Not sure how on topic this is, but consider the following thought experiment:
A man commits a series of various heinous and grevious crimes (murder, rape, etc), such that he gets life in prison (though parole is not off the table). During his imprisonment, a confrontation with a fellow inmate results in the man becoming paralyzed from the neck down. At his parole, one of the primary considerations is how much of a threat the man poses to society. As a quadriplegic, he poses minimal threat. He is, however, completely unrepentant about his crime and his state of mind is still that of a viscious killer. Another consideration is that, above and beyond the cost to society of keeping someone imprisoned for life, he now has intense medical care that the state must absorb. With these considerations, should he be released on parole? The core of this lies in the philosophical underpinnings of incarceration. Is the primary function of prison to punish? To rehabilitate? To simply isolate society from dangerous elements? It seems clear that rehabilitation is off the table. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that prison would provide more punishment then him simply being paralyzed. In fact, if released he would have to account for his own medical costs, probably resulting in worse care. Being free may be more punishing tham keeping him in prison where he has guaranteed medical care, shelter and food. As a quadriplegic, he is also a minimal threat to society. (I say minimal because such people have managed to commit crimes, but the rate is as probably as low as you are going to get for any person). I feel this situation reveals an underlying paradox. In most situations, people would espouse the utilitarian aspect of prison: it reduces harm to society by acting as a deterrant through the threat and enactment of punishment, isolating threats from society, and rehabilitating people so they are less of a threat if and when they reenter society. What is often underplayed is the emotional aspect. If a person shows genuine remorse at a crime committed, they are generally treated as being less of a threat. This makes sense since not all crimes are acts of malice. A person that genuinely feels guilt *is* less of a threat and should be treated as such. But this association remains valid only when there is a tie between a person's mindset and their ability to commit a crime. When that tie is severed, a person's emotional state no longer represents their potential to be threatening and can no longer be used in this manner. The paradox arises from the fact that most people would continue to use emotional state as requirement for release and would recoil at letting an unrepentent killer be freed from prison. Notes: This situation is an based on an actual case - http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C061031.PDF though some elements have been generalized for this philosophical exercise. To summarize the actual case, the prisoner was attemtping to involve a special statute that allows prisoners to be released under "compassionate" consideration if certain conditions apply (terminal illness, medically incapacitated or otherwise no longer a threat due to medical condition). The parole board denied the claim under the ruling that quadriplegics can still pose a threat, as evidenced by several intances they were able to find. A court overturned that ruling on the basis that, on a long enough time line you can find instances of anyone being a threat and the statute does not require that a person be no threat what-so-ever. A superior court then overturned the lower courts ruling, so it would appear that the man remains in jail. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
