ok people say we found a way to get rid of crime for good by altering the ofenders brain so they don't want to comit crime any more this would be good right? what if that tecnology fell into the hands of a dictator and he used it on political disadants i was disscussing this with someone else and the question came down to if you had the power to give this knowlage to humanity or to withold it what would you do? is geting rid of crime worth the risk of compleat control?
I think that was the question being asked by the film A Clockwork Orange. Personally I prefer to think that we are actually sentient beings and have the self-control to choose to be civil to each other. And to help those who are weak and pathetic, to help them choose to be civil, the worst criminals should become very scary examples of what happens to those who are not civil.
*Avatar wonders who was that "someone else"Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! just wanted to say I found the thread lol
Sure, if we had the technologynand the criminal agreed 100% we should use it in exchnge for him finishing his sentence. Any other way is just an invasion of privacy.
Right and wrong are opinions, so you can say what your opinion is, but you can't say it like it is fact. My opinion is that there are probably better ways to deal with the issue. Altering a persons mind would be much much trickier than for example reading someones, and knowing weather they will commit a crime and act on it. Altering someones mind is not invasion of privacy, but is an infringment on ones right to choice. There would be almost no way of knowing how to alter someones mind so that they didn't want to comit a crime. The altercation might also alter other parts of their personality. What makes us human is something closely defined, but something we haven't quite figured out. The slightest twitch would be like creating a new species, with strange morals and ideas. In our society, it is good to find new ideas and think about them, only because we are mostly all think the same. Personally I think a human only does what is best for him. Even if one is doing someing "selfless" they are doing it to make them feel good, which is much different. If you created a race of humans that were truely selfless, they would die off like lemings for the benifit of others. It would be like self exploitation, instead of a slave master ruling the slaves, the slaves impose themselves on others. I think a better way to go about this is to have everyone wear a brain-cap and have that transmit their thoughts to an anylizer which would determine weather the person is capable and actually wanting to perform a high crime. The machine would not record thoughts and would not disclose information unless a crime was committed. To further the idea of right to privacy, the machine could be set to not let any human see what it sees, thus making a persons privacy still theirs. Only if a high crime was going to be committed would someone be alerted. The machine would disregard petty stealing and other small and insignificant crimes, but murder and other things like that would be seen as a threat. Of course this would only be in the ideal case that a computer could distinguish between a random thought and the actual will to kill.... right
I'm not sure that this would alleviate crime, as you are applying a cure, not a preventative. So you "fix" the person who has committed a crime, how does this prevent the next individual from committing one tomorrow? Peace. _____________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
its a hyperthetical guys u have this wonderful technology which only YOU can give to humanity but once you do its there for good and evil it alows you to alter an ofenders brain so comiting the crime they comited is impossable in the future BUT if you DO give it then you risk it falling into the hands of a dictator who will use it for political purposes rather than judicial ones so the question is do you give it to humanity or cant we be trusted?
I don't think anyone should have that kind of power. It would be the kind of power to decide what is "crime" and what is not, and place society in the singular vision of one individual. Curiously, I bet you ANYONE would do this (myself included) if it was their version of society which was introduced... but if society was not conformed to what that person wanted, they would go on and on about personal freedom.
