Punishing Before and After Crimes

There is technology that can detect thoughts that  might, or will, lead to a crime.

Photo from photoXpress

Is it ethically responsible to hold people in detention for crimes they are going to commit in the future?

Normally, you will be sentenced to prison for a crime you committed in the past. The punishment is a reaction to your crime. If you’d commit murder, you would be in prison for 30 years or so, maybe for the rest of your life. We see this as a normal thing, but were you accountable for what you did? Probably so, unless you have a mental disorder. It is very hard to draw the line between those two. Doesn’t everyone who commits murder have a mental disorder? The real question is whether someone will commit murder again. If you have a mental disorder you aren’t expected to. You’re just a case of chance.

But if you’re not a case of chance, and you have been in prison for 29 years, with one year left, are you at that moment still accountable for what you did 29 years ago? How long does a punishment have to last? The worse the crime, the longer the imprisonment. But do those 30 years re-awake the dead person? Do they take away the guilt?

In the Netherlands the police is punishing people for crimes they committed, 4 years ago. People who uploaded videos of illegal sets of fireworks a few years ago are being held accountable for it now. Is this not a strange way of punishing, when people don’t even remember the video existing on YouTube?

What if you’re sentenced for a crime you are going to commit in the future? In the movie Minority Report gifted humans predict that John, the main character, will commit murder in 36 hours. John doesn’t even know the victim at that moment, but he is sentenced for murder. If pre-crime detection were possible in our world, would we use it? Are you accountable for a murder you are going to commit, without yourself knowing yet? We’d say it’s impossible to prove a future crime, but what if the government says the pre-crime detection is certainly right?

Video:
Indefinite Detention for Future Crime

Yes to Euthanasia?

If we all strive for more freedom in our lives, if we have the right choose our own jobs, our own way of living, may we not decide whether we want to live or not?

Photo from dailyrecord.co.uk

Euthanasia has been the cause of many debates worldwide. When we kill animals we do it fast to stop them from experiencing unnecessary pain. Do those animals want to die? Maybe so, their living conditions aren’t very good when humans put them in small cages. Animals can’t communicate with us, they can’t tell us if they agree. Would we let them live if they’d disagree? Maybe, if they could communicate, we might consider them equal to us, and we wouldn’t kill them. How can we be sure animals experience any pain at all? It is impossible, but we expect them to, it would be rather strange if they didn’t.

Tony Nicklinson was no animal. He was paralysed in 2005, and could only communicate with his eyes. Did he suffer from pain? Yes, he said his life had become a ‘nightmare’. Did he want to die? Yes, he lost many cases fighting for his right-to-die. Could he communicate, could he tell us he didn’t want to live anymore? Yes, he could and he did. Did we kill him, did we let him die without experiencing unnecessary pain? No.

Why didn’t we? Becauce the law says so? Is that a valid reason when someone has to live 7 years, paralysed? A healthy person who wants to die has many ways to do this. Tony didn’t, you can hardly kill yourself with your eyes. Doctors couldn’t because they would be murderers. His living conditions were worse than the animals we kill for food, living in small cages. If his living conditions are inhumane, does the law still apply to him?

After Tony lost a case in the High Court, he stopped eating, which was his death’s cause. It was his only option left. How could he enjoy living a life he didn’t want? How can you enjoy living if you’re forced to?

What is your opinion on the subject?