Another form of death penalty

[BroomJockey]

We've had a number of threads on the death penalty, and some well-formed views on that, so here's a variant to throw at the board.

I read about how they're working on a pill to erase traumatic memories, and in sci-fi, you always read about memory tampering and such, so how about this:

Instead of physically killing a person, we induce total, irrevocable amnesia. They remember nothing of who they are or what they've done. Then after the mind-wipe, time is devoted to teaching them a useful skill in a field they may find interesting.

Now, this would allow for the punishment that some camps desire. After all, the person who committed the crime ceases to exist. This would allow for rehabilitation of hardened, unrepentant criminals and the criminally insane. It would also allow for the state to go "Oh crap, we fucked up and that guy was innocent." It wouldn't be great, since really, it'd amount to "here's a bunch of money, please don't be too mad." And you'd need rules and relocation to prevent people from informing the mind-wiped about who they were, of course.

The major downside I see is if people from the families of victims ran in to the wiped and had to see that person's face, new personality or not. I could see some not being able to deal with a non-physical death.

So, what do you think?

[DesignFox]

Sounds too much like Demolition Man to me... :p

I dunno how I feel about it. The experimentation it would take to get this stuff "right" could take years and do a great deal of irreparable harm...

How do you really release someone like that back into society...? Do you fabricate a whole new life for them? Drop them on the other side of the world?

What about people using this technology in bad ways? How do we prevent that...?

All I've got are more questions. :(

[Lace Neil Singer]

Would it be possible to reverse the process, so if a person was innocent, then they wouldn't suffer by having their mind wiped?

[AFPheonix]

It does seem like quite a bit of effort compared to just letting them rot in prison. Like Design Fox said, how much do we invest to get these people back functional again? How much does it erase? Do they remember speech? Potty training?

Would it be less cost-effective than life in prison?

[MaggieTheCat]

I think in theory it would be a good idea, as overall it would eliminate a lot of bad stuff that happens to prisoners, such as brutality/rape/murder in prisons, overcrowded prisons, prisoners escaping, etc. But there are a lot of flaws/questions, which people have already brought up. Mine would be this:

What if someone committed a heinous act (murder, rape, take your pick) and was sentenced to this amnesia punishment. They get moved across the country or whatever and start a whole new life. But a few years later, they commit th same, or similar, or even not similar but equally heinous, crime, even though they had NO memory of their previous crime? I'm not even trying to get in to nature vs. nuture and that some people may just be "wired" wrong -- what if it was a complete fluke, 100% coincidence that this person committed two terrible deeds? What makes people do these things in the first place? Can this amnesia drug guarantee that it will wipe out whatever was in the criminal's mind that caused the original crime? And if such a thing did happen, where someone committed two of these acts, the second of which was after their memory was wiped, what would the authorities do with them then?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Seems like it could work with a lot of effort. The only real problem I'm seeing is keeping them away from people who knew them.

I suppose they could live in enclosed compounds exclusive to 'the wiped'

Also the making sure people don't use the tech for bad things, same way we keep people from getting super viruses from underground bunkers. Strict control and oversight.

[Greenday]

A lot of stuff can be considered cause by genetics. What good would induced amnesia do for those cases?

[BroomJockey]

How do you really release someone like that back into society...? Do you fabricate a whole new life for them? Drop them on the other side of the world?

Do it like Witness Protection. Relocate to somewhere not frequented by the previous identity, nor anyone who knows that person.

Would it be possible to reverse the process, so if a person was innocent, then they wouldn't suffer by having their mind wiped?
I'd say no, it wouldn't be reversable (hence "irrevocable" :p ), because if it was easily reversible, it would be possible for crime syndicates to reverse engineer, or steal the cure and keep sending them through the process. Even ignoring that, it'd be cruel to the families of the wiped, imo, constantly dangling the fact that the person they knew could come back, rightfully convicted or otherwise.
It does seem like quite a bit of effort compared to just letting them rot in prison. Like Design Fox said, how much do we invest to get these people back functional again? How much does it erase? Do they remember speech? Potty training?

Would it be less cost-effective than life in prison?
Well, amnesiacs tend to remember speech, abilities, and so on. They just have no memories. Since we're inducing this, imagine that it's more targeted and will specifically retain everything but their identities. Seems to me the ability to teach someone for 3 or 4 years would be a lot cheaper than keeping them locked up for 20+, since afterwards, they're out contributing to society.
A lot of stuff can be considered cause by genetics. What good would induced amnesia do for those cases?
None, which is why you'd still have life imprisonment or the traditional death penalty.

[linguist]

I'd say no, it wouldn't be reversable (hence "irrevocable" :p ), because if it was easily reversible, it would be possible for crime syndicates to reverse engineer, or steal the cure and keep sending them through the process. Even ignoring that, it'd be cruel to the families of the wiped, imo, constantly dangling the fact that the person they knew could come back, rightfully convicted or otherwise.


i think it would be just as cruel to the families of the wrongfully convicted to know that nothing will ever bring their loved one back. how would you propose compensating not only them, but the person who now has lost their previous life for no reason?

[BroomJockey]

how would you propose compensating not only them, but the person who now has lost their previous life for no reason?

That would be the bit in my original post "Oops, here's lots of money." As for "cruel to the other families," in this fashion, it wouldn't be any different from the current death penalty, where the person is, you know, DEAD. At least this way, you could also go "Err, here's money, that's your family, have your old life back, even if you can't remember it." I don't see how it's really any worse than the regular DP when it comes to the "criminal"'s family.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Yeah, I'm going to throw in with Broom in that it really wouldn't be worse save for a situation where someone can't deal with the dichotomy of it (is that the right word?) but that is offset by those who would take comfort in the fact that the person is still physically alive.

[Flyndaran]

Problem is that such an idea is impossible. Memories don't work like that. Things aren't recorded in a first to last formed series. They aren't even recorded in a specific part of the brain.
Real world retrograde amnesia is a mental disorder, never created in a purely physical way.
Cute idea though.

[Greenday]

None, which is why you'd still have life imprisonment or the traditional death penalty.

Traditional death penalty? I don't exactly like it in the first place, but if one group gets to live a normal happy life, and the other group is put down because of their genetics, I'd be out protesting for getting rid of the death penalty. Isn't that pretty much the definition of eugenics anyway? I'm pretty sure that's been ruled immoral by most of society.

[Flyndaran]

...Isn't that pretty much the definition of eugenics anyway? I'm pretty sure that's been ruled immoral by most of society.

Preventing the passing on of severe genetic deformities is immoral? Choosing to not spawn because I may pass on some early death disease is immoral?
Then your society is wrong.

[BroomJockey]

Traditional death penalty? I don't exactly like it in the first place, but if one group gets to live a normal happy life, and the other group is put down because of their genetics,

I'm not a fan of the death penalty either, but I doubt it'd be instantly banned on the advent of this ability. As for "put down because of their genetics," no, they're being put down because they served a penance for their first crime, and yet the punishment didn't serve as a deterrent. I'd prefer they simply be incarcerated for life, no parole, but like I said, I don't think places with the RDP would get rid of it.

ETA: Eugenics was the process of weeding out those with defective genes, preventing them from procreating, and encouraging those with superior genes to breed. I don't see how committing murder twice would prove it's geneticly caused, rather than just deeply ingrained past memory, or some such. Also, they'd have had the chance to breed beforehand. Killing someone after they have kids is NOT eugenics.

[Greenday]

ETA: Eugenics was the process of weeding out those with defective genes, preventing them from procreating, and encouraging those with superior genes to breed. I don't see how committing murder twice would prove it's geneticly caused, rather than just deeply ingrained past memory, or some such. Also, they'd have had the chance to breed beforehand. Killing someone after they have kids is NOT eugenics.

There's been a lot of genetic research into genes causing people to be more prone to crime. I wouldn't be surprised if we come up with much more technology in the near future to help determine this. I mean, theoretically you can get the death penalty when you are 18. I'd say that may not be enough time to have kids. I know this is a huge reach, but still, it's a major issue in my mind.

[BroomJockey]

I wouldn't be surprised if we come up with much more technology in the near future to help determine this. I mean, theoretically you can get the death penalty when you are 18.

So you're brining in outside information beyond the scope of the thought experiment. Fine. Then let me put it to you this way. With this one, a person's got a second bite at the apple. They're first mind-wiped. After that, unless they *immediately* go out and kill someone, they still have time to have children. Besides, parents already get genetic testing for debilitating diseases. If crime IS genetic, then can't that also be considered a genetic disease? Still beyond the scope of this thread to determine. This one is about an alternative form of punishment than physical death. If you want, you can make a thread about genetic disposition to crime and we'll have a good Fratch there :)

[Greenday]

I agree that it's better than the death penalty. They still get to live. But the logistics of it would be nuts. So much to take care of.

[Slytovhand]

I would be totally and completely against this idea, for a couple of reasons.

First scenario... rapists gets caught and has a mind wipe. 2 years later, the victim sees the rapist on the street... all the crap they went through, all the pain, all the horror, all the grief suddenly comes flying back... when they see the criminal happily walking down the street to go to his job, with a happy smile on his face.. scott free! Umm - no, that's not an ok situation!

Second scenario, and a much bigger argument against. Take your Columbine shooters, those going postal, those kids (and sometimes adults) who lose it completely, because they just can't stand their life anymore.. they're full of anger, and hate, and rage, and just want everything to go away... what they'd really like to be able to do, is go an shoot all those people who they hate, who have been giving them grief for so long. The only reason more people don't go ballistic is the fear of retribution, the fear of punishment. Those people aren't going to care about losing their life, their 'friends' and all the rest of the life they had.. they want that. Trust me, there are some people (and I was once one of them) who'd hear this legislation, and say "Where do I sign?".

Mind wipe?? No guilt, no remorse, no repentance, no shame..... no way! (I think we've got a slogan there! :p)

[BroomJockey]

First scenario... rapists gets caught and has a mind wipe. 2 years later, the victim sees the rapist on the street... all the crap they went through, all the pain, all the horror, all the grief suddenly comes flying back... when they see the criminal happily walking down the street to go to his job, with a happy smile on his face.. scott free! Umm - no, that's not an ok situation!


That's why you move them to the other side of the country.

As for your other argument...

Finally! Someone with a great reason to say it's a bad idea! :D

[AFPheonix]

That does bring up another point. Does the mindwipe take care of some of the mental underpinnings that caused the crime in the first place? Like psychopaths for instance. Slyt brought up Columbine. Eric Harris was a psychopath and Kliebold was pretty severely depressed.
Do the psychopaths get a mindwipe and then get put in a mental institution for life?

[BroomJockey]

Do the psychopaths get a mindwipe and then get put in a mental institution for life?

Assuming the psychopathy was caused by a structural defect in the brain, and was thus incurable, I doubt they'd mindwipe in the first place.

[Flyndaran]

Assuming the psychopathy was caused by a structural defect in the brain, and was thus incurable, I doubt they'd mindwipe in the first place.

The underlying problem with this whole idea is that memories themselves are structural, and not some kind of computer software.

[BroomJockey]

Are you familiar with the term "thought experiment"? Where you think up a scenario and then contemplate the consequences as a means of divining society's values and your position on theoretical topics? I submit that if you're unprepared to engage a topic on the level presented, you may want to start a parallel one to engage it how you wish.

[Flyndaran]

Are you familiar with the term "thought experiment"? Where you think up a scenario and then contemplate the consequences as a means of divining society's values and your position on theoretical topics? I submit that if you're unprepared to engage a topic on the level presented, you may want to start a parallel one to engage it how you wish.

I prefer thought experiments with at least a vague possiblity. If everyone else is ok with such, then ok, as long as its impossibility is expressly stated.
I don't see the appeal of thinking about things like what if I were a cartoon character... wait, now I do. :)
Please continue with your fun.

[BroomJockey]

in sci-fi, you always read about memory tampering and such, so how about this:


as long as its impossibility is expressly stated.


I thought that most thinking people would have realized the impossibility from the phrase "in sci-fi," A.K.A. "Science-Fiction." Apparently you missed that. My apologizes. I'll hire some sky-writers for next time ;)

[Flyndaran]

I thought that most thinking people would have realized the impossibility from the phrase "in sci-fi," A.K.A. "Science-Fiction." Apparently you missed that. My apologizes. I'll hire some sky-writers for next time ;)

There is such a thing as hard sci fi. It uses reasonable predictions about the future or alternate histories that don't violate any known laws of physics.

I'm not into things like space opera or future fantasy that much anymore.

[BroomJockey]

I'm not into things like space opera or future fantasy that much anymore.

Neither am I. Never really was. Cyberpunk. Dystopia fuelled by human greed and the rampant unchecked progression of technology for technology's sake. Johnny Mnemonic, the short story by William Gibson (not the movie with Neo *cough* Keanu Reeves :D ) is a good example. Technology shoved in to a person's brain, replacing memories with the ability to up/download information directly to the brain from a computer.

[Flyndaran]

Neither am I. Never really was. Cyberpunk. Dystopia fuelled by human greed and the rampant unchecked progression of technology for technology's sake. Johnny Mnemonic, the short story by William Gibson (not the movie with Neo *cough* Keanu Reeves :D ) is a good example. Technology shoved in to a person's brain, replacing memories with the ability to up/download information directly to the brain from a computer.

But that technology is just as impossible as it was twhen that book was written back in the 70s I believe.'
Memories are not clustered like that. They are all over the place and can even move sometimes with different parts of sense memories far away from eachother. Your mother's smell here, and her face here, etc.
Besides why not just put the memory drive in his face and replace his nose? A hell of a lot more room to mess with.

[BroomJockey]

But that technology is just as impossible as it was twhen that book was written back in the 70s I believe.'


Impossible then, impossible now, yes, impossible forever? Maybe not. We've seen some wicked advances in neuro-interfaces recently, and it will only improve.

As to why not sticking it in his nose, the information storage density in the brain is higher than any currently available storage medium. The human brain can hold Petabytes of information. By using the brain to store, you'd have massive efficiency gains.

[Flyndaran]

Impossible then, impossible now, yes, impossible forever? Maybe not. We've seen some wicked advances in neuro-interfaces recently, and it will only improve.

As to why not sticking it in his nose, the information storage density in the brain is higher than any currently available storage medium. The human brain can hold Petabytes of information. By using the brain to store, you'd have massive efficiency gains.

Not really. You assume that we would deveop not only a way to produce perfectly functional neural based technology that not only is better than the alternative but able to seamlessly integrate into human brain tissue and takes up the place of regular tissue removing memories only even though that isn't the way that brains work.
I say impossible only to that last bit. Brains don't work that way.

[Slytovhand]

Isn't this the other thread????

I thought this was about being able to mind-wipe someone as a form of punishment?

And, given that some drugs we have today can affect a person's memories and recall ability, and that we are capable of creating false memories (happens all the time... and by accident! Who said 'witness accounts are the most unreliable evidence'??). Not to mention hypnosis.. and brainwashing techniques...

I'd say this level of 'sci-fi' is more on the softer side than the harder.

[BroomJockey]

Isn't this the other thread????


Thread drift's a bitch, eh?

[Slytovhand]

Thread drift's a bitch, eh?

I love chocolate...:D

[BroomJockey]

The average rainfall in the Amazon basin is the square root of Transformers was good, since Optimus got to kick an insane amount of ass, but I hated when Trudeau capped the music rate.

[Flyndaran]

Isn't this the other thread????

I thought this was about being able to mind-wipe someone as a form of punishment?

And, given that some drugs we have today can affect a person's memories and recall ability, and that we are capable of creating false memories (happens all the time... and by accident! Who said 'witness accounts are the most unreliable evidence'??). Not to mention hypnosis.. and brainwashing techniques...

I'd say this level of 'sci-fi' is more on the softer side than the harder.

No its not. Screwing up the formation of short term to long term memory or creating false memories of a personally uninportant nature or messing up the ability to recall temporarily due to drugs is not erasing fundamental memories. Real world retrograde amnesia which is what the op suggests is not a physical issue. It's a purely psychological one.
Real long term memories are physically represented by the structure of the brain. You can't change them without wrecking that structure.
The op's concept is on the very soft side of sci fi.

[BroomJockey]

Real world retrograde amnesia which is what the op suggests is not a physical issue. It's a purely psychological one.
Real long term memories are physically represented by the structure of the brain. You can't change them without wrecking that structure.


Anything that occurs in an organism naturally can be replicated mechanically. It's simply a matter of figuring out the biological mechanisms present behind it. Since it's kind of unethical to test people in attempting to induce amnesia in a controlled setting, it's not likely to be discovered on purpose any time soon. So, since amnesia occurs in "the wild," then it can be induced in a laboratory setting. They can already institute a very crude form using ECT. It's dangerous as hell, but it works. Sorta. But like I said, they can't do tests on hundreds of people.

Also, since the brain naturally creates pathways to store memory, that too can be induced. It's simply a matter of finding the proper way to induce it.

[Flyndaran]

Anything that occurs in an organism naturally can be replicated mechanically. It's simply a matter of figuring out the biological mechanisms present behind it. Since it's kind of unethical to test people in attempting to induce amnesia in a controlled setting, it's not likely to be discovered on purpose any time soon. So, since amnesia occurs in "the wild," then it can be induced in a laboratory setting. They can already institute a very crude form using ECT. It's dangerous as hell, but it works. Sorta. But like I said, they can't do tests on hundreds of people.

Also, since the brain naturally creates pathways to store memory, that too can be induced. It's simply a matter of finding the proper way to induce it.

But what I'm saying is that it would require very careful damaging of the fundamental structure of the brain so complex as to be prohibitive. I just can't imagine any such technologically advanced society not already having a much easier and safer way to restrain certain types of bahavior.
For example, it would be orders of magnitude simpler to implant a small computer that shuts down the body of someone about to commit a crime.

Electro-convulsive-therapy is an outmoded grossly ineffective treatment. Let's damage the brain randomly and hope something good comes from it. Not my idea of medicine.

[Savannah]

Sorry to go back to the beginning posts, but it's taken me this long to verbalize why I think this is a terrible idea. My two objections are that 1) it is effectively the same as the death penalty and 2) it is much worse for the family of the accused in the case of an incorrect decision.

It is effectively the same as the death penalty because who I am depends on my memories. If I lose all of my memories, I will be "dead" in the sense that many aspects of my personality, my goals, many of my likes and dislikes will be gone. As stated in the original post:

After all, the person who committed the crime ceases to exist.

If the person ceases to exist, why is this any different from the death penalty? It won't even save money as the exact same appeals will happen and the convict will have to be retrained after the wipe.

I don't see how it's really any worse than the regular DP when it comes to the "criminal"'s family.

Here's how: Say that my little brother is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. After he dies, it comes out that he was innocent. Now, I'm understandably upset, but what is done is done and I will eventually reach some kind of closure. (Hopefully.)

Say that he is instead sentenced to this mind wipe. Afterwards is comes out that he was innocent. Now, not only is my brother dead, but if he is reintroduced to me I have to be around this person who looks exactly like my brother but is not and will never be my brother. Even if he is not reintroduced to me, I know that "he" is still out there somewhere. Not only am I upset that my brother was wrongfully executed, but I can't reach the same kind of closure. Every time I see who he is now I will be reminded of who he was. I will be forever hoping that there is some way to reverse the procedure. Much worse for the "criminal"'s family than the regular death penalty.

[BroomJockey]

If the person ceases to exist, why is this any different from the death penalty?


Because you gain a fully-functioning member of society out of the deal - hopefully.

[Flyndaran]

Because you gain a fully-functioning member of society out of the deal - hopefully.

So not only do we assume an functionally impossible according to moden biology, but we also assume that it has no deleterious side effects?

[BroomJockey]

So not only do we assume an functionally impossible according to moden biology,

Did you miss my post about how they're able to induce retrograde amnesia NOW through electroconvulsive therapy? I think that kind of proves it possible. Nice fail, though.

[Flyndaran]

Did you miss my post about how they're able to induce retrograde amnesia NOW through electroconvulsive therapy? I think that kind of proves it possible. Nice fail, though.

That is haphazard, and causes a whole host of other brain damage. I don't think that in any way proves that individual aspects of that could work on their own. Also it doesn't erase aspects of personality that the OP suggested.

[BroomJockey]

Also it doesn't erase aspects of personality that the OP suggested.

I don't believe that I suggested only certain aspects, but I'll double-check.


Instead of physically killing a person, we induce total, irrevocable amnesia. They remember nothing of who they are or what they've done.


Hrm... Total... irrevocable... nope. Not a hint of a suggestion. And no shit it's dangerous, they're giving the brain a large jolt of electricity directly to it. But science has this stupid tendency to get better at stuff, ya know? So if they can do it in some fashion now, are you saying it's impossible for them to improve?

[Flyndaran]

Hrm... Total... irrevocable... nope. Not a hint of a suggestion. And no shit it's dangerous, they're giving the brain a large jolt of electricity directly to it. But science has this stupid tendency to get better at stuff, ya know? So if they can do it in some fashion now, are you saying it's impossible for them to improve?

I'm just saying that the initial proposition is so incredibly difficult that by the time biology has advanced to the point where memories can be destroyed with precision that we would have much better and more humane methods of behavioral control at our disposal. See my previous idea of computer implast earlier in the thread for an example that wouldn't result in horrible, "Oops we killed an innocent guy." mistakes.

[Savannah]

Because you gain a fully-functioning member of society out of the deal - hopefully.

Yeah, at the exact same cost to taxpayers for appeals PLUS the cost of retraining. Since there is hardly enough money to support the people who haven't done anything wrong, you would be much better off putting that money for retraining into schools.

Now, if this hypothetical situation occurs in a world where everyone is already guaranteed food, housing, health care, education, etc. so that there is no better use for the retraining money, I can agree with your point.

[BroomJockey]

Yeah, at the exact same cost to taxpayers for appeals PLUS the cost of retraining.

Actually, in my ideal justice system, everyone would be receiving training any ways, so the system would be in place, and no additional cost. The government would also work with businesses to find placements for cons when they were released, probably by offering tax incentives to businesses willing to take them on. Those tax breaks would be offset by the gainful employment and taxes paid by the ex-con on their new salary. The eventual result would be less burden on the justice system, saving money, so the cost of a capital trial would be less of an impact.

[Slytovhand]

Sticking with the original intent of the thread...

I'm still against the idea (as I've mentioned - has some really bad way open holes in the idea), but from the other side - ie, the innocent convict - I don't see it as being as bad as Savannah has suggested. If they're proven to be innocent, then the person can be re-introduced back to their family, and all video, stories, photos etc can be gotten out, and the person can, to some extent, rebuild their life (obviously not totally...). Compared with death.. yes, I get the closure idea, but given the 2 options, I don't think too many would seriously choose the death one, over the alive, but not themselves. Is it any worse than a car accident where someone loses their memories?

Of course, depending on the exact nature of the punishment, it may mean the criminal has a new family and friends, and wouldn't want to leave them...