this kind of reminds me of minority report, and if you've watched that film you kind of realise that its not a good idea
Poll: Would you imprison individuals with a disorder that pre-disposed them to commiting serious crime?
- Thread starter JoJo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If by "imprison", you mean "place in a mental institution to receive help", then my answer is 100%
(Although I would want for anyone who is diagnosed with the z-syndrome to receive psychological help in the first place)
Because imprisoning someone because they might or probably will commit a crime sometime in the future is a horribly dystopian policy.
(Although I would want for anyone who is diagnosed with the z-syndrome to receive psychological help in the first place)
Because imprisoning someone because they might or probably will commit a crime sometime in the future is a horribly dystopian policy.
Ahhh, if we had the capacity to recognize that someone would have a predisposition for crime, couldn't we also use tools that ALREADY exist to ensure that individuals more likely to commit those crimes don't?
Why don't you just give everyone with that disorder mandatory therapy sessions and psych evals or something like that? And how would this syndrome even come about? Would it be genetic or environmental?
There's a lot of holes in this idea.
Either way, like some have said, you can't imprison someone for something they haven't done yet.
Why don't you just give everyone with that disorder mandatory therapy sessions and psych evals or something like that? And how would this syndrome even come about? Would it be genetic or environmental?
There's a lot of holes in this idea.
Either way, like some have said, you can't imprison someone for something they haven't done yet.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,170
- 143
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
For the purposes of this thought experient, the disorder could be genetic or environmental as long as it wasn't actually the fault of the sufferer. This is only a thought experiment though and this isn't a manifesto for imprisoning certain types of people, nor a scientific theory. I'm not proposing anything myself, I'd rather hear your opinions :-DFuzzySeduction said:
I'd say section people who are serious enough to be a decent threat to people around them, but even then it's hard to define if someone's in that bracket or not until they actually do something. Keep an eye on maybe, but I wouldn't say there's any justification for actually imprisoning someone if they've not actually done anything.
The justice system is founded upon punishing those that have committed a crime and is thus a reactive force not a proactive one. It is better to let a guilty man go free then to imprison an innocent one. That is why you are innocent until proven guilty, that is why you must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime. Imprisoning people because they might do something conflicts with the very core of our justice system. Therefor, I don't care Z Syndrome I'm not imprisoning someone until they have committed a crime.
51% (I voted 50% as it was nearest) would be the place where removing said element from the gen pop for the benefit of the majority. Wouldn't be jail necessarily but treatment centers.
It's wrong to imprison innocent people, and a person with this syndrome is still innocent unless they actually commit a crime. Even if 100% of people who have had it committed crimes, there's always a chance that the next person won't.
If somehow it turns out that people with this syndrome are incapable of NOT committing crimes (not sure how that would work) then that would be a reason to put them in psychiatric care before they'd done anything.
If somehow it turns out that people with this syndrome are incapable of NOT committing crimes (not sure how that would work) then that would be a reason to put them in psychiatric care before they'd done anything.
75% or higher. But it shouldn't be a prison. How about nice facilities? It is very rare for a Syndrome like one that OP has specified to allow for a human to be able to live a normal life peacefully, and then maybe one day go out and commit the crime.
I mean, if committing serious crimes were the only symptoms, then there would be no way to know until the person has committed the crime, and by then it's too late.
I mean, if committing serious crimes were the only symptoms, then there would be no way to know until the person has committed the crime, and by then it's too late.
I agree with you, but there's no reason that it should have to be like jail at all. Although I can't help feeling like it would eventually fall apart into a jail if fund requirements weren't met.BrassButtons said:
I have to ask you this: Is it wrong (by which I think you mean morally) to imprison an innocent person if it means protecting the lives of the individuals who live around said person? Isn't one of the main points of jail to protect the lives of the community?
I believe that no thought or impulse is a crime. None. I think about getting out at stoplights and punching the jackass driver in front of me all the time, but should I be arrested for assault? Hell no, I haven't done anything. Sure, if I let these people stay on the streets until they killed someone, the victims' loved ones would be bitching endlessly, but I will not punish an innocent person for something they didn't do.
EDIT: On the contrary, I don't hold any disorder as an excuse for committing a crime. Once these people commit the crime and are proven to have done so, they will rot in prison for however long a person without this disorder would be in there for the same crime.
EDIT: On the contrary, I don't hold any disorder as an excuse for committing a crime. Once these people commit the crime and are proven to have done so, they will rot in prison for however long a person without this disorder would be in there for the same crime.
I would say that unless the number of people with whatever syndrome who committed crimes was insanely high (like 80 or 90%) then its unethical to arbitrarily imprison them.Azure-Supernova said:
However, I wouldn't necessarily be against requiring monthly or bi-yearly counseling appointments as mental checkups like we do for manic depressives. If someone who is predisposed to commit a crime is thinking about doing it, its fairly obvious if you know what to look for and it can then prevented just like someone who is thinking about killing themselves.
Yes, this obviously wouldn't work here in the US. But I think perhaps this is more of a philosophical question than a question about how our justice system works.Twilight_guy said:
Not that I disagree with you, but why is it better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent one?
i will only imprison after the crime is done. However, i would also ask to database their DNA and fingerprint information as well. Basically some form of social discrimination will be there, but it's just like how in my case i carry the genes for a blood disorder and have to register myself in a database as a result.
As the theory goes, punishing a man unjustly is worse then not punishing a man who deserve it. The protecting the innocent is of higher precedent then punishing the wicked.zehydra said:
As a philosophical question, there is no right answer, but I support the the basis of the American justice system and I think its wrong to punish someone because they might do something. We could all potentially do something at any time. Some of us are more likely but I don't think that's a good enough backing to support preemptive strikes. I also don't think justice can occur if you punish before a crime is committed and if this isn't int he pursuit of justice then there isn't a reason it should exist.