A question about people in jails.

[OinkBoink]

Let's say there were a man who murdered someone (or maybe raped someone). Let's say he spent about 20 years in jail. Also, let's assume we had something like a cerebroscope using which we could we could read his brain. On reading his brain, it was found that the man truly regretted his actions and he had genuinely changed, i.e. he had been "rehabilitated".

Considering this, would you still want to keep him in jail for what he did 20 years ago or would you give him a chance at life in the outside world?

 

[highland145]

Let's say I would have executed him the day after he was convicted so we'll never know.

 

[OinkBoink]

Let's say I would have executed him the day after he was convicted so we'll never know.

:hmm:

 

[exdeath]

I could see releasing but such a person should still have to be in debt in some way. Just because he learned he was wrong and regretted the action, even if he was genuinely regretful and would never do it again, the action was too great as it still cannot be undone ever and has had a life long impact on the people they harmed.

Someone who is really regretful over murdering an innocent person should exhibit signs of being suicidal , its not something a truly reformed or normal person could live with.

 

[MixMasterTang]

The problem is that once released how will he survive? Not that I condone the behavior of ex-cons, but if you cannot find a job that doesn't absolutely suck then it usually will force them back into a life of crime of some sort.

 

[OinkBoink]

I could see releasing but such a person should still have to be in debt in some way. Just because he learned he was wrong and regretted the action, even if he was genuinely regretful and would never do it again, the action was too great as it still cannot be undone ever and has had a life long impact on the people they harmed.

Someone who is really regretful over murdering an innocent person should exhibit signs of being suicidal , its not something a truly reformed or normal person could live with.

A bit subjective, isn't it? What if he just accepted the fact that he could do nothing to undo the life he took and that killing himself wouldn't change that either?

Dunno what to say about "innocence". People are as innocent as their environment allows them to be. Some people sacrifice themselves for others and some do whatever it takes to get ahead. It's all sort of tied to evolution, biology, science, neuroscience, "free will" and all that.

 

[lxskllr]

The jail system is broken. The only logical conclusion is you release him since he's reformed, but people don't want that. Jail's used as a retribution tool to make people "feel" good, and they'll put someone they know is innocent in jail to get that feeling.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

The problem is that once released how will he survive? Not that I condone the behavior of ex-cons, but if you cannot find a job that doesn't absolutely suck then it usually will force them back into a life of crime of some sort.

Well, thats more of a failure of the prison system than him.

The system breeds failure because many prisoners have no choice but to turn to more crime after they get out.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I'd be fine with letting him out. It's important not to forget that the ultimate function of all punishment is to correct behavior. Ideally it should be carried out to that point exactly and no further. I have no interest in revenge or retribution at all.

 

[nickbits]

Maybe he truly regrets his actions now but how do we know given the original circumstances he wouldn't do it again? We see this time and time again with domestic abuse cases. I say keep him locked up or put down.

 

[Sheep221]

Criminals are not imprisoned just as for isolation so they won't continue bad stuff anymore but also for punishment. I think committing any crime is very much intentional and the imprisoning is the way how to harm one's life so he looses the freedom and is basically suffering for the crime he did. Releasing someone even if he would be proven(which is impossible) to never do anything again, is still not enough for compensating the crime he did.

The problem is that these prosecutions are not always equal to crimes done.

 

[jagec]

Let's say there were a man who murdered someone (or maybe raped someone). Let's say he spent about 20 years in jail. Also, let's assume we had something like a cerebroscope using which we could we could read his brain. On reading his brain, it was found that the man truly regretted his actions and he had genuinely changed, i.e. he had been "rehabilitated".

Considering this, would you still want to keep him in jail for what he did 20 years ago or would you give him a chance at life in the outside world?

If there were such a device, much of criminal justice would change. For one thing, the very subjective assessments that the judge and jury make about how "sorry" the criminal appears would be backed up by actual science, which would keep a lot of socially awkward or ugly people from getting screwed and keep a lot of sociopaths and good actors behind bars where they belong.

And yes, I think that this system WOULD have to be used as part of parole/early release hearings. It would almost have to be. Why release someone who is angry and seeking revenge?

Furthermore, I think that the social stigma against ex-cons would be lowered as well. They wouldn't be out unless they had changed.

We could also use it to screen politicians, CEOs, and other influential people before handing them the reins of power.

Pity such a magical device doesn't exist, eh?

 

[exdeath]

A bit subjective, isn't it? What if he just accepted the fact that he could do nothing to undo the life he took and that killing himself wouldn't change that either?

Dunno what to say about "innocence". People are as innocent as their environment allows them to be. Some people sacrifice themselves for others and some do whatever it takes to get ahead. It's all sort of tied to evolution, biology, science, neuroscience, "free will" and all that.

Accepting it means he at least struggled with it at first.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Maybe he truly regrets his actions now but how do we know given the original circumstances he wouldn't do it again? We see this time and time again with domestic abuse cases. I say keep him locked up or put down.

Presumably that's one of the givens in this hypothetical. We have a machine that basically guarantees that he will never commit that crime again. The point is obviously to see if people can truly separate their unreasoning animal urge to punish from the actual function of punishment.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Let's say there were a man who murdered someone (or maybe raped someone). Let's say he spent about 20 years in jail. Also, let's assume we had something like a cerebroscope using which we could we could read his brain. On reading his brain, it was found that the man truly regretted his actions and he had genuinely changed, i.e. he had been "rehabilitated".

Considering this, would you still want to keep him in jail for what he did 20 years ago or would you give him a chance at life in the outside world?

The way our jails work, it's quite the opposite of "rehabilitation". And no I probably wouldn't truly trust that the man has changed, if anything "changed for the worse"

Not because of the person, but mostly because of the system we have.

NO MAN sitting in a cell for 20 years can possibly be normal when done.....sorry.

 

[Baked]

If you have a record, we don't hire you. If you murdered someone by shooting them in the neck behind their back because they didn't give up the sex after you pay them, then you're definitely not hired.

 

[exdeath]

The problem is that once released how will he survive? Not that I condone the behavior of ex-cons, but if you cannot find a job that doesn't absolutely suck then it usually will force them back into a life of crime of some sort.

If we could genuinely scientifically show people who have reformed and are capable of reintegrating into society, anti discrimination laws would have to be updated.

The primary reason nobody hires ex cons is trust. If we could look into people's brains, trust is no longer relevant.

 

[OinkBoink]

Our views on what "intent" is, why people behave the way they do etc. is constantly changing with developments in neuroscience and other fields. Don't you guys watch "The Charlie Rose Brain Series"? Well, you should!

 

[tynopik]

It's important not to forget that the ultimate function of all punishment is to correct behavior.

false

 

[Jaskalas]

...he had genuinely changed, i.e. he had been "rehabilitated".

Considering this, would you still want to keep him in jail for what he did 20 years ago or would you give him a chance at life in the outside world?

Is not a continued threat to society, should not be in jail.

 

[OinkBoink]

false

Why?

 

[tynopik]

The primary reason nobody hires ex cons is trust. If we could look into people's brains, trust is no longer relevant.

You can genuinely regret what you did but still be a violent person and not worthy of trust

 

[tynopik]

Why?

justice and deterrence among others

 

[OinkBoink]

justice and deterrence among others

Deterrence perhaps. But that's an incredibly black or white notion of justice.

 

[pontifex]

I could see releasing but such a person should still have to be in debt in some way. Just because he learned he was wrong and regretted the action, even if he was genuinely regretful and would never do it again, the action was too great as it still cannot be undone ever and has had a life long impact on the people they harmed.

Someone who is really regretful over murdering an innocent person should exhibit signs of being suicidal , its not something a truly reformed or normal person could live with.

i thought the prison sentence was his debt?