3 ms·

What struck me while reading this article, is thought that modern society will be seen as barbarian 100 years from now - it seems very likely to me that people

by rednum 15y ago

What struck me while reading this article, is thought that modern society will be seen as barbarian 100 years from now - it seems very likely to me that people will see imprisoning (of person with brain problems) as something cruel, similarly that we are disgusted by concept of cutting off thieves' hands. Also this implies that there are many behaviours in our society that will turn out immoral some years later, which is rather uncomfortable thought.

kristofferR 15y ago
I've thought about this topic a lot lately. The issue with this is that in one way or another, all violent criminals have some sort of problem with their brain. They may not have a tumor or dementia, but something is wrong outside of their control. Should we punish them for that? And what is the alternative? Well, I live in Norway, where the maximum sentence is 21 years. There are no life-sentences and certainly no death penalty. Even the top-security prisons are not too bad ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.... ). The focus is on rehabilitation instead of punishment, and it seems to work quite good. The inmates can get an education and participate in social activites. Our crime rate is quite low and while that probably is a result of our welfare system, there are no indications that humane prisons negatively impact crime rates at all. And the thing is that even our so-called "luxury prisons" ends up being cheaper than the American hellholes because we keep our inmates in for much shorter periods of time and focus on making them productive members of society instead of cage-animals.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  The issue with this is that in one way or another, all violent criminals have some sort of problem with their brain. They may not have a tumor or dementia, but something is wrong outside of their control. You are saying that no healthy human being would ever commit a violent crime -- that nothing involving incentives or circumstances could prompt someone to make a decision to be violent? It seems to believe this you have to assume that in most eras most humans had some problem with their brain.
  - kristofferR 15y ago
    I do think the human brain is flawed in some ways. The human brain isn't perfect, even though we like to think so. The human brain has flaws that can't be controlled by its owner. We like to think that we're always in control of ourselves, but most of our actions are actually not pre-meditated. We are not ruled by logic as much as we think we are, instinct and emotions are way more powerful forces of actions in daily life. Many of us don't like to acknowledge it, but we're still animals. The vast majority of murders are, despite what the mass media wants you to think, not premeditated. Most of them are committed either by accident or by rage. Rage is determined by genetics and upbringing. Premeditated murders are considered "worse" than rage-induced murders, but then we're back at the issue - when you can commit premeditated murders something is wrong outside of your control. Our legal system is created under the assumption that we're Vulcans, but we're not. Logic is (unfortunately?) not as important to how we act like we think.
  - ugh 15y ago
    You are your brain so I kind of have problems seeing the distinction in the first place. When a law says “Don’t publish a copy of the copyrighted music you own.” and you do publish a copy is there something wrong with your brain? There certainly is if you believe that a healthy brain should not publish copyrighted music given the existing incentives in society. Just think for a moment what would happen if we really were able and willing to change brains however we wanted to. Laws then become blueprints for changing brains which is kind of scary. Laws don’t have to orient themselves on what might be considered healthy brain behavior (but who gets to define that?), they can say whatever they want. It’s a pretty significant intrusion, but then again, so is locking someone up for a few decades. I’m actually quite a fan of not ever punishing. I think the goal of criminal law should be to reduce crime while still allowing as much freedom as possible. Imprisonment (or, even worse, the death penalty) seems like a very blunt instrument for that purpose. Changing the brain, however, comes with its own issues. Does society get to decide who we are? I’m not sure about that.
- Game_Ender 15y ago
  The often used counter example to countries like Norway is you have a more homogeneous population of people, which leads to less internal social strife. I am not saying your system does not provides benefits over the way we treat criminals in the US. It is just that you have to find a way to control for the different social conditions in both countries before you can make numerical comparisons.
jgroch 15y ago
What struck me was close to the opposite. The proposals in the article make me fear a future dystopia, where no one believes in free will, where the average person is degraded by a dehumanizing science. Like some science fiction horror story.
- stan_rogers 15y ago
  It aligns fairly well with Samuel Butler's Erewhon, actually -- and it should raise questions such as those visited in C. S. Lewis's essay The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.
ZoFreX 15y ago
I've had this thought too. I think meat eating may well be another one, unless the population contracts at some point.
- philwelch 15y ago
  The population will contract at some point, one way or another. Either we will reach an unsustainable level of overpopulation or the world will reach a level of economic development sufficient to reduce the birth rate, just like we see in the wealthier countries.
jerf 15y ago
Barring total collapse of civilization (in which case this will be a golden era), we will be seen as barbaric. But it isn't very easy to predict in what ways, without merely falling prey to ideas that will further prove to be modern fashionable ideas that don't actually work. And there's no guarantee we wouldn't likewise consider the future barbaric. Is it really that "civilized" to be able to look at someone's brain, figure out precisely what it is that makes them $YOUR_LEAST_FAVORITE_POLITICAL_ORIENTATION, and precisely remove it with surgery and personalized drugs, forcibly applied? Or possibly even $YOUR_POLITICAL_ORIENTATION? I can provide arguments in favor of any political position of your naming being proof that the holder is a bad person that threatens all that is good in civilization and all necessary steps should be taken to eliminate the ideation entirely, lest it successfully spread. (Including mine.) Just as one for instance.

by rednum 15y ago

kristofferR 15y ago

I've thought about this topic a lot lately. The issue with this is that in one way or another, all violent criminals have some sort of problem with their brain. They may not have a tumor or dementia, but something is wrong outside of their control. Should we punish them for that? And what is the alternative? Well, I live in Norway, where the maximum sentence is 21 years. There are no life-sentences and certainly no death penalty. Even the top-security prisons are not too bad ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1986002,00.... ). The focus is on rehabilitation instead of punishment, and it seems to work quite good. The inmates can get an education and participate in social activites. Our crime rate is quite low and while that probably is a result of our welfare system, there are no indications that humane prisons negatively impact crime rates at all. And the thing is that even our so-called "luxury prisons" ends up being cheaper than the American hellholes because we keep our inmates in for much shorter periods of time and focus on making them productive members of society instead of cage-animals.

randallsquared 15y ago
The issue with this is that in one way or another, all violent criminals have some sort of problem with their brain. They may not have a tumor or dementia, but something is wrong outside of their control. You are saying that no healthy human being would ever commit a violent crime -- that nothing involving incentives or circumstances could prompt someone to make a decision to be violent? It seems to believe this you have to assume that in most eras most humans had some problem with their brain.
- kristofferR 15y ago
  I do think the human brain is flawed in some ways. The human brain isn't perfect, even though we like to think so. The human brain has flaws that can't be controlled by its owner. We like to think that we're always in control of ourselves, but most of our actions are actually not pre-meditated. We are not ruled by logic as much as we think we are, instinct and emotions are way more powerful forces of actions in daily life. Many of us don't like to acknowledge it, but we're still animals. The vast majority of murders are, despite what the mass media wants you to think, not premeditated. Most of them are committed either by accident or by rage. Rage is determined by genetics and upbringing. Premeditated murders are considered "worse" than rage-induced murders, but then we're back at the issue - when you can commit premeditated murders something is wrong outside of your control. Our legal system is created under the assumption that we're Vulcans, but we're not. Logic is (unfortunately?) not as important to how we act like we think.
- ugh 15y ago
  You are your brain so I kind of have problems seeing the distinction in the first place. When a law says “Don’t publish a copy of the copyrighted music you own.” and you do publish a copy is there something wrong with your brain? There certainly is if you believe that a healthy brain should not publish copyrighted music given the existing incentives in society. Just think for a moment what would happen if we really were able and willing to change brains however we wanted to. Laws then become blueprints for changing brains which is kind of scary. Laws don’t have to orient themselves on what might be considered healthy brain behavior (but who gets to define that?), they can say whatever they want. It’s a pretty significant intrusion, but then again, so is locking someone up for a few decades. I’m actually quite a fan of not ever punishing. I think the goal of criminal law should be to reduce crime while still allowing as much freedom as possible. Imprisonment (or, even worse, the death penalty) seems like a very blunt instrument for that purpose. Changing the brain, however, comes with its own issues. Does society get to decide who we are? I’m not sure about that.
Game_Ender 15y ago
The often used counter example to countries like Norway is you have a more homogeneous population of people, which leads to less internal social strife. I am not saying your system does not provides benefits over the way we treat criminals in the US. It is just that you have to find a way to control for the different social conditions in both countries before you can make numerical comparisons.

jgroch 15y ago

What struck me was close to the opposite. The proposals in the article make me fear a future dystopia, where no one believes in free will, where the average person is degraded by a dehumanizing science. Like some science fiction horror story.

stan_rogers 15y ago
It aligns fairly well with Samuel Butler's Erewhon, actually -- and it should raise questions such as those visited in C. S. Lewis's essay The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.

ZoFreX 15y ago

I've had this thought too. I think meat eating may well be another one, unless the population contracts at some point.

philwelch 15y ago
The population will contract at some point, one way or another. Either we will reach an unsustainable level of overpopulation or the world will reach a level of economic development sufficient to reduce the birth rate, just like we see in the wealthier countries.

jerf 15y ago

Barring total collapse of civilization (in which case this will be a golden era), we will be seen as barbaric. But it isn't very easy to predict in what ways, without merely falling prey to ideas that will further prove to be modern fashionable ideas that don't actually work. And there's no guarantee we wouldn't likewise consider the future barbaric. Is it really that "civilized" to be able to look at someone's brain, figure out precisely what it is that makes them $YOUR_LEAST_FAVORITE_POLITICAL_ORIENTATION, and precisely remove it with surgery and personalized drugs, forcibly applied? Or possibly even $YOUR_POLITICAL_ORIENTATION? I can provide arguments in favor of any political position of your naming being proof that the holder is a bad person that threatens all that is good in civilization and all necessary steps should be taken to eliminate the ideation entirely, lest it successfully spread. (Including mine.) Just as one for instance.