The reformed killer scenario

[Thermal]

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

Is the game of basketball sufficiently remorseful to be released back into society?

 

[ahhell]

Is the game of basketball sufficiently remorseful to be released back into society?

man, wrong thread!

 

[theprestige]

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 think this is a good example of a question that can be reasonably left unanswered, as an exercise for each individual community to answer to their own collective satisfaction, according to their own values and in the context of their own idea of how to maintain their own civil society.

If the Norwegians think they can tell, fine. We don't need to argue with them about that. It's entirely separate from the more universal question of moral philosophy - should it make a difference to our judgement?

 

[Darat]

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

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?

...snip...

I wouldn't be surprised if they have a similar system to the UK, which is that after a serious crime such as murder if you are released you will be "released on licence" for the rest of your life, you are considered to be still serving your sentence. Licence conditions can vary but as a minimum it means any new arrestable offence will put you automatically back in jail with no bail. Other conditions will be reporting to a probation officer, informing them of your address (the address must be considered suitable), there may be curfew terms, may be GPS tagging, usually travel restrictions, can't have a passport and so on. So released from prison doesn't necessary mean "free".

 

[Thermal]

I wouldn't be surprised if they have a similar system to the UK, which is that after a serious crime such as murder if you are released you will be "released on licence" for the rest of your life, you are considered to be still serving your sentence. Licence conditions can vary but as a minimum it means any new arrestable offence will put you automatically back in jail with no bail. Other conditions will be reporting to a probation officer, informing them of your address (the address must be considered suitable), there may be curfew terms, may be GPS tagging, usually travel restrictions, can't have a passport and so on. So released from prison doesn't necessary mean "free".

We have the same system in the US. called being released on parole.

Eta: But they are still loose on the streets, pretty much, at least as opposed to being in a cage. They can kill if they set their minds to it, but it will likely be easier to apprehend them.

 

[Thermal]

If the Norwegians think they can tell, fine. We don't need to argue with them about that. It's entirely separate from the more universal question of moral philosophy - should it make a difference to our judgement?

I think that's what OP is asking, whether other nations, like the US, can justify any real point to lengthy incarceration? Perhaps he thinks it's an ill-conceived knee-jerk response?

 

[theprestige]

I think that's what OP is asking, whether other nations, like the US, can justify any real point to lengthy incarceration? Perhaps he thinks it's an ill-conceived knee-jerk response?

I think even a lot of Americans might be surprised at how hard a criminal has to work, to see serious prison time.

My impression is that we tend to front-load our leniency, giving many "second chances" at probation, time served, and short "wake up call" jail time, before finally imposing serious consequences.

Violent offenders in Multnomah County, OR enjoy a generous revolving door policy, courtesy of the sheriff, the prosecutor and the court. The only violent criminals doing hard time are the ones who have already exhausted an absurd number of opportunities to reform.

Obviously this varies a bit by jurisdiction. Texas courts honor ICE detainers, for example. Oregon courts, not so much. But even Texas courts favor deferred adjudication over conviction and prison time.

 

[Thermal]

I think even a lot of Americans might be surprised at how hard a criminal has to work, to see serious prison time.

My impression is that we tend to front-load our leniency, giving many "second chances" at probation, time served, and short "wake up call" jail time, before finally imposing serious consequences.

Violent offenders in Multnomah County, OR enjoy a generous revolving door policy, courtesy of the sheriff, the prosecutor and the court. The only violent criminals doing hard time are the ones who have already exhausted an absurd number of opportunities to reform.

Obviously this varies a bit by jurisdiction. Texas courts honor ICE detainers, for example. Oregon courts, not so much. But even Texas courts favor deferred adjudication over conviction and prison time.

I think that leads into a more complex equation of the economics. Although I'd agree that our system can be (arguably) more accommodating than most people realize.

 

[bruto]

The whole scenario smacks of the current habit of public officials "taking responsibility" for their mistakes but meaning that once they've admitted to them, it's someone else's fault if we don't move on and forget them.

Of course this is another problem like so many that is so theoretical and divorced from reality that it's essentially impossible to answer well, but I would submit that if the person in question were actually "reformed" in a real and useful sense, and given that in the scenario here, his memory and other personal traits remain, at least some of that reformation would consist of accepting responsibility for what he did. I think if I found I had done something as horrific as the scenario suggests, seeking acquittal would be a sign that I was not fully reformed. Once upon a time in some societies, repentance for such a dishonor would likely be suicide. In a crime where there is some hope of reparation or compensation, I could see some future leniency, but overall, we are penalized for what we have done, not for what we might.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

Different things can be similar to each other, and sometimes by approaching a question from a different but similar way one can learn something new.

I think the answer to the original question is, trivially, "yes", as long as repentance is actually sincere and not faked. Telling the difference is the hard part, and I think a better question. I think the answer to my question is less trivial and less clear, but on reflection I think it probably isn't similar enough for you to find it relevant so you're free not to respond if you don't want to.

 

[Manopolus]

Well, given that the same polity that punishes murderers often also asks for foreign persons to be killed in its name, often for questionable reasons? I don't think there's an answer. How society structures itself is how society structures itself. There is no right way. There are only functional and dysfunctional rulesets. The main point is usually to be somewhat consistent so that you aren't giving mixed signals.

So yeah. I'm declining to answer. I could live with any solution that doesn't cause more trouble than it solves. As I don't plan on murdering anyone, and have no meaningful role in government (other than voting), I have no stake, so there is no reason for me to form an opinion.

One idea I've got to add, though... if the injection in question also caused permanent brain damage, which it would almost have to in order to cause that effect, then deterrence still very much exists. I'm quite sure that you can't remove all possible motivation to murder without also fundamentally screwing everything else up, too. You'd basically be removing quite a lot of the motivational systems. So... the thought that an injection would cause them to be "normal human" isn't exactly sufficient. Murders are committed by completely normal people all the time.

So, in conclusion, I guess I find the premise a bit flawed.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, given that the same polity that punishes murderers often also asks for foreign persons to be killed in its name, often for questionable reasons?

Let's not open the Just War can of worms, hey?

 

[Olmstead]

Since we're already snipping away in a person's noggin until they are definitely not a murderer anymore, we might as well snip away until they are no longer the person who did the murder.

And do we really want to punish someone who hasn't even done anything?

Your mileage may vary on how much alteration is enough.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It seems to me that countries that focus their justice system on prevention and rehabilitation do not have a larger crime problem that countries that focus on punishment and revenge. In which case I'd be in favour of the more humane version of the two.

 

[Thermal]

It seems to me that countries that focus their justice system on prevention and rehabilitation do not have a larger crime problem that countries that focus on punishment and revenge. In which case I'd be in favour of the more humane version of the two.

Chicken or egg, though?

Norway, as our jumping off point, has very low murder rates ro start with, and then, it tends to be overwhelmingly domestic relations. So is this because of the more casual punative approach, or because of wider cultural outlooks that are merely reflected by the punative approach?

 

[Thermal]

Since we're already snipping away in a person's noggin until they are definitely not a murderer anymore, we might as well snip away until they are no longer the person who did the murder.

And do we really want to punish someone who hasn't even done anything?

Your mileage may vary on how much alteration is enough.

*no free will arguments start doing some light stretching on the infield*

I've tried that argument with police. "Come on officer, that was Half Hour Ago Thermal who shot the sheriff, like a whole different entity".

 

[bruto]

Since we're already snipping away in a person's noggin until they are definitely not a murderer anymore, we might as well snip away until they are no longer the person who did the murder.

And do we really want to punish someone who hasn't even done anything?

Your mileage may vary on how much alteration is enough.

That's part of the problem I find in the scenario. Who is it who actually did the crime? What imaginary magic can have been performed that makes a person radically different while being the same? We're talking, after all, about a brutal crime which in no way resembles something as simple as a moment of madness or a runaway impulse. Was our hypothetical monster born that way? If so, what in his personality can safely be left unchanged. And if not, what aspect of his personality was susceptible to whatever corrupting influence led to his crime, and what will prevent it from returning?

I can sort of imagine a science-fiction future in which people who commit great crimes are somehow reprogrammed instead of punished ( and even of a science fiction future that does a better job than A Clockwork Orange) , but I find it hard to imagine a society in which that would work without either sending such re-made people to a new place, perhaps some reimagination of a penal colony, or else becoming a free pass for crime. I suppose Olmstead's option here might be a deterrent for most of us, if we value the people we now are and are unable to predict who we'd become after the cure, but for that to work well, you'd have to be assured that your future life would deprive you of some valued aspect of your current one, and for those already at the bottom of the ladder, or who feel they have nothing to lose, it could end up being an incentive instead.

A hypothetical puzzle like this has no right answer because too much is either unspecified or unspecifiable. You can always add a little "but what if..." to it that turns any answer around. To make any answer foolproof you need more insight and more technology than we actually possess.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Well, given that the same polity that punishes murderers often also asks for foreign persons to be killed in its name, often for questionable reasons? I don't think there's an answer. How society structures itself is how society structures itself. There is no right way. There are only functional and dysfunctional rulesets. The main point is usually to be somewhat consistent so that you aren't giving mixed signals.

So yeah. I'm declining to answer. I could live with any solution that doesn't cause more trouble than it solves. As I don't plan on murdering anyone, and have no meaningful role in government (other than voting), I have no stake, so there is no reason for me to form an opinion.

One idea I've got to add, though... if the injection in question also caused permanent brain damage, which it would almost have to in order to cause that effect, then deterrence still very much exists. I'm quite sure that you can't remove all possible motivation to murder without also fundamentally screwing everything else up, too. You'd basically be removing quite a lot of the motivational systems. So... the thought that an injection would cause them to be "normal human" isn't exactly sufficient. Murders are committed by completely normal people all the time.

So, in conclusion, I guess I find the premise a bit flawed.

Indeed, it sounds a lot like a lobotomy.

 

[theprestige]

Sometimes I think that a moment of madness or runaway impulse is even worse than premeditated violence.

 

[Olmstead]

*no free will arguments start doing some light stretching on the infield*

I've tried that argument with police. "Come on officer, that was Half Hour Ago Thermal who shot the sheriff, like a whole different entity".

Well, you didn't go through the procedure, did you?

We need to erase your memory of the crime, erase whatever memories led up to the crime, erase whatever trauma and personality defects caused you to do the crime, and then we can start talking. Although to some people, nothing short of completely burning away the original identity will satisfy them. Or not even that, since obviously the meat sack itself must hold some measure of responsibility. Bad DNA, bad!

I'm reminded of Planescape Torment. What can change the nature of a man?