If we suppose some sort of rehabilitative and/or deterrent effect of imprisonment, you could effectively punish someone without totally ruining their life. The worst part of, say, a two-year imprisonment is that a lot of your place in the world is going to vanish by the time you get out. Your job will be gone, your girlfriend or wife might be gone, any skills you have might have atrophied, and you basically have to start your life over again in many ways. So it seems like this could be a neat way of actually making imprisonment more just and less damaging.
And they mention that at the end of the article.
Except the first 3/4 is all about, "Yeah, we could really fuck up somebody with this tech, isn't that awesome?" Which is really disgusting. This is basically ham-fisted comic book dystopia bullshit made real. (Or hypothetically real.)
Not sure how much you can really rehabilitate someone you're required to keep in some kind of drug-induced haze. I guess there's not a whole lot you can figure out without some hard details on how this stuff would work.
the idea is that they would be in some form of simulated environment, which to them seem absolutely real. imagine it as a sped up version of the Matrix. they'd be in an induced coma in a hospital bed, but would perceive themselves to be in a prison no different* from what we have today. they would feel like years had past when in truth it had only been a few hours.
of course, we don't have anywhere near that kind of control over the human mind at this point in time, but it is largely a hypothetical based on expected advancements in biotech and neural science.
*or at least recognizably similar.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I think when the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing about your scientific breakthrough is how much it resembles the plot of classic sci-fi horror stories, you're science-ing wrong.
(Also, none of these people in that article are mentioning that spending several virtual years lying on a bed with nothing to do doesn't resemble several years in a prison, it resembles several years spend in solitary confinement, which is pretty damned inhumane even when it's only a comparatively short time. I can't imagine what it would be like to basically spend an amount of time equal to the entire period during which I have been alive lying on a goddamn bed.)
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think when the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing about your scientific breakthrough is how much it resembles the plot of classic sci-fi horror stories, you're science-ing wrong.
(Also, none of these people in that article are mentioning that spending several virtual years lying on a bed with nothing to do doesn't resemble several years in a prison, it resembles several years spend in solitary confinement, which is pretty damned inhumane even when it's only a comparatively short time. I can't imagine what it would be like to basically spend an amount of time equal to the entire period during which I have been alive lying on a goddamn bed.)
Or more than 10 times your conceivable lifespan.
I'm with DoctorArch on this one, for this sort of thing to be useful in any way you'd have to include the possibility of rehabilitation. The reason most people (rightly) see this as punitive is because it's difficult to imagine how you could reform somebody's entire mindset within 8 non-interactive drug hours. Unless you make earnest efforts to simulate years of therapy or something, it's just being a punishing dick for vengeance's sake. Not that that's impossible; we still have a lot to learn about the mind, how it works, and what the potential for biochemically altering it is (and it will take a very long time to figure this stuff out unless we want to forsake ethics).
I wonder if you actually did find a way to make this happen, but it was just 1000 years of solitary confinement in your own mind, how many people would be okay with this and what criteria they would have to determine whether or not somebody should be subjected to it. I would wager a lot more people than would make me comfortable.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The only way I would consider it worthwhile would be if someone could experience their punishment in a way that allowed the punished to be rehabilitated.
For example, say you're stupid and commit assault. As it stands now you're in prison for 10 years, and when you get out you're ten years older with all of the difficulties that entails.
Using this new technology, your 10 year sentence might feel like ten years to you, but when you wake up it's been a couple of days, maybe a week. You get the memories of the punishment, and you can move on with your life.
It occurs to me that it would be an easier sell to States based on savings, rather than rehabilitation. Because if our Criminal Justice policy has taught us anything, it's that not enough people actually give a shit about rehabilitation.
Yeah but again, if this hypothetical 1000-year sentence breaks minds like I imagine it would, savings are sort of irrelevant with a bunch of crazed lunatics out on the streets.
If they could make it simulate a regular 3-5 year sentence but all of it in solitary, I can't imagine it would be good either, but maybe you could get that person in therapy for a year, reaping awesome savings!
Practically speaking, if you could reliably reprogram someone's brain to remove any sociopathic tendencies that led to them being a criminal, there's no reason to throw them in jail any more other than just as a "fuck you." Which, yeah, is basically our prison system.
It does ignore the fact that a lot of criminals committed crime because they live a shitty life in shitty conditions that encourage criminal behavior, and no number of fake years in prison is going to change that.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Really, if you're going to pick a thing that needs to be fixed about our prison system, the lack of 1000-year mindfucks is not that high on my list.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Right. Many of the problems with the current prison system stem from the fact that for lots of people (poor people/minorities especially) it's state-sponsored vengeance, and if you want to actually help these people become productive and non-destructive members of society (or allow them back into society at all) you're a pansy-ass hippie.
People get especially retributive with regard to sex crimes, but prison rape jokes are a thing because it's culturally safe to dehumanize people who violate the law.
Making prisons suck less is something I get very passionate about despite having no personal prison experience because very few people do.
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I think when the first thing that comes to mind upon hearing about your scientific breakthrough is how much it resembles the plot of classic sci-fi horror stories, you're science-ing wrong.
(Also, none of these people in that article are mentioning that spending several virtual years lying on a bed with nothing to do doesn't resemble several years in a prison, it resembles several years spend in solitary confinement, which is pretty damned inhumane even when it's only a comparatively short time. I can't imagine what it would be like to basically spend an amount of time equal to the entire period during which I have been alive lying on a goddamn bed.)
I think if the technology could move beyond virtual years lying on a bed to an actual simulation of normal prison life (or gasp, rehabilitation center) it might actually be productive for the inmate, though I doubt 1000 years of anything would be good for someone's psyche.
That said, if we had a virtual reality machine that could simulate any environment we want (like a prison), we'd probably have a few other issues, both positive and negative, on our hands.
The only way I would consider it worthwhile would be if someone could experience their punishment in a way that allowed the punished to be rehabilitated.
For example, say you're stupid and commit assault. As it stands now you're in prison for 10 years, and when you get out you're ten years older with all of the difficulties that entails.
Using this new technology, your 10 year sentence might feel like ten years to you, but when you wake up it's been a couple of days, maybe a week. You get the memories of the punishment, and you can move on with your life.
It occurs to me that it would be an easier sell to States based on savings, rather than rehabilitation. Because if our Criminal Justice policy has taught us anything, it's that not enough people actually give a shit about rehabilitation.
I never thought I would say this, bu:t thank god for the prison industrial complex!
Anything that threatens their bottom line is anthema. The PIC is down with any harsh punishment, except those that would eliminate prisons themselves. Be it rehab or community service or in this case faking the mind to believe it has spent 1000 years in 10 minutes.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Yeah but again, if this hypothetical 1000-year sentence breaks minds like I imagine it would, savings are sort of irrelevant with a bunch of crazed lunatics out on the streets.
If they could make it simulate a regular 3-5 year sentence but all of it in solitary, I can't imagine it would be good either, but maybe you could get that person in therapy for a year, reaping awesome savings!
Three days of solitary existence without seeing anyone or any signs of another person is already rather taxing (don't ask how I got into that situation) and I'm an introvert. I'd suspect that a simulated 1000 years of solitary existence would cause mental breakdowns in all but the most extreme introverts.
Future biotechnology could be used to trick a prisoner's mind into thinking they have served a 1,000 year sentence, a group of scientists have claimed.
Philosopher Rebecca Roache is in charge of a team of scholars focused upon the ways futuristic technologies might transform punishment. Dr Roache claims the prison sentence of serious criminals could be made worse by extending their lives.
Speaking to Aeon magazine, Dr Roache said drugs could be developed to distort prisoners' minds into thinking time was passing more slowly.
So somebody sat there and thought, "Hm, our prison system is pretty awesome, but you know what it needs? To hurt people worse!"
The only reason you would ever do this is to hurt another human being. It doesn't make victims' families feel better (unless they're psychos who get off on vengeance), it doesn't make the public feel better, it just hurts someone for the sake of hurting them.
And again, what's the criteria for whether or not we break someone's mind by forcing them to serve a solitary confinement sentence for 1000 years in their mind? Because we've killed innocent people before. This would be worse.
A second scenario would be to upload human minds to computers to speed up the rate at which the mind works, she wrote on her blog.
"If the speed-up were a factor of a million, a millennium of thinking would be accomplished in eight and a half hours... Uploading the mind of a convicted criminal and running it a million times faster than normal would enable the uploaded criminal to serve a 1,000 year sentence in eight-and-a-half hours. This would, obviously, be much cheaper for the taxpayer than extending criminals’ lifespans to enable them to serve 1,000 years in real time."
Basically, the entire thought experiment is basically:
1) Psychologically torture a person until they are completely ruined as a human being.
2) Let them back into society.
3) ????
4) Profit!Freedom!Justice! Fuck, I don't even know.
Honestly, I think it's actually just 1) and then we all toast to a job well done.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If we had that kind of sci-fi tech, we wouldn't use it for prison systems. A tech that could allow you to live thousands of years in a few seconds would get everyone plugged into the Matrix. If you can live a thousand years in a few hours, you've not only massively extended your lifespan. If everyone does it, you've not only let us all live in idealized dream worlds, you've extended the planet's energy resources by the same factor as you increased each person's lifespan.
I don't know if we'll ever get there, but it seems a lot more likely to me than the space-flight future some people suggest. I think we'll learn to control our own brains long before we learn to travel faster than light.
Squidget0 on
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Future biotechnology could be used to trick a prisoner's mind into thinking they have served a 1,000 year sentence, a group of scientists have claimed.
Philosopher Rebecca Roache is in charge of a team of scholars focused upon the ways futuristic technologies might transform punishment. Dr Roache claims the prison sentence of serious criminals could be made worse by extending their lives.
Speaking to Aeon magazine, Dr Roache said drugs could be developed to distort prisoners' minds into thinking time was passing more slowly.
So somebody sat there and thought, "Hm, our prison system is pretty awesome, but you know what it needs? To hurt people worse!"
The only reason you would ever do this is to hurt another human being. It doesn't make victims' families feel better (unless they're psychos who get off on vengeance), it doesn't make the public feel better, it just hurts someone for the sake of hurting them.
And again, what's the criteria for whether or not we break someone's mind by forcing them to serve a solitary confinement sentence for 1000 years in their mind? Because we've killed innocent people before. This would be worse.
A second scenario would be to upload human minds to computers to speed up the rate at which the mind works, she wrote on her blog.
"If the speed-up were a factor of a million, a millennium of thinking would be accomplished in eight and a half hours... Uploading the mind of a convicted criminal and running it a million times faster than normal would enable the uploaded criminal to serve a 1,000 year sentence in eight-and-a-half hours. This would, obviously, be much cheaper for the taxpayer than extending criminals’ lifespans to enable them to serve 1,000 years in real time."
Why hello Altered Carbon
You know, I was thinking about an interesting way to make a supervillain. Get convicted criminal, make his mind run a million times faster is a fun idea.
Basically, the entire thought experiment is basically:
1) Psychologically torture a person until they are completely ruined as a human being.
2) Let them back into society.
3) ????
4) Profit!Freedom!Justice! Fuck, I don't even know.
Honestly, I think it's actually just 1) and then we all toast to a job well done.
This is actually a problem for freed North Koreans living in the South. They get a bad reputation for crime, they start off with a major inability to trust others and are prone to suicide, both due to lack of adjustment to the South and the fact that they are "free" to commit suicide (attempted suicide in the North is considered a major crime because its seen as attempting to escape.) It took the author of Escape from Camp 14 a long time to get his shit together and tell the whole truth about his traumatic experiences.
If we had that kind of sci-fi tech, we wouldn't use it for prison systems. A tech that could allow you to live thousands of years in a few seconds would get everyone plugged into the Matrix. If you can live a thousand years in a few hours, you've not only massively extended your lifespan. If everyone does it, you've not only let us all live in idealized dream worlds, you've extended the planet's energy resources by the same factor as you increased each person's lifespan.
I don't know if we'll ever get there, but it seems a lot more likely to me than the space-flight future some people suggest. I think we'll learn to control our own brains long before we learn to travel faster than light.
Aside from the 'brain uploading' stuff, which will probably never be a reality because our brains don't really work at all like silicon-based computers, you can do what the lady is the article is talking about with today-era technology. Even someone as simple as alcohol alters your sense of time; it's difficult to quantity exactly how much impact it'll have on someone's perception, but keeping them drunk all of the time would definitely make them perceive a prison sentence as being longer than it actually is.
I'm just fucking flabbergasted.
How many people end-up as criminals after problems with substance abuse? And now we want to extend intentional, state-forced substance abuse to the fucking prison system? ''Eh, fuck it, rehabilitation is hard. Let's just make prison yet another extension of the junkie life."
I'm trying to remember, is it Sweden that actually has decent incarceration conditions and puts an emphasis on rehabilitation?
Sweden and Norway. It works pretty well too.
Anders Breivik can probably never make up for what he did, but the entertainment he provides when he complains about things like having to clean his cell and the games he has access too is a start. We wouldn't get that in the US Prison System.
I'm trying to remember, is it Sweden that actually has decent incarceration conditions and puts an emphasis on rehabilitation?
Pretty much all the Nordic countries. There's variation in the precise system between them, but the overall focus seems to be on rehabilitation, yes. People like Breivik will never be released, despite the maximum prison sentence being relatively short, as the judiciary can decide that he is not fit for release and add years to his sentence once it's served. Cases like him are pretty exceptional though.
Practically speaking, if you could reliably reprogram someone's brain to remove any sociopathic tendencies that led to them being a criminal, there's no reason to throw them in jail any more other than just as a "fuck you." Which, yeah, is basically our prison system.
It does ignore the fact that a lot of criminals committed crime because they live a shitty life in shitty conditions that encourage criminal behavior, and no number of fake years in prison is going to change that.
There's an interesting Michael Swanwick short story about this idea. Of course, if the technology to fix "broken people" exists, predictably it is used by corporatism to make people "better" too...
I'm trying to remember, is it Sweden that actually has decent incarceration conditions and puts an emphasis on rehabilitation?
Pretty much all the Nordic countries. There's variation in the precise system between them, but the overall focus seems to be on rehabilitation, yes. People like Breivik will never be released, despite the maximum prison sentence being relatively short, as the judiciary can decide that he is not fit for release and add years to his sentence once it's served. Cases like him are pretty exceptional though.
I thought that was a Homogeneous European Nation trait.
I'm trying to remember, is it Sweden that actually has decent incarceration conditions and puts an emphasis on rehabilitation?
Pretty much all the Nordic countries. There's variation in the precise system between them, but the overall focus seems to be on rehabilitation, yes. People like Breivik will never be released, despite the maximum prison sentence being relatively short, as the judiciary can decide that he is not fit for release and add years to his sentence once it's served. Cases like him are pretty exceptional though.
I thought that was a Homogeneous European Nation trait.
This term is so often trotted out as a explanation of why certain things work in Europe. It is however not true. In Sweden 20% of the population is either first or second generation immigrants, often war refugees from 3rd world countries that are hard to integrate. In Norway its 15%.
Its not the melting pot, but its not the bland sea of white people often assume. Other European nation have much higher rates.
Honestly, the Term Homogenous European Nation is less a description of Europe and more a way of hinting that the US crime problems are because of "coloreds". Even people that don't believe in it, refer to it as some form of "conventional wisdom". Like "Sweden's solution makes sense, but they will say it only works because Sweden is a Homogenous European Nation and therefore we can't have nice things in the US".
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+14
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
It's really an amazing feat of mental gymnastics; dodge responsibility for our inexcusable excuse for a justice system and blame it on the abused underclasses in the same stroke. The amount of subtle prejudice involved in the idea that 'well, we could have a system that actually serves society and focuses on reducing crime instead of just locking people in cages and forgetting about them, but some of us can't be rehabilitated and well gosh darn but we have to treat everyone the same, so...'
It's the lazy way out. It postulates that something is impossible to implement in the U.S. due to *bullshit reason here about the size of the country, to population variance, to whatever*. It's an easy way to avoid even the effort of trying to improve something, when the conventional 'wisdom' can tell you that it's not gonna work. Even before it's ever been tried.
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I've always been a fan of work release. I even wrote my capstone project on it for my BA. It lowers recidivism. Allows for better re-acclimation into society and removes the shitty life shitty circumstances effect. I have found that a lot of the arguments against that type of punishment stem down to a couple of lines of reasoning. It is not "punishy enough." or "these people are a danger and need to be kept away from society." I think that both of these views are short sighted, and we shouldn't just be having the best inmates doing work release, our aim should be to have almost every non violent inmate in this program, and violent inmates receiving counseling and medication until they are at the level to be let out on work release.
So if we're speculating about the use of virtual reality in criminal justice, in a mechanism that is arbitrarily technologically advanced and (somehow) time-asynchronous, we could be talking about running people through job training, or social skills practice, or some scenario designed to realign the individual's values (a'la The Game, that one episode of Futurama, or what I'm sure have been about a billion short stories in various sf anthologies).
Also, if you're using drugs for the time-dilation effect, just go all out and start giving (certain, pre-screened) prisoners psilocybin or LSD.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I've always been a fan of work release. I even wrote my capstone project on it for my BA. It lowers recidivism. Allows for better re-acclimation into society and removes the shitty life shitty circumstances effect. I have found that a lot of the arguments against that type of punishment stem down to a couple of lines of reasoning. It is not "punishy enough." or "these people are a danger and need to be kept away from society." I think that both of these views are short sighted, and we shouldn't just be having the best inmates doing work release, our aim should be to have almost every non violent inmate in this program, and violent inmates receiving counseling and medication until they are at the level to be let out on work release.
Of course, the bolded part means you can't release them, ever.
Unless you rehabilitate them.
I've always been a fan of work release. I even wrote my capstone project on it for my BA. It lowers recidivism. Allows for better re-acclimation into society and removes the shitty life shitty circumstances effect. I have found that a lot of the arguments against that type of punishment stem down to a couple of lines of reasoning. It is not "punishy enough." or "these people are a danger and need to be kept away from society." I think that both of these views are short sighted, and we shouldn't just be having the best inmates doing work release, our aim should be to have almost every non violent inmate in this program, and violent inmates receiving counseling and medication until they are at the level to be let out on work release.
Of course, the bolded part means you can't release them, ever.
Unless you rehabilitate them.
But then you aren't really punishing them for their crimes, and that'll encourage more crime!
The black comedy movie by Richard Linklater starring Jack Black is cited as a major factor in his release, along with him admitting that he was sexually abused as a child.
This is good news. He should never have received a life sentence, IMO.
Why would you assume that gun ownership drives the crime rate? I would think your acknowlement of European crime cause you to question this. I understand that "American obsession with guns" drives violent crime is a talking point most here assume is true in the total absense of critical thought. But perhaps it's worth questioning that one.
Well perhaps it's the very high number of deaths caused by firearms that mislead people?
Fortunately the majority of those deaths are criminals killing criminals.
Just in case the first isn't good enough here you go. I know Wikipedia itself isn't a "good source" academically, but this itself is sourced.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[15] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[45] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[15][46] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[47]
Inb4 Conservatard. I would place myself squarely, significantly to the left of center and I am pro armed citizenry.
Why would you assume that gun ownership drives the crime rate? I would think your acknowlement of European crime cause you to question this. I understand that "American obsession with guns" drives violent crime is a talking point most here assume is true in the total absense of critical thought. But perhaps it's worth questioning that one.
Well perhaps it's the very high number of deaths caused by firearms that mislead people?
Fortunately the majority of those deaths are criminals killing criminals.
Just in case the first isn't good enough here you go. I know Wikipedia itself isn't a "good source" academically, but this itself is sourced.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[15] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[45] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[15][46] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[47]
Inb4 Conservatard. I would place myself squarely, significantly to the left of center and I am pro armed citizenry.
Fortunately? Because criminals (or former criminals) deserve to die?
Posts
the idea is that they would be in some form of simulated environment, which to them seem absolutely real. imagine it as a sped up version of the Matrix. they'd be in an induced coma in a hospital bed, but would perceive themselves to be in a prison no different* from what we have today. they would feel like years had past when in truth it had only been a few hours.
of course, we don't have anywhere near that kind of control over the human mind at this point in time, but it is largely a hypothetical based on expected advancements in biotech and neural science.
*or at least recognizably similar.
Reminded me of this, actually.
(Also, none of these people in that article are mentioning that spending several virtual years lying on a bed with nothing to do doesn't resemble several years in a prison, it resembles several years spend in solitary confinement, which is pretty damned inhumane even when it's only a comparatively short time. I can't imagine what it would be like to basically spend an amount of time equal to the entire period during which I have been alive lying on a goddamn bed.)
Or more than 10 times your conceivable lifespan.
I'm with DoctorArch on this one, for this sort of thing to be useful in any way you'd have to include the possibility of rehabilitation. The reason most people (rightly) see this as punitive is because it's difficult to imagine how you could reform somebody's entire mindset within 8 non-interactive drug hours. Unless you make earnest efforts to simulate years of therapy or something, it's just being a punishing dick for vengeance's sake. Not that that's impossible; we still have a lot to learn about the mind, how it works, and what the potential for biochemically altering it is (and it will take a very long time to figure this stuff out unless we want to forsake ethics).
I wonder if you actually did find a way to make this happen, but it was just 1000 years of solitary confinement in your own mind, how many people would be okay with this and what criteria they would have to determine whether or not somebody should be subjected to it. I would wager a lot more people than would make me comfortable.
It occurs to me that it would be an easier sell to States based on savings, rather than rehabilitation. Because if our Criminal Justice policy has taught us anything, it's that not enough people actually give a shit about rehabilitation.
If they could make it simulate a regular 3-5 year sentence but all of it in solitary, I can't imagine it would be good either, but maybe you could get that person in therapy for a year, reaping awesome savings!
There's an SE++ prison thread centered around this but it doesn't really need a new thread here, I don't think.
I'm sort of astounded at how many warnings this guy got before they finally said he doesn't deserve to be free anymore.
It does ignore the fact that a lot of criminals committed crime because they live a shitty life in shitty conditions that encourage criminal behavior, and no number of fake years in prison is going to change that.
Can we toss Lesko in with him?
It's more of a symptom of the root problem, which is that we view incarceration in a mainly retributive light as a society.
Once again, we can blame The South for this.
People get especially retributive with regard to sex crimes, but prison rape jokes are a thing because it's culturally safe to dehumanize people who violate the law.
Making prisons suck less is something I get very passionate about despite having no personal prison experience because very few people do.
I think if the technology could move beyond virtual years lying on a bed to an actual simulation of normal prison life (or gasp, rehabilitation center) it might actually be productive for the inmate, though I doubt 1000 years of anything would be good for someone's psyche.
That said, if we had a virtual reality machine that could simulate any environment we want (like a prison), we'd probably have a few other issues, both positive and negative, on our hands.
I never thought I would say this, bu:t thank god for the prison industrial complex!
Anything that threatens their bottom line is anthema. The PIC is down with any harsh punishment, except those that would eliminate prisons themselves. Be it rehab or community service or in this case faking the mind to believe it has spent 1000 years in 10 minutes.
Three days of solitary existence without seeing anyone or any signs of another person is already rather taxing (don't ask how I got into that situation) and I'm an introvert. I'd suspect that a simulated 1000 years of solitary existence would cause mental breakdowns in all but the most extreme introverts.
Why hello Altered Carbon
1) Psychologically torture a person until they are completely ruined as a human being.
2) Let them back into society.
3) ????
4) Profit! Freedom! Justice! Fuck, I don't even know.
Honestly, I think it's actually just 1) and then we all toast to a job well done.
I don't know if we'll ever get there, but it seems a lot more likely to me than the space-flight future some people suggest. I think we'll learn to control our own brains long before we learn to travel faster than light.
You know, I was thinking about an interesting way to make a supervillain. Get convicted criminal, make his mind run a million times faster is a fun idea.
Sweden and Norway. It works pretty well too.
This is actually a problem for freed North Koreans living in the South. They get a bad reputation for crime, they start off with a major inability to trust others and are prone to suicide, both due to lack of adjustment to the South and the fact that they are "free" to commit suicide (attempted suicide in the North is considered a major crime because its seen as attempting to escape.) It took the author of Escape from Camp 14 a long time to get his shit together and tell the whole truth about his traumatic experiences.
Aside from the 'brain uploading' stuff, which will probably never be a reality because our brains don't really work at all like silicon-based computers, you can do what the lady is the article is talking about with today-era technology. Even someone as simple as alcohol alters your sense of time; it's difficult to quantity exactly how much impact it'll have on someone's perception, but keeping them drunk all of the time would definitely make them perceive a prison sentence as being longer than it actually is.
I'm just fucking flabbergasted.
How many people end-up as criminals after problems with substance abuse? And now we want to extend intentional, state-forced substance abuse to the fucking prison system? ''Eh, fuck it, rehabilitation is hard. Let's just make prison yet another extension of the junkie life."
>.<
Anders Breivik can probably never make up for what he did, but the entertainment he provides when he complains about things like having to clean his cell and the games he has access too is a start. We wouldn't get that in the US Prison System.
Pretty much all the Nordic countries. There's variation in the precise system between them, but the overall focus seems to be on rehabilitation, yes. People like Breivik will never be released, despite the maximum prison sentence being relatively short, as the judiciary can decide that he is not fit for release and add years to his sentence once it's served. Cases like him are pretty exceptional though.
There's an interesting Michael Swanwick short story about this idea. Of course, if the technology to fix "broken people" exists, predictably it is used by corporatism to make people "better" too...
I thought that was a Homogeneous European Nation trait.
This term is so often trotted out as a explanation of why certain things work in Europe. It is however not true. In Sweden 20% of the population is either first or second generation immigrants, often war refugees from 3rd world countries that are hard to integrate. In Norway its 15%.
Its not the melting pot, but its not the bland sea of white people often assume. Other European nation have much higher rates.
Honestly, the Term Homogenous European Nation is less a description of Europe and more a way of hinting that the US crime problems are because of "coloreds". Even people that don't believe in it, refer to it as some form of "conventional wisdom". Like "Sweden's solution makes sense, but they will say it only works because Sweden is a Homogenous European Nation and therefore we can't have nice things in the US".
Also, if you're using drugs for the time-dilation effect, just go all out and start giving (certain, pre-screened) prisoners psilocybin or LSD.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Of course, the bolded part means you can't release them, ever.
Unless you rehabilitate them.
But then you aren't really punishing them for their crimes, and that'll encourage more crime!
The black comedy movie by Richard Linklater starring Jack Black is cited as a major factor in his release, along with him admitting that he was sexually abused as a child.
This is good news. He should never have received a life sentence, IMO.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
Just in case the first isn't good enough here you go. I know Wikipedia itself isn't a "good source" academically, but this itself is sourced.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides
People with a criminal record were also more likely to die as homicide victims.[15] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[45] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[15][46] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[47]
Inb4 Conservatard. I would place myself squarely, significantly to the left of center and I am pro armed citizenry.
Fortunately? Because criminals (or former criminals) deserve to die?
Criminals under 21? Like children?