Mind Wipe

[aquatus1]

I believe we talked about this a bit on a thread some time back, but It was off-topic and I thought it could stir up some interesting conversation.

This takes place in the future, where we have discovered how the mind stores memories. We are now capable of deleting memories, although we do not have the ability to artificially create new ones.

The question is this: Would wiping out a convicted criminal's mind entirely, to the point where they remember nothing of their former selves (say to the age of about 5), be a viable alternative to the death penalty?

Bear in mind that we would also then be responsible for re-educating this person to then become some sort of member of society afterward.

Would you be satisfied is someone who was formerly condemned to death for a crime against you or your family, instead be mind-wiped?

[Fluffybunny]

I think some people who are advocates of the death penalty want to see not only a punishment, but also vengeance. I think that your idea would fall short on both accounts if that were the state of mind of the death penalty supporter. For one, Simply ceasing to be, being deprogrammed is not even the fear of death; you know your body would go on, without the anguish of the horrible things you have done, secondly, the criminal that did such horrible things, would simply be re-schooled and go free treated better than so many students in the country that would love to have schooling.

...and then you get into the whole Nature/Nurture issue. How much of a criminal is learned and how much is intrinsically a part of them; something that couldn't be scrubbed away? So many twin studies have shown that there is a lot more to nature than we would like to admit...

[conspiracybeliever]

Along with wiping out there mind from the point where they were 5 you would also have to remove them from the society that created this individual. I don't believe people are born murderers or rapists. I think things happen in their lives with the people that are surrounding them and the events. I think it's more complicated than this.

[little_dreamer]

Some killers had traumatic experiences before age 5.

Also, who's gonna babysit these killers, change their diapers, and teach them life skills?

There was a killer who had electro-shock therapy so bad, they said he was harmless when released.

But he did kill again later.

[Wickian]

Wiping someones memories and personality doesn't give them a clean slate. Not only do I consider the tampering of memories horrible from a moral standpoint, but they still did a crime and "just 'cause they can't remember it anymore" doesn't mean they should be let off the hook.

Also, if it was a reality then it would probably be considered a "cruel and/or unusual" form of punishment and be unconstitutional.

[THE MATRIX]

Been watching too much Eliza Dushku "Dollhouse" have we?

[Pseudo Intellectual]

For some crimes, the only solution is either death or life-long imprisonment in a maximum-security prison.

[Stellar]

Also, who's gonna babysit these killers, change their diapers, and teach them life skills?

Why would anyone need to? Think about people with amnesia... they forget their identity, what theyve done and so on, but they still remember how to talk and how to go to the washroom. Its feasable that eventually we'll be able to induce amnesia.

[el midgetron]

I think the practice would be very complicated in the effectiveness and following realities.

What if they discover their past identity or crimes? Or someone else did? I think such "refomed" criminals would probably be at high risk for vigilante justice or relapse. You couldn't just wipe their minds and drop them back at their homes or community, they would need entirely new lives given to them.

And what of non-psychological mental disorders that play a role in peoples actions? Wiping someones mind wouldn't fix a chemical imbalance or physiological condition that could be responsible for their behavior.

[Corp]

Been watching too much Eliza Dushku "Dollhouse" have we?

Or Babylon 5.

I'd be somewhat open to the idea if a firm replacement personality could be put in place. That was this person could be moved to another part of the country and become an active member in society.

[aquatus1]

Been watching too much Eliza Dushku "Dollhouse" have we?

Or Babylon 5.

In all honesty, I never watched a single episode of either series. I'm more of a Cartoon Network sort of guy.

Some killers had traumatic experiences before age 5.

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone suggested that traumatic experiences prior to the age of five led to a person's crimes.

Also, who's gonna babysit these killers, change their diapers, and teach them life skills?

Well, as I mentioned, the same people who carried out the sentence would be responsible for the education, so it would be part of the federal corrections system.

Wiping someones memories and personality doesn't give them a clean slate. Not only do I consider the tampering of memories horrible from a moral standpoint, but they still did a crime and "just 'cause they can't remember it anymore" doesn't mean they should be let off the hook.

Shouldn't it?

Think of it this way: What if, right now, you were approached by a group of scientists and told that you used to be a serial murdered and rapist, however as part of an experiment, your mind was wiped and you were re-educated.

Do you now consider yourself to be a former serial rapist and murderer? Do you feel you should not be let of the hook for these previous crimes? Let's say, for the sake of this argument, that they had irrefutable proof and that the facts of this were beyond question. If the family of these victims be justified in demanding a death penalty for you?

But that may be a little bit of a tangent. I was thinking that, instead of being able to replace a wiped mind with new memories, that a person would have to be re-educated from the ground up. More on this below.

Also, if it was a reality then it would probably be considered a "cruel and/or unusual" form of punishment and be unconstitutional.

As opposed to death?

I'd be somewhat open to the idea if a firm replacement personality could be put in place. That was this person could be moved to another part of the country and become an active member in society.

My original concept was that a person would have to be retrained from the mental age of five to as far as they could go. I think, inevitably, the individual would remain retarded, in that it is unlikely that we could ever re-educate , what, two, three decades worth of life in a full-grown man? That means that, for the purposes of this discussion, the end result of a mind-wipe, after a year of so of rehabilitation, would be similar to a special-needs adult, albeit one with the least amount of external care required.

Of course, there is the nature vs. nurture angle, which would still require us to consider this a potentially dangerous person.

[glyndowers heir]

Mind wiping?

I am all in favour of it!

About 10 grams of lead at mach 1 should do it!

[+HerNibs]

My mind (being somewhat rational) says yes, wiping the mind would be fine.

My heart (being excessively emotional) says NO, make them hurt, make them suffer.

In the end I would have to go with ok to mind wipe and kick something hard.

Nibs

[Pseudo Intellectual]

And how much would this cost?

[aquatus1]

And how much would this cost?

Interesting question. May I assume that you are talking about the whole re-education process?

Raising a child to 17 in 2008, according to About.com, costs $291,570 U.S. dollars. For special needs children, it adds an additional $775 per year, for a total of $304,745. That's over 17 years, and I'm not sure it would take quite so many resources for a fully grown adult with a fully functional, if wiped, brain.

Now, it is difficult to compare this with the death penalty, because the death penalty is something that has so many different appeal processes that the actual execution can be years, sometime decades, in coming. There have been estimates showing how millions upon millions of dollars have been spent in the process of applying the death penalty.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I don't think it takes millions of dollars to execute someone. That's ridiculous.

A man beats, rapes and then murders a group of little girls. Gets incarcerated. Gets out. Does it again, and is found guilty in a court of law. What do you do? Execute him (how much does this really cost? Less than a hundred in Texas!: "the cost for the three substances is $86.08 per offender."), or spend dozens of thousands of dollars and 20 years "re-educating" him?

And what would the people think? Would they want "former" murderers and rapists living in their neighborhoods?

I think I get your main point, but there are so many reasons why "re-educating" criminals is simply not a viable solution/punishment.

[+susieice]

If I were the family member of a murder victim which would I want to chose? I could say $300 thousand is a good price to rehabilitate and mind wipe the offender or I could spend the next 35 years attending court appeals and reliving the experience over and over. What proof do I have that just erasing memories can alter the personality of the killer? Just what makes these people tick?

[Kimi81]

I'm pro death penalty, and I just don't see how wiping away memories is a punishment. I think depending on the severity of the crime, if they don't get the death penalty, they should be made to serve out life imprisonmemt spendidng day after day thinking about they're victims and the pain and anguish they have caused others. You take someone like Caysey Anthony for example, who I feel is going to get death, wiping away her memories is not justice. She should have to sit in a cell and think about how she murdered her baby everday for the rest of her life .

[glyndowers heir]

And how much would this cost?

see my previous post - Lead is cheap and recyclable!

[aquatus1]

I don't think it takes millions of dollars to execute someone. That's ridiculous.

Of course it is. The actual execution process only takes a few thousand dollars.

But the process of applying the death penalty is far more complex than merely the execution. Whenever the death penalty is involved, there is a system of appeals that is so complex that to actually get around to the execution is going to take years. That means that you are going to be providing room, board, and medical, for this prisoner. That's not including legal fees, wages, or other difficult to determine costs involved.

I wasn't able to find a figure for a single person, precisely because the entire process is so complex. Google "Death Penalty Cost", and you'll get a glimpse at how difficult it is to calculate, but I don't think that you'll find a single site that doesn't agree that every state with the death penalty is paying millions to carry them out.

[KennyB]

A1, True, but is it more expensive than 'life with no possibility of parole'? The cheapest way out is the Russian way. A bullet to the back of the head. Right after sentencing. Works for them. KennyB

[+susieice]

A1, True, but is it more expensive than 'life with no possibility of parole'? The cheapest way out is the Russian way. A bullet to the back of the head. Right after sentencing. Works for them. KennyB

Throughout all these appeal processes, taxpayers are still paying to keep these criminals in prison. So when a death penalty is enacted your not just paying to keep them there, but all the years of legal fees besides. I'm not sure how the appeal process works for a person who's been sentenced to life. They should not have all the perks they have. Cable, Internet, Gyms, sounds too good to me. Take the money used to give them all this stuff and improve prisons to allow them to work for what they have and make prison more efficient. Build bigger walls, hire more guards and make them grow their own food. I don't want to hear about criminal rights. Same rights I have for not being a criminal. What about victim's and their family's rights? Make prisons a functional place not an easy way of life.

I agree with Kim81 on all counts, but the death penalty in this country just isn't carried out in a timely manner and probably never will be.

[aquatus1]

A1, True, but is it more expensive than 'life with no possibility of parole'? The cheapest way out is the Russian way. A bullet to the back of the head. Right after sentencing. Works for them. KennyB

Not very well. They aren't around anymore.

But it's not the execution or the sentencing that costs. It's the appeals.

I suppose the big question here would be: Is a person with no memories effectively "dead"? Was the person they use to be effectively executed, and would it be "right" to retrain them and use them as limited labor?

[+susieice]

I kon't think erasing a person's memories would change their personality which is the root of why people act the way they do. If his attitude is bad, memories won't change that.

[BlindMessiah]

I'm pro death penalty, and I just don't see how wiping away memories is a punishment. I think depending on the severity of the crime, if they don't get the death penalty, they should be made to serve out life imprisonmemt spendidng day after day thinking about they're victims and the pain and anguish they have caused others. You take someone like Caysey Anthony for example, who I feel is going to get death, wiping away her memories is not justice. She should have to sit in a cell and think about how she murdered her baby everday for the rest of her life .

Mind wiping is the death penalty. You're killing that person. A new being would inhabit their body once their mind is wiped. A person who is born the instant their mind was wiped. The old would be dead, a new would live. As others have mentioned though, the nature vs nurture argument, if falling on the side of nature, would result in this new person being very similar to the last person living in their body. However, if nurture is closer to the truth, then you could fix the mistakes of society and give a person a new life while killing the murderer's mind.

One potentially dangerous possibility though is if the person were to somehow recover their memories. I would assume the two personalities would blend together forming some sort of split personality. Obviously this is all speculation, as we can't actually experiment with the various possibilities, but that's my take on the issue. The mind is the soul; the body is merely a vessel.