Dear All Citizens Concerned with the Preservation of Individual Liberties in our Criminal Justice Systems,
Can the use of pharmacological, hormonal or neural implants to forestall violent drives and behavior, in cases of rape, sexual abuse of children and murder, be employed in free societies in ways respectful of civil liberties, due process and basic human rights?
It is my belief that it is our current system of imprisonment that is truly coercive, the locking away of human beings for decades in terrible environments that is the real torture, the maintenance of over-burdened conveyor belt courts, as we have today, that is the grave injustice.
My book suggests:
~~~~~~~~~
Would these “Jizo Devices” not be doing the work of the Bodhisattva to save suffering sentient beings?
Of course, just as in current society, average and law abiding citizens who do not exhibit or engage in violent, murderous criminal behavior would remain untouched and unchanged by the law, thus allowing the vast majority of common people to continue their life normally and without interference. It is only the small number of extremely violent individuals, lacking self-control, who need be curbed. That is just as now, where most citizens today live free lives, and only some are removed from society and placed behind bars because of their extreme violence and lack of self-control. In fact, the lives of most citizens would be significantly freer than now, as the fear of walking the streets late at night, sleeping safely in one’s own home, as well as worrying about crimes against one’s children, would all be greatly alleviated.
Victims will be spared death or trauma. The lives of the convicted will be saved as well, for, rather than being sentenced to years in inhumanly degrading, rape and violence infested, psychologically tortuous prisons or mental hospitals for the criminally insane as we do now, a wrongdoer will be let to return to civil society quickly (not immediately, but perhaps after some significantly shortened term of detention), to lead a relatively normal life, to labor for the betterment of the world while freed of their own inner pain and demons. Such treatments would be more humane, and more respectful of the human being, than what we do to the accused and convicted today. Under our current penal system, we seize violent individuals, deprive them of freedom in life, and regularly subject them to conditions bordering on torture behind barbed wire and iron bars. Then, eventually, we release the great majority back into civil society with little correction or therapy, but a high propensity toward repeat offences. Our prisons are overflowing, often breeding even more hardened criminals who will duplicate or worsen their behavior upon release, violent crime continues to exist, and the system of justice is failing in key respects.
Mistakes will still happen, just as today there are wrongful convictions. Thus, the system must have checks and balances, and ideally should be possible to reverse. If it is feasible, these treatment devices should have an “on/off” switch, be temporary or removable in cases in which a court feels that a threat has ended, or an action was mistakenly taken, much as we now release prisoners, even convicted murderers and rapists, who demonstrate that they have reformed or were prosecuted in error. Hopefully, lasting effects would be minimal to non-existent after the treatment is ended. However, even if wrongly implanted because of a judicial mistake, the device would still have allowed the convict to lead a fairly normal life in the world, while the wrongly convicted prisoner today inevitably suffer years or decades behind walls, and a ruined life. Frankly, I would willingly spare thousands of children from the harms of sexual and physical abuse even if it risks that a few individuals who would never have acted upon their urges, or who are falsely convicted despite checks in the system, will have a reduced sex life and propensity to violence.
In a more ethically arguable scenario, persons found to have a high propensity toward sexually abusing children or other extreme violence could have a preventative device implanted before they even act upon their dark desires a first time, following early, preemptive diagnosis of their tendencies. This could occur by their own voluntary agreement to the treatment based upon their own wish to prevent harm, or with family consent in the case of minors and others legally found to lack capacity. Families might petition regarding a relative whose violent tendencies they fear as clearly extreme, whereupon review of the case by doctors and jurists would commence. A more radical proposal, one that violates key tenets of most western legal systems wherein no action can be taken prior to a crime actually having been committed, concerns orders of involuntary treatment by court determination if a board of psychiatrists and jurists find clear and early signs of extreme harmful tendencies leading to a high risk of terrible violence later. Could such an individual be compelled to receive treatments which would mitigate their extreme violent tendencies, psychosis, propensity to rape or the like before they actually do harm? Would it matter if the proposed treatment had otherwise little effect on the individual, as opposed to leaving them somehow stunted? A key question for ethicists to debate will be when and under what circumstance to use such preventative technology if before an actual crime having been committed, such as in the case of someone merely with a genetic make-up and family history lending itself to child abuse or other violence. The need for a panel of judges and experts to agree on the clear and early signs, such as a record of multiple animal tortures, a clear pattern of escalating violence, proximity and unusual behavior regarding an actual child and other similar evidence would be vital to preserving civil liberties. Even so, it is doubtful whether our current laws would allow such a system. I personally would support such pre-emptive action in the clearest and most terrible cases, but a responsible system must be designed so that powers are not abused.
It is possible, for example, that in the future, we will be able to reliably measure arousal or similar physical reactions in persons when shown sexual images of children, or mental and physiological tendencies toward excessively violent reactions when verbally insulted or otherwise triggered, strong enough for a court to order early treatment to prevent such arousal or excess reactions. It is possible that the medical intervention to head off violence will be so relatively mild and non-intrusive (e.g., a tiny chip deep under the skin or other medicine via a difficult to remove small device, administered under medical supervision) that it will be considered no more a burden than insisting that a drug addict enter a morphine program, or a mental patient take her anti-psychotic medications, as a condition of parole and release, much as we do now. The "under the skin, hard to remove" implanted nature of the treatment delivery mechanism would assure compliance. I personally favor such preemptive measures if good procedures of review are created, and doctors can be reasonably sure in their diagnosis.
If we decide that the potential dangers to human rights are still too great, we may require conviction by trial only after commission of at least one actual offense, rather than merely a measured propensity. Even in this latter case, the number of offenses will radically decline.
Of course, in democratic nations, demanding and cautious legal standards, and careful judicial and psychiatric reviews, must be thoroughly maintained, conducted and satisfied. We do not wish to live in dictatorial societies in which citizens are tossed into psychiatric treatment or subject to ‘re-education’ merely for political dissidence, or for being a bit anti-social or different from the mainstream. Without doubt, dictatorships will someday misuse such technologies just as they now misuse prisons and mental hospitals, tossing in political enemies via kangaroo courts. To avoid such dangers, the democratic ideals of fair trial with all due process, requiring sufficient evidence and a high standard of proof, must remain a bedrock. The highest procedural safeguards and standards must be imposed, especially in cases of prevention prior to an actual crime being committed, and pre-emptive action taken only in extreme cases. In fact, as crime decreases, and the current burdens on the judicial system ease, we must use the opportunity to allow for more careful trials conducted by judges and lawyers with equally reduced workloads. Standards of justice must be concurrently improved over the current state of affairs, the lax and hurried systems found in most crime-ridden western nations today.
(to be continued)
Gassho, J
stlah
Video picture, Buddha redeems the mass murderer, soon to be Arhat, Angulimala ...
Can the use of pharmacological, hormonal or neural implants to forestall violent drives and behavior, in cases of rape, sexual abuse of children and murder, be employed in free societies in ways respectful of civil liberties, due process and basic human rights?
It is my belief that it is our current system of imprisonment that is truly coercive, the locking away of human beings for decades in terrible environments that is the real torture, the maintenance of over-burdened conveyor belt courts, as we have today, that is the grave injustice.
My book suggests:
~~~~~~~~~
Would these “Jizo Devices” not be doing the work of the Bodhisattva to save suffering sentient beings?
Of course, just as in current society, average and law abiding citizens who do not exhibit or engage in violent, murderous criminal behavior would remain untouched and unchanged by the law, thus allowing the vast majority of common people to continue their life normally and without interference. It is only the small number of extremely violent individuals, lacking self-control, who need be curbed. That is just as now, where most citizens today live free lives, and only some are removed from society and placed behind bars because of their extreme violence and lack of self-control. In fact, the lives of most citizens would be significantly freer than now, as the fear of walking the streets late at night, sleeping safely in one’s own home, as well as worrying about crimes against one’s children, would all be greatly alleviated.
Victims will be spared death or trauma. The lives of the convicted will be saved as well, for, rather than being sentenced to years in inhumanly degrading, rape and violence infested, psychologically tortuous prisons or mental hospitals for the criminally insane as we do now, a wrongdoer will be let to return to civil society quickly (not immediately, but perhaps after some significantly shortened term of detention), to lead a relatively normal life, to labor for the betterment of the world while freed of their own inner pain and demons. Such treatments would be more humane, and more respectful of the human being, than what we do to the accused and convicted today. Under our current penal system, we seize violent individuals, deprive them of freedom in life, and regularly subject them to conditions bordering on torture behind barbed wire and iron bars. Then, eventually, we release the great majority back into civil society with little correction or therapy, but a high propensity toward repeat offences. Our prisons are overflowing, often breeding even more hardened criminals who will duplicate or worsen their behavior upon release, violent crime continues to exist, and the system of justice is failing in key respects.
Mistakes will still happen, just as today there are wrongful convictions. Thus, the system must have checks and balances, and ideally should be possible to reverse. If it is feasible, these treatment devices should have an “on/off” switch, be temporary or removable in cases in which a court feels that a threat has ended, or an action was mistakenly taken, much as we now release prisoners, even convicted murderers and rapists, who demonstrate that they have reformed or were prosecuted in error. Hopefully, lasting effects would be minimal to non-existent after the treatment is ended. However, even if wrongly implanted because of a judicial mistake, the device would still have allowed the convict to lead a fairly normal life in the world, while the wrongly convicted prisoner today inevitably suffer years or decades behind walls, and a ruined life. Frankly, I would willingly spare thousands of children from the harms of sexual and physical abuse even if it risks that a few individuals who would never have acted upon their urges, or who are falsely convicted despite checks in the system, will have a reduced sex life and propensity to violence.
In a more ethically arguable scenario, persons found to have a high propensity toward sexually abusing children or other extreme violence could have a preventative device implanted before they even act upon their dark desires a first time, following early, preemptive diagnosis of their tendencies. This could occur by their own voluntary agreement to the treatment based upon their own wish to prevent harm, or with family consent in the case of minors and others legally found to lack capacity. Families might petition regarding a relative whose violent tendencies they fear as clearly extreme, whereupon review of the case by doctors and jurists would commence. A more radical proposal, one that violates key tenets of most western legal systems wherein no action can be taken prior to a crime actually having been committed, concerns orders of involuntary treatment by court determination if a board of psychiatrists and jurists find clear and early signs of extreme harmful tendencies leading to a high risk of terrible violence later. Could such an individual be compelled to receive treatments which would mitigate their extreme violent tendencies, psychosis, propensity to rape or the like before they actually do harm? Would it matter if the proposed treatment had otherwise little effect on the individual, as opposed to leaving them somehow stunted? A key question for ethicists to debate will be when and under what circumstance to use such preventative technology if before an actual crime having been committed, such as in the case of someone merely with a genetic make-up and family history lending itself to child abuse or other violence. The need for a panel of judges and experts to agree on the clear and early signs, such as a record of multiple animal tortures, a clear pattern of escalating violence, proximity and unusual behavior regarding an actual child and other similar evidence would be vital to preserving civil liberties. Even so, it is doubtful whether our current laws would allow such a system. I personally would support such pre-emptive action in the clearest and most terrible cases, but a responsible system must be designed so that powers are not abused.
It is possible, for example, that in the future, we will be able to reliably measure arousal or similar physical reactions in persons when shown sexual images of children, or mental and physiological tendencies toward excessively violent reactions when verbally insulted or otherwise triggered, strong enough for a court to order early treatment to prevent such arousal or excess reactions. It is possible that the medical intervention to head off violence will be so relatively mild and non-intrusive (e.g., a tiny chip deep under the skin or other medicine via a difficult to remove small device, administered under medical supervision) that it will be considered no more a burden than insisting that a drug addict enter a morphine program, or a mental patient take her anti-psychotic medications, as a condition of parole and release, much as we do now. The "under the skin, hard to remove" implanted nature of the treatment delivery mechanism would assure compliance. I personally favor such preemptive measures if good procedures of review are created, and doctors can be reasonably sure in their diagnosis.
If we decide that the potential dangers to human rights are still too great, we may require conviction by trial only after commission of at least one actual offense, rather than merely a measured propensity. Even in this latter case, the number of offenses will radically decline.
Of course, in democratic nations, demanding and cautious legal standards, and careful judicial and psychiatric reviews, must be thoroughly maintained, conducted and satisfied. We do not wish to live in dictatorial societies in which citizens are tossed into psychiatric treatment or subject to ‘re-education’ merely for political dissidence, or for being a bit anti-social or different from the mainstream. Without doubt, dictatorships will someday misuse such technologies just as they now misuse prisons and mental hospitals, tossing in political enemies via kangaroo courts. To avoid such dangers, the democratic ideals of fair trial with all due process, requiring sufficient evidence and a high standard of proof, must remain a bedrock. The highest procedural safeguards and standards must be imposed, especially in cases of prevention prior to an actual crime being committed, and pre-emptive action taken only in extreme cases. In fact, as crime decreases, and the current burdens on the judicial system ease, we must use the opportunity to allow for more careful trials conducted by judges and lawyers with equally reduced workloads. Standards of justice must be concurrently improved over the current state of affairs, the lax and hurried systems found in most crime-ridden western nations today.
(to be continued)
Gassho, J
stlah
Video picture, Buddha redeems the mass murderer, soon to be Arhat, Angulimala ...
Comment