As we are discussing technology, I agree that it probably won't be used justly.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 12th, 2022, 8:54 am ... I am suspicious that such technology would not be used justly. It seems that, in your system, those who are potentially criminal are treated identically to those who have actually committed criminal acts. That doesn't seem like a desirable system to me. I quite like the 'traditional' approach that tries to avoid the conviction of innocent people. Your approach allows for the unjust treatment of the innocent, to make sure that the guilty, and the potentially-guilty (i.e. the innocent!), are caught and punished. Not a great way of working, IMO.
The quoted material in the OP is concerned with the use of the technology on convicted criminals (or the possibly innocent - the justice system relying on flawed humans - but never mind that). I embellished the story by imagining how such technology might be further advanced and implemented. This would be allowable in a philosophic sense, surely.
As for desirability, and avoiding the unjust treatment, and conviction, of innocent people:
This neurotechnology may be on the brink of providing a means to alter human minds, such that violent and murderous acts may be avoided. I find that desirable. Innocent people may eventually have the option to use the technology, with the aim of preventing a lapse into criminality. In other words this technology seeks to avoid the conviction of innocent people.
A forum like this could become a pretty dry and boring place if we didn't at least try to be more like Tom Sawyer, and 'put a bit of style on it'.