The reformed killer scenario

[Safe-Keeper]

I felt this thought experiment deserved its own thread.
You can catch up on the idea of the reformed killer scenario here, as laid out by my favourite philosopher (slightly NSFW):

Basically, let's say someone has tortured an entire family to death, but has then been given a treatment that magically ensures they'll never even want to commit evil again. The question, as stated by Jason 'David Wong' Pargin, is: Would you still imprison or kill the murderer? And more importantly, why or why not?

If you choose yes, would it be to 'get even', to deter others, because of a moral obligation to their victims? Other reasons?

Personally... I think we actually make this choice in reality all the time. Say someone commits some horrible crime in a state of psychosis. When they come out of that state, they're basically not the same person they were when they committed the murders, so... Why punish them? At least in Norway, we keep them locked up until we are as certain as can be that they're no longer dangerous, then we set them free. IMHO, that's basically a real-world version of the reformed killer scenario, except with less certainty, of course.

So... I guess set the reformed killer free, although perhaps with restrictions on where they can travel so that the loved ones of the dead won't have to keep running into them?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Wow.
That guy, intentionally or not, got pretty much everything wrong, didn't he?

For starters, the ENTIRE reason for any Justice System is to take the process out of the hands of the victims, as to prevent an endless "eye-for-an-eye" scenario that leaves everyone blind.

The price for living in a State of Laws is that mine will never be the deciding vote in how transgressors against me are punished.

Secondly, the "treatment" is, of course, utterly flawed, as it actually encouragea crimes.
Which brings me to the third point:

In such a system, if my rage is not dealt with another way, I wouldn't waste a year of my life and resources to plan how to get away with murder.
I would kidnap the guy, his current girlfriend and pet, and proceed to brutally torture and kill them, leaving him for last.

Then I would volunteer for the Treatment getting both revenge and absolution.

 

[theprestige]

For me it's less about whether they'll kill again, and more about whether they'll get the consequences they deserve for having killed the first time.

It's a metaphysical certainty that Caleb Flynn isn't going to murder his wife Ashley in her sleep again. But it does not, for me, follow from that fact that he should be set free on the basis of "one time thing, won't happen again".

Repentance, forgiveness, and permanent consequences do not conflict with each other in my moral framework. For me, the acme of reformation is the killer who repents of his killing, truly transforms into someone who will never kill again, and who willingly accepts the forfeiture of his life as a just consequence for taking the life of another the way he did.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Having read a lot of Pargin, I'm quite sure that he's not remotely serious with the question.

 

[Thermal]

If we are going to invoke and rely on magic in a hypothetical, why not just magically not have had the crime commited in the first place? Hypotheticals need to be grounded in reality to test if they have legs.

Also, when we have a testing procedure where we can reliably determine if a psychopath is safe to release back into the population, let me know.

 

[ahhell]

My immediate reaction is yes they should be imprisoned but...

I think the number one goal of a justice/penal system should be public safety. To use ThePrestige's example, Flynn may not kill that wife again but he might get married and kill another wife. This would address public safety. I suppose it could be argued that not punishing them in some way would leave a lot of folks in society feeling that justice has not been done and they may be motivated to do it themselves.

On deterrence for public safety, my understanding is the evidence suggests that perceived chance of being punished is what matters and not severity of punishment, so that's basically not even relevant to this question. Also state of mind of the killer. The guy who flies of the handle and kills his wife in a fit of rage, can't be deterred really, the guy that plans the murder ahead of time, probably can. Back to Caleb Flynn, his certain punishment might deter other folks from murdering their partners in similar situations.

I think Zaganza the Great makes some very good points.

ETA: Thermal has a good point too, there are some folks that will pretty much always be a threat to public safety, they need to be kept away from the rest of us.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

If we are going to invoke and rely on magic in a hypothetical, why not just magically not have had the crime commited in the first place? Hypotheticals need to be grounded in reality to test if they have legs.

Also, when we have a testing procedure where we can reliably determine if a psychopath is safe to release back into the population, let me know.

Yup, we can "hypothetical" away any inconvenient aspects of a situation.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Assessing psychopaths is beyond tricky; psychotic murderers, i.e. those who incontrovertably committed murder during a psychotic episode, are another matter, as compliance with medication is a long-standing and unsolved issue, so "treatment" is a limited concept; the "crime of passion" or whatever type of murder does not predict whether someone will have another "crime of passion" involving another person, as they have already displayed a propensity for that loss of control.

One person's "reformed" is another person's "have you done the proper assessment and done it accurately?"

 

[Thermal]

Yup, we can "hypothetical" away any inconvenient aspects of a situation.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Assessing psychopaths is beyond tricky; psychotic murderers, i.e. those who incontrovertably committed murder during a psychotic episode, are another matter, as compliance with medication is a long-standing and unsolved issue, so "treatment" is a limited concept; the "crime of passion" or whatever type of murder does not predict whether someone will have another "crime of passion" involving another person, as they have already displayed a propensity for that loss of control.

One person's "reformed" is another person's "have you done the proper assessment and done it accurately?"

Yeah. It is said that almost any person can kill, given the right circumstances, and I'm inclined to agree. But I think it takes a different animal to murder under any circumstances, and I'm not sure we know enough about the humans to know what might set a murderer off again.

 

[theprestige]

For me it's a lot like the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. There doesn't have to be only one reason. In fact, it's probably more realistic, and better for everyone, if there are more reasons instead of fewer. Was it about winning the war with an absolute minimum further risk to American lives? Yes. Was it about securing an unconditional surrender in the shortest time possible? Yes. Was it about putting Moscow on notice? Yes. Was it about all of this and more? Yes, and a good thing, too. Lots of good was accomplished, in a lot of different areas, by commitment to this one policy.

Same with criminal justice. Is it about reform and rehabilitation? Yes. Is it about just consequences? Yes. Is it about public safety? Yes. Ignore any of those three, and you end up with a vastly inferior system.

 

[ahhell]

Getting old, tonight I played basketball for less than 10 minutes and now I'm limping. Nothing other than basketball happened to cause this.

 

[The Atheist]

Basically, let's say someone has tortured an entire family to death, but has then been given a treatment that magically ensures they'll never even want to commit evil again.

Sounds like someone watched A Clockwork Orange for the first time.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is this like the philosophical question of "is it moral to torture someone if they will retain no memory of it afterward"?

 

[Darat]

Is this like the philosophical question of "is it moral to torture someone if they will retain no memory of it afterward"?

A philosophical question that our emergency services have adopted the answer "yes" as SOP !

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Having read a lot of Pargin, I'm quite sure that he's not remotely serious with the question.

Oh, good. Then I'm sure you have also pontificated on the quandry of the Axe of Theseus. Is the reanimated Neo-Nazi thug with a new head right when he looks at your weapon and says that's the axe that killed him, when in fact both the head and handle of the axe has been replaced at some point?

For some reason we never got into the truly deep moral and philosophical questions like this in ex-phil.

If we are going to invoke and rely on magic in a hypothetical, why not just magically not have had the crime commited in the first place?

You can, but that's kind of like hearing 'if all your friends jumped off a cliff...' and replying it's a stupid hypothetical because none of your friends would jump off cliffs.

Hypotheticals need to be grounded in reality to test if they have legs.

Eh. Not really. The story of the monkey's paw involves a cursed paw that makes wishes come true and it still works excellently as a metaphor.

Wow.
That guy, intentionally or not, got pretty much everything wrong, didn't he?

For starters, the ENTIRE reason for any Justice System is to take the process out of the hands of the victims, as to prevent an endless "eye-for-an-eye" scenario that leaves everyone blind.

The price for living in a State of Laws is that mine will never be the deciding vote in how transgressors against me are punished.

I mean, if we're going to quibble I might as well say you actually do since you probably live in a democracy where you have a say in how criminal justice works.

Secondly, the "treatment" is, of course, utterly flawed, as it actually encouragea crimes.
Which brings me to the third point:

In such a system, if my rage is not dealt with another way, I wouldn't waste a year of my life and resources to plan how to get away with murder.
I would kidnap the guy, his current girlfriend and pet, and proceed to brutally torture and kill them, leaving him for last.

Then I would volunteer for the Treatment getting both revenge and absolution.

I'm not sure how much of any of that, including your disturbing fascination with violence, answers the question in the OP, but okay.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't understand the problem.

You ask Jesus to forgive you and all is good.

 

[theprestige]

Is this like the philosophical question of "is it moral to torture someone if they will retain no memory of it afterward"?

It's a lot more like the philosophical question of "is it moral to deny freedom to someone who murdered, but who has credibly repented of that killing and reformed their murderous ways?"

Because, you know, the question being asked is always the question most like the question being asked.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The guy who wrote Amazing Grace was a miserable ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ bastard before he saw the light. So even the worst are capable of reform.

 

[jrhowell]

There needs to be some sort of consequence in order to act as a deterrent to others who might wish to commit similar crimes. Perhaps giving up their possessions and devoting their remaining lifetime to community service. After the treatment they should be willing to do it.

 

[Thermal]

You can, but that's kind of like hearing 'if all your friends jumped off a cliff...' and replying it's a stupid hypothetical because none of your friends would jump off cliffs.

It very often *is* a strawman argument, yeah.

Eh. Not really. The story of the monkey's paw involves a cursed paw that makes wishes come true and it still works excellently as a metaphor.

It does, briefly summed up as 'be careful what you wish for' and unintended results and all that. But we are not talking about metaphors.

So your OP basically asks what purpose prolonged incarceration serves. In Norway, y'all turn them loose on the streets if you think they are totally safe now. No harm, no foul, right?

In the part of my post you took the extra time to snip out, I addressed that pretty squarely. How do you know when a psycho is safe? And if he's not a psycho, but someone who is just ok with the occasional murder... that's even worse, because he wouldn't be trying to deceive the parole board like a psycho would. He doesn't even know himself that he would murder again, given the right circumstances.

I guess tha answer to your OP posit is twofold: first, "it depends". A woman who murders her abusive husband might be found guilty of Murder 2 (heat of passion). She might very well be safe to let out after a bit of lockup. Another guy might have tortured and murdered as Saturday night entertainment. He is not likely ever going to be trusted to be safe again, no matter how convincing his maudlin tears of repentence and remorse are.

The second answer to the OP is the question: "what is incarceration actually for?" which theprestige and others have hit pretty well. Do you think that murderers should forfeit some of their freedom as the consequence of... you know... ending someone else's life for their own benefit?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The problem of the OP questions is that they made it personal - which it should never be if we are asking about a general principle, not a one-time decision.

If it turns out (as I highly doubt) that the treatment leads to better results to society as a whole, then that's what society should do, adding some lengthy counseling and support for the victims.
But the close relatives of the victims are the last persons you should ask or take counsel from.