Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Robert66 »

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.
As we are discussing technology, I agree that it probably won't be used justly.

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.
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 12th, 2022, 8:54 am
Robert66 wrote: June 11th, 2022, 7:43 pm Here is a promotional spiel from the 2060s:
Hmmm. Ok.
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'.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Robert66 wrote: June 12th, 2022, 4:56 pm 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).
No, let's 'mind' that; let's mind it a lot! It is one of the central pillars of many historical legal systems that we avoid punishing the innocent. I agree with this moral guideline, although, of course, some others won't. A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy. It can't be trusted by the (innocent!) law-abiding citizens it is supposed to protect. If they can't rely on it, they will need to protect themselves, and the whole social contract breaks down. The law must be trusted and trustworthy to the people it does not act against: the innocent!


Robert66 wrote: June 12th, 2022, 4:56 pm I embellished the story by imagining how such technology might be further advanced and implemented. This would be allowable in a philosophic sense, surely.

...

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'.
More or less anything is "allowable". I like to wax lyrical myself, from time to time. But when I do, I try to signal my intent, to avoid confusing my audience. 👍😉


Robert66 wrote: June 12th, 2022, 4:56 pm 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.
You would require innocent people, in effect, to actively prove their innocence, and to continue proving it for life, so that other people - criminals - can be detected before they commit their crimes? There is so much about this that is wrong. So many potential pitfalls...
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Robert66 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 13th, 2022, 8:22 am
Robert66 wrote: June 12th, 2022, 4:56 pm 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).
No, let's 'mind' that; let's mind it a lot! It is one of the central pillars of many historical legal systems that we avoid punishing the innocent. I agree with this moral guideline, although, of course, some others won't. A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy. It can't be trusted by the (innocent!) law-abiding citizens it is supposed to protect. If they can't rely on it, they will need to protect themselves, and the whole social contract breaks down. The law must be trusted and trustworthy to the people it does not act against: the innocent!
I can see the confusion now. It would have been better to leave the part in parentheses out. What I meant by that part was that some innocent people are convicted of crimes.

Legal systems do sometimes punish innocent people. This does not mean that they cannot be trusted. I trust my car will allow me to get to my destination, while knowing that there is a possibility it won't.
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 13th, 2022, 8:22 am
Robert66 wrote: June 12th, 2022, 4:56 pm I embellished the story by imagining how such technology might be further advanced and implemented. This would be allowable in a philosophic sense, surely.

...

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'.
More or less anything is "allowable". I like to wax lyrical myself, from time to time. But when I do, I try to signal my intent, to avoid confusing my audience. 👍😉
I am sorry that I didn't send a strong enough signal from the future!
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 13th, 2022, 8:22 am
Robert66 wrote: June 12th, 2022, 4:56 pm 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.
You would require innocent people, in effect, to actively prove their innocence, and to continue proving it for life, so that other people - criminals - can be detected before they commit their crimes? There is so much about this that is wrong. So many potential pitfalls...
No. I have referred to a scenario already laid out, whereby a judge may have an option to impose the technology on a convicted criminal, and I have imagined a scenario in which an innocent person may opt for technology which reduces their risk of committing a crime.

I have not precluded the possibility that the technology discussed might be developed and implemented in ways which are objectionable even unjust, because I don't expect decision makers will delay the implementation of this technology until it has been perfected, nor do I expect the market to refrain from incorporating the technology into products which may offer dubious benefit to consumers.

There will always be potential pitfalls with new technology, because some humans, groups, or companies will try to do the wrong thing, or just make bad choices. Some will even choose to buy a product, knowing that the product has flaws, or the company making it is corrupt. Jeep and Volkswagen remain in business.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Robert66 wrote: June 13th, 2022, 5:24 pm Legal systems do sometimes punish innocent people. This does not mean that they cannot be trusted. I trust my car will allow me to get to my destination, while knowing that there is a possibility it won't.
Every innocent person who is convicted saps the public trust in their law(s). And every one of those unjust convictions adds to the impression that the law cannot be trusted. You mention your 'trust' in your car, and then you describe how your trust is limited: "knowing that there is a possibility it won't". Trust must be earned, and maintained.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Robert66 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 14th, 2022, 8:47 am
Robert66 wrote: June 13th, 2022, 5:24 pm Legal systems do sometimes punish innocent people. This does not mean that they cannot be trusted. I trust my car will allow me to get to my destination, while knowing that there is a possibility it won't.
Every innocent person who is convicted saps the public trust in their law(s). And every one of those unjust convictions adds to the impression that the law cannot be trusted. You mention your 'trust' in your car, and then you describe how your trust is limited: "knowing that there is a possibility it won't". Trust must be earned, and maintained.
Your tune has changed. My words, quoted above, were in response to your previous, strident tune: 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy. It can't be trusted by the (innocent!) law-abiding citizens it is supposed to protect.'

But never mind. I stand by what I have written. I will rephrase: Legal systems can be trusted even though they sometimes punish innocent people.

Of course there are limits and conditions to that trust. There are people I trust, even though I know that they will make mistakes, and some of those mistakes could adversely affect me.

I don't trust a particular political party to make decisions in the best interests of my state or nation. Many of their previous decisions have been grave mistakes, I believe. Many others hold the opposite view, and even vote that party into government. Those voters don't trust my preferred party. How can such a mistake-prone system be trusted?

How can we trust the scientists warning us about climate change? Scientists have made mistakes in their previous predictions, so why should we believe them now?

Trust is not like a light switch - on or off - and it is not equally and universally applied in any human system. I partly agree with your statement that
'Every innocent person who is convicted saps the public trust in their law(s)'. I agree that trust in the law can be sapped, but I think the sapping has more to do with the response by aggrieved parties, those on the wrong end of a court's decision. The best example I can think of is when a family court rules in a child-custody case. Advocacy groups have formed to fight for fathers' rights against unjust rulings, claiming the court cannot be trusted because the majority of the court's decisions have favoured the mother. But how can a judge always satisfy both parties. They cannot. There are millions of aggrieved parties, and each of them believe they are the innocent victims of a mistaken legal system. By your reckoning, that system can not be trusted. I say it is just trying to do its job.

When a technology comes along which can help the criminal justice system do its job better (eg finger-printing, DNA evidence), we could at least consider it, rather than attempt to suppress it because of the possibility of mistakes.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Robert66 wrote: June 12th, 2022, 4:56 pm 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).
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 13th, 2022, 8:22 am No, let's 'mind' that; let's mind it a lot! It is one of the central pillars of many historical legal systems that we avoid punishing the innocent. I agree with this moral guideline, although, of course, some others won't. A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy. It can't be trusted by the (innocent!) law-abiding citizens it is supposed to protect. If they can't rely on it, they will need to protect themselves, and the whole social contract breaks down. The law must be trusted and trustworthy to the people it does not act against: the innocent!
Robert66 wrote: June 13th, 2022, 5:24 pm Legal systems do sometimes punish innocent people. This does not mean that they cannot be trusted. I trust my car will allow me to get to my destination, while knowing that there is a possibility it won't.
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 14th, 2022, 8:47 am Every innocent person who is convicted saps the public trust in their law(s). And every one of those unjust convictions adds to the impression that the law cannot be trusted. You mention your 'trust' in your car, and then you describe how your trust is limited: "knowing that there is a possibility it won't". Trust must be earned, and maintained.
Robert66 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:23 pm Your tune has changed. My words, quoted above, were in response to your previous, strident tune: 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy. It can't be trusted by the (innocent!) law-abiding citizens it is supposed to protect.'
I'm sorry you found my initial comment "strident"; that was not my intention. 🙁

I think my 2nd comment just reinforces the first. I see no 'change of tune'.


Robert66 wrote: June 14th, 2022, 5:23 pm But never mind. I stand by what I have written. I will rephrase: Legal systems can be trusted even though they sometimes punish innocent people.
You don't accept, then, that every innocent person convicted dilutes whatever trust the people have in their law(s)?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Robert66 »

"Strident" was the wrong word to use, and I apologise. I thought strident meant "loud and clear", and have now learned it means "harsh and grating". I did not find your statement harsh and grating.

There is a significant difference in meaning between a) 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy' and b) 'Every innocent person who is convicted saps the public trust in their law(s)'. According to a), all legal systems are untrustworthy. In b) the law may remain trustworthy, despite inevitable and wrongful convictions.

As I have stated, I agree that public trust in their legal system can be sapped. If political dissidents regularly "disappear", or the jails fill up with them, that "legal system" is untrustworthy. If innocent people are occasionally convicted, the system remains trustworthy.

If I were wrongly accused of a crime, and must stand trial, I would trust the legal system. I would be anxious, of course, knowing that mistakes are made. If I lived in a different nation I may have a different view.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Robert66 wrote: June 15th, 2022, 4:15 pm There is a significant difference in meaning between a) 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy' and b) 'Every innocent person who is convicted saps the public trust in their law(s)'. According to a), all legal systems are untrustworthy. In b) the law may remain trustworthy, despite inevitable and wrongful convictions.
To me, "b)" is the justification for "a)". I think it is because (each conviction of an innocent person dilutes trust in the law), that (a legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy).

One innocent person convicted, or even ten, probably would not do too much harm. But a recent exercise in the US applied DNA testing to the cases of prisoners on death row (convicted before DNA testing was available). I can't remember exactly how many of them were proven innocent, but I remember it is between 25% and 33%. That's a lot of innocent people, perhaps enough to make US law untrustworthy?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Robert66 »

Up to 10 = not too much harm = trustworthy.
A lot of people (25% or more) = a lot of harm = not trustworthy.

We agree. You should now retract your statement 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy' as it contradicts your revised argument.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Robert66 wrote: June 15th, 2022, 5:03 pm Up to 10 = not too much harm = trustworthy.
A lot of people (25% or more) = a lot of harm = not trustworthy.

We agree. You should now retract your statement 'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy' as it contradicts your revised argument.
No, I stand by what I wrote, and by the clarifications that I have offered since.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Robert66 »

In any legal system, innocent people will sometimes be punished.

'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy'.

Therefore all legal systems are not trustworthy.

An unsound argument, based on a false premise
AverageBozo
Posts: 502
Joined: May 11th, 2021, 11:20 am

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by AverageBozo »

Robert66 wrote: April 22nd, 2021, 5:17 pm
LuckyR wrote: April 22nd, 2021, 2:07 am
Robert66 wrote: April 20th, 2021, 3:35 pm There is a great show on ABC radio here in Australia - the Law Report. In a recent episode (in the second half of the 30min show), which you can listen to via this link:

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pr ... w/13298556

advances in neurotechnology were discussed. Brain - computer interface is getting more sophisticated, and the day will soon come when a judge, instead of ordering the death penalty, or a prison sentence, could have a device implanted in the criminal's head. Whenever the device's monitor detects

'the neural activity which precedes an angry outburst ... instead of letting the anger and impulsivity mount, it just intervenes on the brain to try and calm the person down. And so you can imagine a device which monitors a person's brain all the time, and looks for neural patterns associated with some kind of impulsive outburst, and then intervenes on it. And so the question for the legal system is: Is that something that a court might order as a condition of release into the community, instead of sending someone to jail?' (Dr. Allan McCay, Deputy Director of the Institute of Criminology at the University of Sydney)

What do you think? Should a judge be allowed to order the implanting of such a device into the criminal's head? Or is their a right to "privacy of mind", as some in Chile are arguing and attempting to legislate?
So when the implant gets infected, who does the criminal sue? The judge or the surgeon?
We can assume for argument's sake that the judge will be just as immune from prosecution as any judge who imposes a prison or death sentence. Or that the implanting of the device will be agreed to by the criminal, in a win win situation which means they don't go to prison, or the far side, and we dont have to pay for another long term prisoner. Plus the criminal's brain is improved to be like the common kind of brain which doesn't get worked up into a violent frenzy.
To begin with, the criminal brings charges against the surgeon for assault, battery, kidnapping and false imprisonment. The doctor loses in court and his medical licensing board is informed of the results. He is now banned from surgery and any form of the practice of medicine. The rest of the surgical community refuses to perform the implant procedure and is held in contempt of court. The judge orders the disobedient doctors to be given the implant. Soon there are no more surgeries carried out for anyone.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Robert66 wrote: June 16th, 2022, 3:51 pm In any legal system, innocent people will sometimes be punished.

'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy'.

Therefore all legal systems are not trustworthy.

An unsound argument, based on a false premise
No, just a misunderstanding. Trustworthiness is not a binary, black-and-white, thing. Trust is eroded by the conviction of innocents, and strengthened by our confidence that innocent people are not convicted, only guilty ones. Each conviction adds to one side or the other of this 'scale'.

No number of innocent convictions, low or high, gives rise to a defined and binary outcome. Trustworthiness is a value judgement; such things are rarely binary in nature.

I have already explained, and apologised for, the apparent binary approach of the language I used. This was not intentional or correct, on my part.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Neurotech solution for criminal justice systems

Post by Robert66 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 17th, 2022, 8:11 am
Robert66 wrote: June 16th, 2022, 3:51 pm In any legal system, innocent people will sometimes be punished.

'A legal system that sometimes punishes the innocent is not trustworthy'.

Therefore all legal systems are not trustworthy.

An unsound argument, based on a false premise
No, just a misunderstanding. Trustworthiness is not a binary, black-and-white, thing. Trust is eroded by the conviction of innocents, and strengthened by our confidence that innocent people are not convicted, only guilty ones. Each conviction adds to one side or the other of this 'scale'.

No number of innocent convictions, low or high, gives rise to a defined and binary outcome. Trustworthiness is a value judgement; such things are rarely binary in nature.

I have already explained, and apologised for, the apparent binary approach of the language I used. This was not intentional or correct, on my part.
Fair comments, Pattern-chaser, which I agree with.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021