73 replies to this topic

[prophets]

if you've ever watched any show about prison, they are full of staph infections, viruses, horrible diets, and almost anything you can think of that would accelerate aging.

this is like the last thing on my list of worries if everyone on this planet lives forever.... (big if still)...

[castrensis]

Vgamer1, on Sep 21 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

castrensis, on Sep 21 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

When radical life-extension technologies come to fruition we may have to reconsider the length of sentences for specific crimes. Is the intention of a 140 year sentence for the offending person to spend the rest of their life in prison? If the answer is affirmative then these inmates should probably be denied access to life extension technologies.

I don't know about denying access to life extension. Yes, we deny prisoners other rights, but we do not deny them the right to live (in most cases). However, I don't agree with the death penalty in any case.

About the adjusting of sentencing. This is a possibility, but think of the legal implications. A sentence was determined for a person, how could any institution extend that sentence legally? Unless in light of the coming singularity laws are adjusted, I don't see it happening.

Right to life & right to enhancement technologies are two different things. Prisoners have a right to basic medical care but don't have any right to aesthetic enhancement technologies (i.e. cosmetic surgery), this may be an analogous foundation from which we could start to think about provision of enhancement technologies to inmates.

Established sentences couldn't be extended but the sentences for people who have already undergone radical life extension enhancements should be reconsidered, particularly if their crime was so heinous that the intention of the sentence is to sequester them from society until their death.

Vgamer1, on Sep 21 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

castrensis, on Sep 21 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

Radical life-extension technologies shouldn't ever be considered as a right, merely as a privilege. Perhaps access to radical life extension technologies could be considered a right, but (IMO) provision of enhancement technologies to individuals shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers. However, prisoners' access to radical life extension technologies are contingent on the answer to the preceding & certain rights are commonly denied prisoners, e.g. Right to Privacy.

If we deny access to prisoners but agree that offenders shouldn't die sequestered in a secure facility then the answer probably isn't provision of radical life extension technologies to prisoners but a reform of the system, perhaps utilizing reprogramming technologies once available.

I think radical life-extension technologies should be considered a right eventually. That is when is it possible for all to access it. I don't know who's going to pay for it, but I'd hope the technology would become so cheap that even the lowest of the low can access it.

The arguments against designation of a commodity as a right has been elucidated here.

Vgamer1, on Sep 21 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

Again, we're going to have to be very careful with "reprogramming" technologies. In some cases, it would be as unethical as a death sentence.

The death sentence or, alternately, life imprisonment is suitable for people that pose such a danger to others that they cannot be rehabilitated or permitted to life in society. If we can extinguish the biological basis of the aberrant behavior, for the safety of society, then we should. It's preferable to death, no?

[Vgamer1]

I guess a thread similar to mine was already posted? I did a search, but didn't find anything. Sorry about that.

Edit: castrensis, I will reply to your post soon. I'm at work right now however, and am in and out.

Edited by Vgamer1, 22 September 2009 - 01:19 PM.

[Vgamer1]

castrensis, on Sep 22 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

Right to life & right to enhancement technologies are two different things. Prisoners have a right to basic medical care but don't have any right to aesthetic enhancement technologies (i.e. cosmetic surgery), this may be an analogous foundation from which we could start to think about provision of enhancement technologies to inmates.

I agree that the right to life and the right to enhancement technologies are two different things. I thought you were referring to radical life extension technologies. I guess that is somewhat on the border between the two. In my opinion, everyone should have the right to live indefinitely. So I guess prisoners could be given "biological" immortality, but no enhancements? What do you think?

castrensis, on Sep 22 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

Established sentences couldn't be extended but the sentences for people who have already undergone radical life extension enhancements should be reconsidered, particularly if their crime was so heinous that the intention of the sentence is to sequester them from society until their death.

I'm worried about people with established sentences that would have access to life-extending technologies after the fact (Madoff). That seems to be a tricky issue for me.

castrensis, on Sep 22 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

The death sentence or, alternately, life imprisonment is suitable for people that pose such a danger to others that they cannot be rehabilitated or permitted to life in society. If we can extinguish the biological basis of the aberrant behavior, for the safety of society, then we should. It's preferable to death, no?

I agree in some ways. But I still believe we should proceed with caution.

I'll take an extreme example to start. We have a mass murderer who has been convicted of 40 homicides. Officials see no way of rehabilitation as he is obviously off his rocker. However, a scientist has invented a machine that can be placed on a person's head. It will "reprogram" the person to any kind of personality we would desire. So we make the guy into Mother Teresa.

I say this is an unethical as a death sentence. It's not really preferable to death, because you might as well have given the guy lethal injection and then cloned Mother Teresa.

If any kind of rehabilitation or "reprogramming" is going to be done, it has to take into consideration the identity of the criminal. The person has to believe they are the same being throughout the process, or else they have effectively died. That's what I mean by using caution.

[Esoparagon]

Live Forever, on Jul 2 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

was released in 150 years to terrorize people again?

You'd think after 150 years in prison that you'd have learned your lesson, don't you think?

[Vgamer1]

Esoparagon, on Sep 22 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

You'd think after 150 years in prison that you'd have learned your lesson, don't you think?

No, not necessarily. Not if that person is going to live to be 1,000 or 10,000

[TheFountain]

castrensis, on Sep 21 2009, 11:31 PM, said:

Radical life-extension technologies shouldn't ever be considered as a right, merely as a privilege.

Says who? If you use this logic to justify denying life-extension technologies to people then someone else can use any form of justification to murder someone else. Why the arbitrary meting out of these technologies? Makes no sense unless you're part of a NWO who wants to eradicate certain types of people whilst allowing other's access.

castrensis, on Sep 21 2009, 11:31 PM, said:

Perhaps access to radical life extension technologies could be considered a right, but (IMO) provision of enhancement technologies to individuals shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers.

Why not? It is alright they subsidize Walmart healthcare plans, CEOs of mega-corporations, OPERA MUSIC and insurance companies! Why wouldn't they subsidize something that would benefit them in the long term? Oh wait, but your theory that it shouldn't be a right, only a priviledge meted out to a few selected groups cancels that out. Sounds like you don't want radical life-extension. If this is a misunderstanding please explain the inherent contradiction in your argument. Or is it that you want LE for yourself but not the types of people you dislike?

Edited by TheFountain, 25 September 2009 - 02:34 PM.

[forever freedom]

Vgamer1, on Sep 22 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

Esoparagon, on Sep 22 2009, 09:55 AM, said:

You'd think after 150 years in prison that you'd have learned your lesson, don't you think?

No, not necessarily. Not if that person is going to live to be 1,000 or 10,000

150 years may look like little when compared to 1,000 or 10,000 but it would still be a lot for the prisoner. Even if we were immortal, 150 years is (much) more than enough time to change anybody. If someone doesn't change after 150 years then i don't think 1,000 years or more would change him.

[Vgamer1]

forever freedom, on Sep 25 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

150 years may look like little when compared to 1,000 or 10,000 but it would still be a lot for the prisoner. Even if we were immortal, 150 years is (much) more than enough time to change anybody. If someone doesn't change after 150 years then i don't think 1,000 years or more would change him.

You may be right, but my argument is that it will depend on the person.

[Vgamer1]

Being in prison for 150 may have the effect of enraging a person. It may make them more inclined for wrong-doing, not less. Again, it would depend on the person.

[Ayron Elijah]

I think, that when immortality becomes readily available to the masses, money related crimes such as robbery, GTA, kidnap, extortion, etc... Will no longer exist. My belief is that, people don't commit said crimes just for the fun of it, they do it because of a desperate need for money. And so, with immortailty people can spend all the time in the world trying to amass their fortune without having to worry about a lack of time. However concerning other crimes such as vandalism, arson, assault, murder, rape, etc.. It'll be hard to say anything about those crimes, as to my understanding, they are crimes which have to deal with one's psychological well being, and not really motivated by any material gain.

But I'm kind of optimistic that prison sentences will not be a real problem. With immortaility time can be taken to slowly reform offenders and then release them into society. Giving them a second chance to redo any damage that they have done.

Well this is my view on things.

Cheers!

[revenant]

people that kill other people for impulsive reasons, or out of avarice, need to have their individual genetic line truncated

[Condraz23]

Vgamer1, on Sep 23 2009, 02:35 AM, said:

castrensis, on Sep 22 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

Right to life & right to enhancement technologies are two different things. Prisoners have a right to basic medical care but don't have any right to aesthetic enhancement technologies (i.e. cosmetic surgery), this may be an analogous foundation from which we could start to think about provision of enhancement technologies to inmates.

I agree that the right to life and the right to enhancement technologies are two different things. I thought you were referring to radical life extension technologies. I guess that is somewhat on the border between the two. In my opinion, everyone should have the right to live indefinitely. So I guess prisoners could be given "biological" immortality, but no enhancements? What do you think?

castrensis, on Sep 22 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

Established sentences couldn't be extended but the sentences for people who have already undergone radical life extension enhancements should be reconsidered, particularly if their crime was so heinous that the intention of the sentence is to sequester them from society until their death.

I'm worried about people with established sentences that would have access to life-extending technologies after the fact (Madoff). That seems to be a tricky issue for me.

castrensis, on Sep 22 2009, 12:49 AM, said:

The death sentence or, alternately, life imprisonment is suitable for people that pose such a danger to others that they cannot be rehabilitated or permitted to life in society. If we can extinguish the biological basis of the aberrant behavior, for the safety of society, then we should. It's preferable to death, no?

I agree in some ways. But I still believe we should proceed with caution.

I'll take an extreme example to start. We have a mass murderer who has been convicted of 40 homicides. Officials see no way of rehabilitation as he is obviously off his rocker. However, a scientist has invented a machine that can be placed on a person's head. It will "reprogram" the person to any kind of personality we would desire. So we make the guy into Mother Teresa.

I say this is an unethical as a death sentence. It's not really preferable to death, because you might as well have given the guy lethal injection and then cloned Mother Teresa.

If any kind of rehabilitation or "reprogramming" is going to be done, it has to take into consideration the identity of the criminal. The person has to believe they are the same being throughout the process, or else they have effectively died. That's what I mean by using caution.

I guess that would depend on your definition of "same person". There have been cases where brain tumors, injuries, and diseases have radically changed the personality of a person (for better or for worse) but their families still want to save them and look after them because they believe that the affected person is still the same individual despite the radical changes that have occured.

For example, if I had a son and his brain was modified to resemble the personality of Mother Teresa (whether it's due to aging, disease, purposeful modification is irrelevent), I'd still consider him more "my son" than the actual Mother Teresa herself.

The brain deteorates almost immediately after death, slowly at first but the pace increases later on. I suppose many people revived from cryonics would experience irreversible memory loss and personality changes too but most people who signed up for cryonics would prefer this over the 100% certain oblivion of death. Whether or not they will be the same person once revived is purely a subjective distinction. After all, I certainly am not the same person I was 10 or even 5 years ago.

[Cameron]

infernity, on Jul 4 2005, 11:23 AM, said:

Nate,

As I believe this pill costs money, as health caring do, they will have to pay.

However, if they do, let them stay there for 500 years, it would probably teach them a lesson.
If they repeat it- let them not ever get out. But let them have the possibility to kill themselves if they really want.

Yours
~Infernity

Let's not forget the system ain't perfect, as others have said, innocent people are bound to fall in[For example being framed... an immortal criminal might get extremely good at framing others.].

rjws, on Jun 20 2006, 09:16 AM, said:

As  long as law enforcement is done by flawed humans, There is a chance of  inncoent people being in there. Prison is a waste anyway most go right  back. We need a new way of Rehabing in the future.

New Rehab tech will likely be needed, Indeed.  The human mind can be re-engineered to be more moral, empathic, and altruistic.  Once the nature of the mind is better understood and how the underlying hardware influences tendencies towards crime, we will be able to weed said tendencies out.  This will likely require modifying the person's brain.  IF the person refuses such treatment and it is proven[say required advanced brain-scan.  One could simply simulate the response of their brain to X number of scenarios, and see the probable resulting actions with accompanying probabilities.] that given their enviro-gene dev. they have a high probability of committing|repeating said criminal behavior, they can be kept locked in indefinitely[this will likely become cheaper once advanced nanotech becomes available or if cryonics is perfected... they could simply be put into suspended-animation and woken at X times.].

Edited by Cameron, 01 November 2009 - 04:51 AM.