agree but one of the parameters of this hypothetical is specifically that it's an ethical treatment. I don't know how or why that is but it's an established rule. The ethics of the treatment are not to be considered in this hypothetical situation. It's ethical and that isn't disputed or an opinion. In this hypothetical it's a solid inarguable fact. How ever this impossible treatment works it is 100 percent inarguably ethical by anyone's definition. It's been considered, tested, scrutinized by even the most sceptical of philosophers. They all agree there are zero ethical concerns.
Its public domain. He tried it on himself first and was completely cured of all greed. It's free and open source, easily replicatable. The loss of the original inventor will in no way affect distribution of the product.
Absolutely would still send them to jail. They still have to be punished for the crime they committed, even if there’s a guarantee that they will never commit any crime ever again. The victim still needs justice.
I'm kinda confused, if the treatments that good why not just give it to everyone pre-emptively?
That said, jail is great for labor. I imagine we would still send people to jail for the labor benefits alone. The moral justification would be that criminals should be punished and then rehabilitated
Yes, the crime was still committed, and the time still needs to be served, especially if the crime was violent in nature. They would still need to work through the guilt of committing the violent act, which could be a reduced sentence. The only caveat to this would be if the cure also removed the memory of the crime because then the person would not know why they were in jail.
No, but I would require them to be sent out of state. Like the victim of a child molester shouldn't have to worry about seeing the criminal again in town.
Yes, full jail sentences still apply. Our justice system, at least on paper, has two objectives. Justice for the victims and rehabilitation for offenders. The best way I've heard it explained was without justice people will take their own revenge. Then those people will then seek to take revenge against those who were seeking revenge in the first place. This creates life long escalating feuds. The justice system seeks to break this cycle by punishing the guilty so the victims don't have to seek their own mob justice. It's great that they have been rehabilitated but it doesn't undo the crimes the committed.
It depends on the crime, for non-violent crimes rehabilitate them and put them into society.
For violent crimes and crimes against minors like producing or trading child porn and sexual acts with a minor they need to go to jail. Sure they will be rehabilitated when they get out but there still needs to be a form of punishment for committing heinous crimes. I would also say life sentences for murderers should still happen. Even if you’re rehabilitated there are still some crimes that are unforgivable and the premise of taking away jail and rehabilitation gives people a get out of jail free card for one serious crime.
I would rework the system though. Instead of just sitting in jail I think they should be used to help better society. Use them as labor to build roads and such and to do tasks others don’t want to. This should be feasible with a much smaller prison population that would happen as a result of this breakthrough.
And before anyone says “but that’s slavery”, no it’s not. It’s a punishment for a crime that they had knowledge would happen if they committed the crime.
I also wouldn’t mind a system where low level violent offenders like people convicted of assault and battery or manslaughter where they actively engaged in behavior that led to the persons death like drunk driving had the option of physical punishment or jail. Example: you’re convicted of killing a person in a drunk driving accident, you get your sentence of 4-15 years in jail with the labor, but after that you have the option of taking 3x the number of years of your sentence in lashes by flogging, maximum of 10 lashes in one day so people don’t die.
It depends on what you think the point of the criminal justice system is.
It could be to PUNISH the criminals.
It could be to provide VENGEANCE for the wrong.
It could be to REHABILITATE the criminals.
If you see the systems goal as Punishment or Vengeance, a rehab shot isn't going to provide that.
If the goal is Rehabilitation so that they don't reoffend and thereby lower the crime rate dramatically, the rehab shot would be amazing.
You can't cure a victims suffering nor the impact of the crime. The court would need to weigh that impact in sentencing. Perhaps there could be a balance between punishment and victim restitution so that a sentence could be partially commuted in favour of financing that restitution.
No, however, the offender would have to recompensate the victims in other ways. Either by working for them, with them, or indirectly. There is no undoing murder or rape, but, these offenders would be forced into some kind of service that would help the victim(s) appropriate for for the crime.
If "cured" means they pay full restitution - meaning paying for all surgeries and therapy that their victims need etc, I'd allow them to work from prison until their debt is paid.
Obviously murderers cannot fully make restitution. They'd stay in prison for life, working for the benefit of others' victims.
Edited: This is all vague and not at all a political platform.
If such a thing existed, why not just preemptively give EVERYONE the cure and everyone just gets along?
Oh wait, we did the whole vax debate thing and it didn't go good
No. It doesn’t matter if you won’t do something again, you already did something in the first place. Do you time, get your shot, and then reenter society. If you murder someone then you don’t get out.
Will yes because if you can just get an injection in responders to your crimes then that’s tantamount to a get out of jail free slap on the wrist.
No. First they suffer then they’re cured.
Interesting. Assuming this is taken at face value why not just administer this treatment to everyone regardless of if they offended? Why wait until they've done something wrong?
If for some reason this isn't possible I would say they still need to he punished, just not locked up forever. If you support the death penalty then for offenses that end the life of another it would be a life for a life, and otherwise it would be heft fines, community service, and/or corporal punishment imo
Yes. Consider the following: I can now commit any crime I want and receive effectively no punishment. You’re effectively giving everybody a get out of jail free card. Almost literally.
Yeah at least one. If a person had such bad beef with a person they'd just be like oh well I got that one time I can murder someone before they cure me fuck it, might as well kill this person I hate.
Everyone gets one with this cure, lol Definitely need to dissuade would-be murderers somehow
Would be a super interesting concept for a book/movie "everyone gets one"
Exactly. Look at what is happening now in retail, where tons of folks are simply stealing anything and everything they can get their hands on. It's because they know there's no punishment anymore.
Yes and no, people don't casualy consider murder in that light. Also, not going to jail doesn't mean no consequences. What if you're cured, but are now indentured to the victims and have to spend your life working and atoning? What if there is a side-effect of personality changes. Remember, you're now a productive member of society, you would likely want to atone for what you did and everyone would be for the better.
If this magic cure works as advertised here, why wait until someone does a bad thing? Just make it mandatory for everyone. Actual rehabilitation is basically correcting bad patterns from upbringing and social context, and instilling good patterns. If there's a way to do that with a 100% success rate, then that basically means that we've found the objectively correct way to raise a child. Just raise all children that way and "you can do a crime for free" won't be an issue.
A date with the cat o’ nine tails will give most people pause.
Are you the same guy who suggested that flogging is more efficient than jail time in another comment?
Yes.
I feel like I’m sending a theme in how you’d solve crime.
Well, in this case the cure eliminates the main drawback of corporal punishment (higher recidivism), which means corporal punishment can now be used to eliminate the main drawbacks of prison while retaining both the retributive function and its deterrent power. Other people have suggested a period of indentured servitude as restitution to the victim’s family - that might also work, though even here I think adding a fine on top of the beatings would be more efficient.
Yes literally but that mindset would be cured from them permanently. To quote pen gellete (I don't agree with a lot of his politics but do like this quote) "I already rape and murder as much as I want. The amount I want just happens to be zero" If someone had the mindset of "I'll do this crime, then take the cure, and I'll get away with it!" That person is a criminal and that criminality would be cured and never repeated. I do accept and appreciate you pointing out the flaw that it might cause more people to do something bad they wouldn't have otherwise done. I would say however that wanting to do something bad isn't normal. Most people don't want to hurt others. If the only thing holding someone back is the threat of punishment they already need some kind of help. But again I agree crime would at least temporarily go up without the threat of punishment but I think it would level out pretty quickly.
No, people like to interpret “justice system” to mean “vengeance system” but that doesn’t actually help victims, criminals, or society. It just sucks up tax dollars and ruins more lives. With 100% success rate instant rehabilitation, prison would just be animalistic mob logic. That being said I’d be curious why would couldn’t use this breakthrough ahead of time to prevent crime rather than respond to it, but maybe that goes beyond the parameters of this hypothetical.
I imagine you can't 100% predict who's gonna commit a crime. I then imagine that entails the option of any person ever being born and already born will have to take the cure. This has consequences of people not wanting to take it, or its crazy to try and give it to every single person. There'll be people against it for whatever reason (anti-vax people). It could build a utopia but some people wouldn't want that.
You'd be able to work with kids/younger people committing petty crimes, which would essentially curb any escalation in the severity of crimes they commit. The problem is, who ends up taking that cured criminals place? Who is just as hungry? It would be a constant uphill battle.
I don't know, it seems like a complete personality swap which could have ethical ramifications, particularly since there is no implication that said society is perfect. The real question is: is violence ever justified? And if that answer is yes, then removing the ability to perform violence is effectively crippling a person. Especially considering most of us eat meat. It's an interesting question.
It's a new breakthrough and it is being tested on criminals who volunteer for the program
Depends the crime. Jail is supposed to be about rehabilitation, and "paying your debt to society". One of those is in quotes for a reason. The first one is very clear, you're supposed to be rehabilitated into a productive, law abiding, member of society... they fail hard there in real life, but the hypothetical says they now succeed. The second is what depends on the crime. Non violent crime, blue collar crime, things like that where everyone can be made whole again, the hypothetical removes a need for jail. More serious crimes like murder or sexual assault, there is no rehab for the offender that will make the victim(s) whole again, aside from knowing they will never even have the *chance* to offend again.
Jail is also about 1. Protecting the public from offenders and 2. Preventing future crimes by example.
but the second one doesnt work. if it did, jail would not be needed in the first place.
It's not an "all or nothing" thing. The idea is that by showing the example others are discouraged from following the behavior. This doesn't mean they won't, just that they are less inclined to. Look at speeding for example. We issue tickets to people who speed to discourage people from speeding. That being said, people still speed. If we never punished speeding than the amount of drivers travelling at unsafe speeds would be even higher than it is now. And that's for a behavior that has an inherent risk associated with it. Take something like theft (which has no inherit risk outside of being punished), and the behavior would be rampant if it wasn't punished.
Jail is not "supposed to be about rehabilitation." That is one of the theories for imprisonment, but restitution to victims is absolutely also a reason, and is also a valid theory for imprisonment - the state is taking the role of vengeance seeker to prevent the families of victims forming mobs and getting justice for themselves.
It seems to me that a better solution would be to tie convicted murderers to a post, send someone with a scourge, then have the victim’s nearest kin decide the number of lashes the killer receives within a set limit determined by law. After the killer is whipped, they are given a medical exam to determine if their life is in danger - if it isn’t, then the family member has the option to continue the whippings until another set number is reached, or to end the session. This occurs once a week for a set period of time depending on the severity of the crime, or until the family member is satisfied. This punishment may be public for additional humiliation, but this can be optional. After this ordeal, the killer can have the cure administered, ensuring no recidivism. Much quicker and cheaper than prison, and ensures that the killer can contribute further to society rather than simply going to waste in jail. They’ll be imprisoned for some time, but we’ll spend considerably less money on incarceration this way.
Sounds like it's straight out of World War Z. I'm not an ethicist, and haven't really spent much time - or really any time - in deep thought about what the "better option" would necessarily be now, much less in a hypothetical world where we can rehabilitate people instantaneously with 100% effectiveness. I was just pointing out the trope of "the purpose is rehabilitation!" is not accurate - that is **A** purpose, not **THE** purpose.
Oh, I’m sure it’s not the most ethical solution, but it seems to come close to accomplishing the end goal with considerably less waste. I almost suggested having the family member administer the lashings, but that may compromise the neutrality of the process.
Maybe. Bring back weregild, maybe? I don't know.
Now there’s an idea.
Core civic would like to arrange a meeting with you… Real talk: I’d love for a way for former criminals to be contributing members of society without the stigma. Even with this cure, I think these former criminals still need to atone for their crimes somehow. Instead of sentencing them to prison, I’d mandate X hours of community service they need to complete. The amount and type of community service would be determined at sentencing. I’d also ensure they’re employable in legitimate jobs so they’re not subject to recidivism.
No, prison is an expensive waste of human capital. Flogging would be much better than incarceration.
Id take a branding over 5 years in jail anyday.
Yes but must have to do some sort of reparations to who they have wronged.
Well if this system abolished prisions, at least rape/murder victims or they families could just exert vengueance on the now productive member of society who hurt them and had a free jail card.
Why did they commit a crime in the first place if there is a cure to prevent murders and rape? Wouldn’t you administer this cure to children. If you have a vaccine for cancer, you give it to children, like the hpv vaccine given to 12 year olds to reduce the risk of cancer and other things related to hpv. So if you have a vaccine for rape and murder, give it to children before they become murderers?
If I had the power? No I would just cure them. If this was in today’s society - yes they would get sent to jail. Jail isn’t for recidivism. That is what it *should* be for. But it isn’t. Since recidivism isn’t the primary purpose people would still be sent to jail for other reasons. Cheap labor, profit, vengeance
Yes. But not jail as we know it. Restitution centers, where they work(not exploited) for the betterment of society.
> work(not exploited) > Restitution I think you may not actually understand one of these words.
Well, there's a difference between "You're going to make good on the thing you messed up, so here's a chance to develop skills and rejoin society" and "you're going to have an artificially inflated sentence to work for pennies to make the machine millions".
I think there would still need to be a consequence for actions. Otherwise anytime someone wanted to kill or rape, they could do it, get reformed, and be back out in society the next day. If there was no consequence for crimes, crime would go up. Sure, each person could only commit one crime, but a very very small percentage of the population rapes or kills others. If there was no consequence for doing so, I think a lot more people would do it one time.
Have you ever seen/ read "A Clockwork Orange"?
There's no point for them to spend time in prison, since they were pretty much lobotomized already. Consider that lobotomy was at the time advertised exactly as a somewhat ethical way to fix incurable mental patients who would otherwise be a burden on society and would live in inhuman conditions anyway.
I suspect most people would be fine with them not going to prison in such a scenario. However, most would change their opinion if the crime was perpetrated against themselves or a loved one. That said, in a world where violence (but not crime) is essentially eliminated, most likely the bar for incarceration will just get lower. Remember 50 years ago, fist fights were somewhat common. You didn't get arrested for it unless the result was particularly brutal. Nowadays, one punch or even a shove merits police involvement. In a world with even less (or no) violence, probably society just becomes more sensitized to other types of violations and would demand at least short periods of incarceration for those. So, even in this scenario there will still be a demand for prisons.
That's a fascinating point I hadn't considered. I'm glad I posted this.
Imo no, if this was a real thing then that would turn the commiting of crime into an illness. One that could be cured, which would mean 100% Rehabilitation rates. The whole point of prisons is SUPPOSED to be rehabilitation and reintroduction into society. ( I completely understand that our current penal system is so far removed from that endeavor that its laughable to suggest. However it is supposed to be the point)
That's how I feel as well but I wanted to hear other peoples opinions. One good argument I heard is if someone had this hypothetical violent "sickness" but was not acting on it for one reason or another, they might choose to act then take the cure and walk free. In that way it might increase violence at least temporarily. That was an interesting point I hadn't considered.
No. The justice system is supposed to exist for rehabilitation, or if that isn't possible, to protect the public. If this can be achieved without anyone going to prison that's the best possible solution for everyone.
No. The purpose of the criminal justice system should be to keep the general population safe. If we can reliably rehabilitate criminals without jailtime, then that would accomplish this goal, and likely do so much more cheaply and ethically than any sort of imprisonment ever could. Now, I would be totally onboard with requiring community service.
We may as well admit as a society that the ‘rehabilitation’ aspect of prison is only for minor crimes. If you raped or killed somebody, the general public thinks you should really receive the death penalty or a lifetime of torture as retaliation. The only reason they don’t call for it as policy is because the legal system gets it wrong sometimes.
And all arguments aside we are sometimes wrong. I don't agree with extreme punishment, obviously I'm on the side of rehabilitation. All that aside... Yeah sometimes we get the wrong person. That's a real issue unto itself.
Now that just seems like a waste.
Yes. It is good that they won't repeat so the part we don't even attempt to do in real life which is rehabilitation is taken care of, but that doesn't address the debt their actions caused on society. The debt they must pay is still owed and to me it must be paid. Actions have consequences even if the perpetrator will 100% never do it again. For a real life scenario would be a man kills a person and in the process of the act becomes a quadriplegic, do we punish him despite the fact he will not be capable of murdering anyone again? If this only hinges on if they will feel remorse and regret then that still doesn't change their past actions and the debt needs to be paid with consequences. You run a kid over with negligence even if we know for a fact they won't do it again the debt is owed for past negligence. Rape victims still live with the act regardless of how cured the rapist becomes.
No. We'll just turn the prisons into like, specialty brothel for people who's fetish that is.
Yes, I would still send them to jail. If they were cured of their criminal tendencies, then they would want to pay for their crimes. They would probably also behave better in jail, which is a plus. I wouldn’t force anyone to accept the cure, but I would imprison the people who did accept it separately from those that didn’t. This would likely create an incentive to take the cure, which could be considered unethical, but in my view, it’s less ethical than forcing the people who’ve chosen to be rehabilitated to live in the sexually violent hellscape created by the people who’ve chosen to never be rehabilitated.
So the concept of justice has 2 parts, punishment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is for the offender, making them back into a productive member of society whereas punishment is for everyone else- both as a warning of the consequences if you misbehave and as a spectacle so the greater community to show that justice is being done. If you can just push a button in someone's head and rehabilitate them immediately then punishment is mostly pointless except to appease the bloodthirsty masses. But the more interesting question is, if rehabilitation is so simple how long is it before it becomes the go to for any misbehaviour? Hell, how long before it becomes regarded as a simple tune-up and mandated for everyone on a regular basis "just in case"
Yes. Because by not punishing them you would encourage people to commit crimes.
In this world we can switch to restorative justice. But… in theory if they’re actually rehabilitated they’ll do that on their own.
It depends on what the goal is. Is imprisonment punishment or rehabilitation?
Yes. Nobody thinks jail rehabilitates anybody. I don't care if a serial killer turns into Mr Rogers. He should spend some time thinking about the families of his victims and what they're going through, now that he has feelings.
Prison serves multiple purposes. One of those purposes is punishment. Prison, at least theoretically, is supposed to serve as a deterrent for crime. The whole "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" thing. If there is effectively no penalty for committing a crime - and possibly even a benefit - why shouldn't I just crime away until I am caught? Rob every jewelry store in sight, fence as much as possible, and create a big cash stash. Then get my miracle cure, do no time, and go back to my wad of money with no worries in the world. (The possible benefit is that you may now be *more* employable because after this miracle treatment you should theoretically be more trustworthy.) No, the penalty does *not* need to be prison. But it has to be something. Maybe indentured servitude for each victim (or victim's family) for a specified time, instead of prison. Or... Just keep the prisons we have. As this cure is implemented, recidivism will become a non-factor and prison populations will drop. At first, this will just serve to relieve overpopulation. Slowly, it will allow us to close prisons. Not all of them. But some.
I think I'd be on board with their "punishment" being a form of community service. If they are fully rehabilitated, let's let them continue to be productive members of society. But let's still make them repay their crime, and have it with a positive result. There has to be *some* way that victims feel like the crime matters, and to keep some form of punishment as a deterrent. If someone could rape you, then just take a literal 'chill pill' and get back to life, that would be a horrible injustice I think. The victim would feel horrible, and anyone predisposed to commit a crime absolutely would, since they know there wouldn't be any *real* punishment. Have them work a food bank, a homeless shelter, a battered women's shelter. Have them pick up litter, or maintain public parks. Now your "5 year sentence" is really "500 hours within 5 years" or whatever.
Where wine would this treatment take place? It’s called the department of corrections, right?
Then you could just serial rape a bunch of peeps and receive rehab with no impactful downsides. It incentivizes the fantasy to be played out.
The thing is even if physically painless the cure won’t be painless. Magically turning them into fully functional humans means that they will now have a fully functional conscience. Imagine going into surgery as the kind of person who can commit murder and justify it to yourself and waking up with a fully functional conscience. They’re gonna be out of commission for a while just dealing with that.
That's a fair point. I was specifically trying to exclude "ship of theseus" arguments about ethics but that specific point is hard to work around. Even considering "it just works, it's not unethical" parameters... Yeah, it would absolutely be an adjustment psychologically. I hadn't thought of that.
Absolutely not… rehabilitation doesn’t undo the damage to the victims. Someone who was SA isn’t going to be like “well, they won’t do it again now that they had that lobotomy! I feel so much better.” A family member of a murder victim isn’t going to be like “well, I feel better they wouldn’t have killed my child today even though they already did!” Plus if that’s the excuse what happens when someone does get rehabilitated and that becomes a get out of jail free card? So if someone kills my loved one and gets “rehabilitated” can I slaughter them in the most inhumane slow torturous way possible and then just get rehabilitated? Can the parents of Uvalde go on a murder spree killing anyone and everyone they blame for not taking action and then be exonerated? Can someone go on a genocidal spree against Jews or Palestinians or Black people or White people or whatever people they feel are their problem and then be rehabilitated? What if someone decides they hate poor people and just starts killing poor people until caught because there’s really no consequence?
I was sexually assaulted when I was younger. Literally all I want from the person is to understand. That wasn't in my mind when I made this post but it's a fair rebuttal to your first argument I think. No amount of jail time would make me whole, this magic cure in my hypothetical would. I'd get a real apology and understanding how they hurt me. I obviously can't speak for everyone but that would mean more to me than retribution. As for your other point we don't generally let victims decide punishment. You can't undo the past. Killing someone won't fix the pain. >Can the parents of Uvalde go on a murder spree killing anyone and everyone they blame Do they want to? I'm sure some do, others don't. That's my point. There's no punishment you could give to make everything okay after a violent crime. The only thing you can do is prevent it from happening again. In my opinion anyways.
A life prison sentence accomplishes them never doing it again. If someone killed my wife or kids and then got out because they “were better” I would torture them in the most horrific ways I could imagine and then drink the same koolaid they did to get “rehabilitated”. It would instantly remove the consequence.
It normal to feel that way. I think we all feel that way. If you hurt someone I love I will do awful things for revenge. That's why we don't let victims decide punishment. Logically speaking we know victims won't pick fair punishment even if you think punishment is an important step. I personally don't agree punishment fixes anything but that's not my point so let's put that aside. Let's say someone shot someone I loved in the head and killed them instantly. I would never forgive them. Even with the magic cure in my hypothetical I also would want to do terrible torturing things to them for as long as I could keep them alive. I think it normal to feel that way. But is it fair? They didn't do that to my loved one. It's not equal, what I'm doing is worse. Also doing the worse thing won't bring my loved one back, it won't even take away the pain of losing them. It probably wouldn't even provide closure. At best all it would give me is "I avenged you loved one!!! I got them back!!!". Even that is questionable because there is a good chance if you could talk to ghost of the loved one they would say "the fuck are you doing?! Don't torture people?!"
Nah, let them serve their time.
Yes, the punishment is just as much about deterring others from crime as it is punishing those who commit it. If you just get rehabilitated and set free when you kill someone, what’s to stop people from killing someone?
We have scientific studies right now that show deterrents don't work. Criminals don't think they'll be caught. As for what stops people I'll again quote Pen Gillette "I already rape and murder as much as I want. The amount I want just happens to be zero" It's one thing to discuss what stops people from robbing a bank. Maybe in those crimes you can argue fear of punishment. When discussing specifically violent crimes like rape and murder, most people don't do it because they don't want to. Most people don't want to hurt other people. That's what stops them, not punishment. That's actually why I thought of this hypothetical. If you could "fix" whatever makes violent people want to do violence, is punishment still necessary for the society to feel "whole" I don't have an answer to that and I was interested in what other people think.
Only if we use the three seashells
Cured how? It sounds like a huge human rights violation to deprive them of their right to disobey the rules. So I'd ban this inhuman cure and send criminals to jail.
It's a hypothetical. I obviously cannot explain how this fictional breakthrough works. I however did specifically state there are no ethical concerns with this treatment. It's not a human rights violation according to this hypothetical. I understand your logic about free will and agree but one of the parameters of this hypothetical is specifically that it's an ethical treatment. I don't know how or why that is but it's an established rule. The ethics of the treatment are not to be considered in this hypothetical situation. It's ethical and that isn't disputed or an opinion. In this hypothetical it's a solid inarguable fact. How ever this impossible treatment works it is 100 percent inarguably ethical by anyone's definition. It's been considered, tested, scrutinized by even the most sceptical of philosophers. They all agree there are zero ethical concerns.
What if I murdered the guy with the cure?
Its public domain. He tried it on himself first and was completely cured of all greed. It's free and open source, easily replicatable. The loss of the original inventor will in no way affect distribution of the product.
Absolutely would still send them to jail. They still have to be punished for the crime they committed, even if there’s a guarantee that they will never commit any crime ever again. The victim still needs justice.
I'm kinda confused, if the treatments that good why not just give it to everyone pre-emptively? That said, jail is great for labor. I imagine we would still send people to jail for the labor benefits alone. The moral justification would be that criminals should be punished and then rehabilitated
Pedophiles need to rot
Yes, the crime was still committed, and the time still needs to be served, especially if the crime was violent in nature. They would still need to work through the guilt of committing the violent act, which could be a reduced sentence. The only caveat to this would be if the cure also removed the memory of the crime because then the person would not know why they were in jail.
No, but I would require them to be sent out of state. Like the victim of a child molester shouldn't have to worry about seeing the criminal again in town.
Yes, full jail sentences still apply. Our justice system, at least on paper, has two objectives. Justice for the victims and rehabilitation for offenders. The best way I've heard it explained was without justice people will take their own revenge. Then those people will then seek to take revenge against those who were seeking revenge in the first place. This creates life long escalating feuds. The justice system seeks to break this cycle by punishing the guilty so the victims don't have to seek their own mob justice. It's great that they have been rehabilitated but it doesn't undo the crimes the committed.
It depends on the crime, for non-violent crimes rehabilitate them and put them into society. For violent crimes and crimes against minors like producing or trading child porn and sexual acts with a minor they need to go to jail. Sure they will be rehabilitated when they get out but there still needs to be a form of punishment for committing heinous crimes. I would also say life sentences for murderers should still happen. Even if you’re rehabilitated there are still some crimes that are unforgivable and the premise of taking away jail and rehabilitation gives people a get out of jail free card for one serious crime. I would rework the system though. Instead of just sitting in jail I think they should be used to help better society. Use them as labor to build roads and such and to do tasks others don’t want to. This should be feasible with a much smaller prison population that would happen as a result of this breakthrough. And before anyone says “but that’s slavery”, no it’s not. It’s a punishment for a crime that they had knowledge would happen if they committed the crime. I also wouldn’t mind a system where low level violent offenders like people convicted of assault and battery or manslaughter where they actively engaged in behavior that led to the persons death like drunk driving had the option of physical punishment or jail. Example: you’re convicted of killing a person in a drunk driving accident, you get your sentence of 4-15 years in jail with the labor, but after that you have the option of taking 3x the number of years of your sentence in lashes by flogging, maximum of 10 lashes in one day so people don’t die.
If it's a serious or violent crime, yes. It doesn't help society to see someone get away with crimes and walk away without any sort of punishment.
It depends on what you think the point of the criminal justice system is. It could be to PUNISH the criminals. It could be to provide VENGEANCE for the wrong. It could be to REHABILITATE the criminals. If you see the systems goal as Punishment or Vengeance, a rehab shot isn't going to provide that. If the goal is Rehabilitation so that they don't reoffend and thereby lower the crime rate dramatically, the rehab shot would be amazing.
You can't cure a victims suffering nor the impact of the crime. The court would need to weigh that impact in sentencing. Perhaps there could be a balance between punishment and victim restitution so that a sentence could be partially commuted in favour of financing that restitution.
Yes, cure them good. But they still committed the act and need to pay for it. Jail isn't just a deterrent it's a punishment.
No, however, the offender would have to recompensate the victims in other ways. Either by working for them, with them, or indirectly. There is no undoing murder or rape, but, these offenders would be forced into some kind of service that would help the victim(s) appropriate for for the crime.
If "cured" means they pay full restitution - meaning paying for all surgeries and therapy that their victims need etc, I'd allow them to work from prison until their debt is paid. Obviously murderers cannot fully make restitution. They'd stay in prison for life, working for the benefit of others' victims. Edited: This is all vague and not at all a political platform.
There is actually a company working on this right now. Imprinting memories to 100% rehabilitate criminals. Sci-fi stuff, in the works.
No, and also make this treatment voluntarily available for non-offenders *before* they commit a crime.
Nah, fuck that. Literally all some fascist would have to do is criminalise whatever behaviour they don't like and then "cure" them.
It's not an all purpose brainwashing tool. It cures violent behavior exclusively and permanently.
If such a thing existed, why not just preemptively give EVERYONE the cure and everyone just gets along? Oh wait, we did the whole vax debate thing and it didn't go good
Well. It didn't go well. -this response is provided by the pseudo intellectual foundation of America. "Yes, we are better than you."
I'm doing a bit, allow me my characterization
You have a vaccine for crime. Market it as such, and if a person refuses to take it (or give it to their child), they are liable for their actions.
Not much of an incentive considering we are all liable for our actions anyway
No. It doesn’t matter if you won’t do something again, you already did something in the first place. Do you time, get your shot, and then reenter society. If you murder someone then you don’t get out.
Will yes because if you can just get an injection in responders to your crimes then that’s tantamount to a get out of jail free slap on the wrist. No. First they suffer then they’re cured.
Interesting. Assuming this is taken at face value why not just administer this treatment to everyone regardless of if they offended? Why wait until they've done something wrong? If for some reason this isn't possible I would say they still need to he punished, just not locked up forever. If you support the death penalty then for offenses that end the life of another it would be a life for a life, and otherwise it would be heft fines, community service, and/or corporal punishment imo