I don't see how my proposals would lead to a dystopia. Will you elaborate on that point?
I think that my proposed way of dealing with convicts is less dystopian than the current way. The current way is just to punish them with prison and either keep them there for life or release them back into society when they are just as dangerous if not more dangerous than when they were taken out. Wouldn't you say it's more dystopian to just pointlessly lock people up for a certain amount of time?
Using my proposed methods, I believe much less people would be incarcerated at any given time than currently. And I believe the average convict would spend much less time incarcerated on average. Additionally, I think recidivism
would be greatly reduced using my methods, which also means released convicts would be much less likely to end up getting re-incarcerated.
I'm not sure of the value of your distinction between basing the convicts' release on what they do
as opposed to what they are
. Regardless, let's not forget that convicts are people who have been proven guilty in a court where the burden of proof rests on the prosecutor. Of course, I do think it would be wise and incredibly helpful to find ways to improve the fairness of the trials and to ensure that the innocent until proven guilty
policy is strictly upheld, but that's true independently of my proposed changes to the way we deal with convicts who have been convicted of what they did
The "determination problem" is wise of you to point out. Will you agree that it will work out in a less dystopian way to try to determine who of the convicted offenders is safe for release and who is too dangerous to release rather than just release them based upon mostly arbitrary sentences such that people who could be safely released remain in prison and people who are dangerous (e.g. unrehabilitated murders and rapists) are released at which point they will probably go victimize more people (e.g. commit murder or rape again)?
If you will let me be anecdotal, I remember hearing of a poor young black man in the U.S. who used an unloaded gun to rob some guy for literally only a few dollars. Later on probation for that robbery, the young man failed a drug test because he had smoked marijuana, and the judge sentenced him to life in prison. I propose my methods because I think they would be much less dystopian then the methods that led to incidents such as that young man getting life in prison.
Even if we are talking about the scariest of offenders, such as murders or rapists, who have been sentenced to life in prison, wouldn't you say it is less dystopian to allow them to get treatment and potentially be deemed safe for release than just left in prison?
When including convicts who would be sentenced to less than life in the current system, isn't it less dystopian to let the convicts who probably won't hurt anyone else go and keep the convicts who probably will hurt more people incarcerated than vice versa?
Of course, I'm not so obtuse that I can't see how my ideas could be abused by power-hungry, authoritarian governments to create some type of "Clockwork Orange" system in which they start locking up people who don't actually need to be locked up and forcefully drugging and brainwashing the people in the name of treatment and in the name of protecting other people from so-called criminals. The misuse of helpful, desirable ideas by harmfully deceitful tyrants is common. But let's not judge the use of a method by those who claim to use those methods to do something horribly different. Would we give up our support for political freedom because fascists and terrorists claim to support it?