Gedankenexperiment and Poll

[Rufo]

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

You don't like frosting? I'll try to remember that if I ever post a cake recipe here...

I get your point, you see before you me as the judge telling the killer: "Here's the family of the kids you raped and ripped out the intestines of. You don't want to do that again, do you?"
Killer: "Noooo."
Me: "Now, please apologize."
Killer: *hangs head* "Sorry."

Well, my point is simply that if the killer feels remorse for what he's done and can view that to the ones effected by his crime (by for example apologizing), then those people would not be as apt to try some kind of personal revenge. Most would view the situation in one of these ways:
1. The killer is still there, but he now feels remorse for his actions. (Most people can imagine that once you feel the impact of a crime like that, that would be punishment enough.)
2. The person who commited the crime is not there anymore, because the person I see now could never have done it.

I suppose it was the associatons from "Clockwork Orange" that got me started thinking about this. There's a difference between making the person morally change their mind about whether or not the crime is "right", and simply "blocking" it. I basically wanted to know what this treatment did.

It's possible most people wouldn't care at all, but I'd certainly feel better.

 

[Zep]

He should be treated, THEN ALSO sent back to his home planet to face the music.

While he would no longer be predisposed to the crime, he would presumably still be aware that he did it. So punishment would indeed follow.

Incidentally, offing all those untold numbers of heinous criminals in the past (burnt at the stake, hung drawn and quartered, electrocuted, gassed, garrotted, beheaded, etc, etc) does not seem to have put the brakes on anyone else committing their same heinous crimes over and over again since then. So the use of punishment as a deterrent to others seems to be a completely fallacious notion, long since comprehensively disproved.

 

[PenguinWarrior]

He should be treated, THEN ALSO sent back to his home planet to face the music.

While he would no longer be predisposed to the crime, he would presumably still be aware that he did it. So punishment would indeed follow.

Incidentally, offing all those untold numbers of heinous criminals in the past (burnt at the stake, hung drawn and quartered, electrocuted, gassed, garrotted, beheaded, etc, etc) does not seem to have put the brakes on anyone else committing their same heinous crimes over and over again since then. So the use of punishment as a deterrent to others seems to be a completely fallacious notion, long since comprehensively disproved.

Your logic is wrong, sorry. Just because SOME have not been deterred, does not mean that ALL have not been deterred.

Also I disagree with your choice, if you don't believe that punishment has a deterrent effect (I do, though probably not with crimes of this magnitude. Has there ever been a case where someone was so completely screwed up as to be a serial killer, but was still capable of thinking in a long term way about the consequences of killing so that they decided not to in order to avoid prison? I doubt it.), and the person no longer is a danger to society, what's the point of punishing? Surely that's just a pointless act of revenge? What does anybody get out of it?

 

[davefoc]

I have a few problems with the premise.

If I vote for treat is it possible that is going to encourage more crime on the planet that I am the guest of? Will some humans be more likely to commit crimes because I decide to set this guy go? I saw the argument that suggested that there was still a deterrent because there was always a chance that the criminal would face punishment, but if I vote for treatment I am part of the group reducing the likelyhood of punishment and thereby I am part of the group which undermines deterrence.


The second thing that I would like to understand is to what degree free will plays a role in this kind of crime. If an individual is born sociopathic, was he predestined to commit this kind of crime? Is it justice to punish an individual whose inherent nature caused the crime?

On the other hand, we are humans, and part of our nature is to seek vengence on the criminals in our midst. Is it rational to act counter to our human/animal instincts to rid our societies of the most evil by killing them? That desire didn't happen by accident in us, I suspect, it is the method that evolved to rid our societies of the most non-empathetic, anti-soical individuals. What are the long term effects of attempting to fail to act to rid society of the most anti-social. Tex Watson, one of the Manson murderers, managed to father three children while he was in jail. Is society better because society's liberal notions won out in this case and Watson was allowed the freedom to procreate?

 

[chriswl]

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

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

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

Please stop implying I haven't read the OP. I have, several times and I understand it.

Its not a "fallacy" that the treatment option would reduce deterrence. And I'm not prepared to rely on other people behaving differently to fix the problem because if I'm allowed to do that then the problem becomes a trivial one of how vengeful you feel and there is no dilemma at all.

As far as I am concerned, the only justification for punishment is deterrence. By your logic, if I was a judge I could quite happily let all the guilty go free on the grounds that most of my fellow judges would not behave in this way, so deterrence would be preserved. This is the same reasoning that leads people to not vote on the grounds that one vote can't make any difference. I'm sorry but I don't think like that.

 

[Ladewig]

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

I always read reports of 'the courts' finding someone like Dahmer or Gacey legally "sane" with gob-smacked awe. How could anyone who is not completely out of their gourds (to use the medical terminology) have performed the deeds they'd done?

I am a non-theist. I agree that Dahmers and Gaceys are sick, but I am not yet convinced that all murderers are sick. What is the reasoning that led you to the assumption that all murderers are sick?

 

[mumchup]

I always read reports of 'the courts' finding someone like Dahmer or Gacey legally "sane" with gob-smacked awe. How could anyone who is not completely out of their gourds (to use the medical terminology) have performed the deeds they'd done?

That's because "legally insane" doesn't just mean "crazy". You are responsible for your own actions even if you're a sociopath or a psychopath. In order to be considered "legally insane", it must be proven that you didn't understand that what you were doing is illegal (that you didn't understand right from wrong.)

 

[Roboramma]

Clearly the treatment option is working out okay for this alien civilization, and my choice to for treatment or punishment isn't going to change their system at all.
Given that, I say treatment.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I am a non-theist. I agree that Dahmers and Gaceys are sick, but I am not yet convinced that all murderers are sick. What is the reasoning that led you to the assumption that all murderers are sick?

I didn't say "all murderers are sick". I was referring to the Dahmer-esque critter in the OP who sounds pretty much like Dahmer and Gacey to me.

 

[Foolmewunz]

That's because "legally insane" doesn't just mean "crazy". You are responsible for your own actions even if you're a sociopath or a psychopath. In order to be considered "legally insane", it must be proven that you didn't understand that what you were doing is illegal (that you didn't understand right from wrong.)

Sorry - I know the difference. I should've put "legally" in quotes instead of "sane". My bad.
That's the point I'm making - that the legal system could have a set of values so different from the human set.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Please stop implying I haven't read the OP. I have, several times and I understand it.

Its not a "fallacy" that the treatment option would reduce deterrence. And I'm not prepared to rely on other people behaving differently to fix the problem because if I'm allowed to do that then the problem becomes a trivial one of how vengeful you feel and there is no dilemma at all.

As far as I am concerned, the only justification for punishment is deterrence. By your logic, if I was a judge I could quite happily let all the guilty go free on the grounds that most of my fellow judges would not behave in this way, so deterrence would be preserved. This is the same reasoning that leads people to not vote on the grounds that one vote can't make any difference. I'm sorry but I don't think like that.

So? You're saying you believe in deterrence. I do not. Ergo, If I was to take deterrence into the equation, I'd have to add a third condition...
Theist or Non-theist: Punish if you believe in deterrence.

Fair enough. I'd let that slip by. (My own egocentricity, obviously.)