Technological castration
Pedophiles. Most likely the most despised of all types of criminals as their crimes are perpetrated against the truly innocent, children. Could they ever be forgiven once lines were crossed, trusted again within a community?
I am fairly certain at some point in the not too distant future, a technological solution will be able to restrict a whole range of behaviors by targeting certain structures of the brain. The more research performed, the more they are finding that the physical structure of the brain is responsible for a whole host of behaviors. In other words, the way they were born. This opens a strange can of worms in punishing a range of criminal behaviors that are judged as free choice and controllable.
What if they are not controllable by a particular person? Can one punish an epileptic for having a seizure, a diabetic for an inability to produce insulin?
But, what if a technological solution was found, something that could ensure a behavior could never happen again, not even an urge to repress, can they be allowed to walk free unpunished?
The problem likely is that it can only be done after a crime has been committed or voluntarily before. The reason is that the structure of the brain is likely not the only variable and many may have the same structure but not present with a certain tendency.
The issue with playing around in the brain pre-crime is that the effects that it will have post procedure are unknown as slight changes can have large ramifications. Suppressing a chance of something happening may make the possibility of something else happening much higher. This is a part of the vaccination problem where for many, there is no harm done but for a few, a lot of harm.
A mental vaccination of behavior opens up a whole range of complexities that are likely unknown to us. Perhaps some would present positively in some and very negatively in others. This means that there must potentially be victims of the criminal before the criminal can be treated to stop further criminality. How, would a victim feel to see a person that has committed crimes against them walking free even though they know they will never commit a similar crime again?
How will a person feel after treatment if their mental structure essentially forced them into a behavior? It is likely its own cruel and unusual punishment to face the facts of a terrible past in which one committed heinous crimes yet had no control over them. 'It was me, but not me, I do not understand how I could ever, but I know I did.'
What are the moral implications of treating criminals in such a way? Is it more ethical than a jail? Yes. Is it fair on the victims? This gets quite complex as the emotional impact of a horrible experience upon a victim can fundamentally change a life course also yet they must likely live with that past also and they are absolutely innocent in the crime.
The future is fast becoming a moral minefield where we are going to have to re-evaluate the way in which we approach a whole range of human questions and behaviors as new information and technology alter our view and our range of possible courses of action.
Not all are going to be negative changes of course but ignoring the possible negative implications increases the risk of missing fundamental flaws exponentially, not to mention all of the complexity issues in the details. It is all going to get very interesting, very fast in human timeline terms.
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
This is a controversial subject because as much as I and many others agree with the statement that a sexual predator of children is simply as evil as it gets there is a mental health component we are not fully understanding yet. There was a article I read a long time ago about this guy who suffered an accident and after having the brain injury started to develop pedophiliac tendencies, the crazy detail here is that prior to his injury he never had those thoughts. The physical injury had in a way we don't understand created a misfiring of the brain for lack of a better word that translated into sexual deviancy. He did get caught for child pornography and trialed and jailed, because as much as his defense did make sense he made sure not to watch these kinds of videos in his work hours thus allowing the jury to see that there was free will involved in the equation. That being said, when I try to wrap my head around the possibility of a brain injury triggering such behavior it leaves me stranded on an island of confusion. Can't imagine what me might the discover in the future when we crack open the puzzle of consciousness and free will or lack there of.
It is going to get very interesting though as a whole range of different technologies are going to come together to give options we are yet to even imagine. The idea of guilty and innocent is likely to be thrown into a whole new toolkit and I am fairly certain we are currently flawed in our views. But, without better information, what else can we do?
You are not alone in the confusion.
Chemical castration was used in the UK for "sexual deviants." Alan Turing was a famous example of one sentenced to such fate. Although it is understandable to view crimminal or undesirable behaviors in terms of medical/psychological perspective, such view undermines the entirety of the judicial system we humans have devised for the past 5000 or so years.
If AI or chemicals can be used to "better" someone's thoughts, then for what else could we use such technology? How about "curing" bigotry? What about "violent" tendencies, as in the movie "Demolition Man"? What about "counter-revolutionary" or even "revolutionary" thoughts?
I have other posts that are around these concerns too. I didn't say there was no downside ;) I am trying for a bit to reduce the length of my posts as an experiment to gauge engagement.
The judicial system is already being influenced by AI recommendations that have been found quite lacking due to their code so these technological/moral questions must be raised. I am definitely not a fan of any authority having direct access to my decision making processes without even the chance to filter.
It may also raises the possibility to essentially wipe the victims memory of the crime so unless there is physical damage, it would be like it didn't happen. If it is like it didn't happen, did it happen?
Lots of interesting things to think about that I will have close to zero chance to influence.
I have encountered suggestions of personality wipe as a means for punishment of criminals, but using memory erasure for victims is a concept I did not consider. I recall a video game that had as its plot devise the skill of editing memory. The game presented a future of memory edition as a world, in which people live vicariously through others' memories/experiences; those who possess or generate unique experiences can trade that commodity for other items. Essentially, a society that has money backed by memories.
My younger self would enthusiastically endorse personality/memory wipes as a solution to overflowing jails and prisons. Back then, I only viewed man as a meat-bag of chemicals, and the state must be frugal with her resources. Even criminals can be repurposed for the benefit of the state.
If we begin to repurpose criminals, then the next discussion would be regarding manufacture of men with atrophied cerebral cortex, diminished pain receptors, enhanced skeletal muscle and bone structure, and neural guidance by A.I. to be used as "workers." Technically, such system can not be considered to be tyrannical, since one can not tyrannize those who can not feel pain . . .
As said, the morality behind much of what is coming is going to force the consideration of questions we have never faced or thought of before. Historically, new technologies often bring a moral debate to the table but what is coming and the speed of approach has never before been seen.
I can see your point about pedophilia being something one can't control, but acting on desires CAN be controlled. I'm sure there are many pedophiles that suppress their aberrant desires and never act on them. Unlike seizures, there is a choice involved in molesting children, and there isn't any excuse for it.
That works under the assumption that everyone has the capacity for controlling of desires. It could be that those that recognize an unwanted urge can opt for treatment pre-crime, but that doesn't mean everyone has that power over the urges. If the control was there, everyone that didn't want to smoke, gamble, drink or be overweight would be able to simply control themselves. There are complexities that go beyond how we want things to be.
I'm a smoker so I can relate to that!
I was , I was able to quit. I do take your point though and this is why it is so complex. I am in no way defending or endorsing the behaviour, but all behaviours are complex beyond our understanding. I used pedophilia as a much less subtle example.
I didn't think you were defending it, don't worry. If we want to change things, we have to examine them.