Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[Realmfighter]

I am that only other vote for Release Scot Free. If it were up to me(And it isn't) prisons purpose would be to protect society from genuinely so dangerous that there is no other option but quarantining them off from the rest of humanity. By being essentially a totally new person, the man has proven himself as safe for society as everyone else. Justice is Bullshit. If personal Maiming to ReBoot a personality became a problem in prisons, I would imagine that you should help provide a reasonable environment to do it in, or perhaps research into methods of making the process safe. Just because the ReBooting is an accident doesn't mean my earlier opinion doesn't apply.

[anzki4]

I'd say that he should serve reduced sentence, but that's mostly because I'm against death penalty.

[Bauglir]

I'm going for the "released, but kept on parole and close observation". I don't think punishing a particular sack of meat is the point of the criminal justice system, and if the person really is gone, it's not really right to insist the person remain in prison. That said, you do need some mechanism to ensure that it's legit (because even if we, as external observers know that he's really gone and there's no chance of the original personality returning, actors inside the scenario can't, as far as I know; they can only be increasingly sure), and besides what you do for the man in question you would need to a) minimize the public knowledge of the event (to minimize the number of fake copycats), and b) set up some sort of cheap psychological evaluation process to weed out fakes quickly and effectively since it's inevitably going to get out anyway.

[Virex]

I'm wondering how this applies to debts. If for example, someone comes out from an operation with an altered personality and he is really someone else, then obviously that new person had no hand in the depths or medical costs his previous self made and thus is medical bills should be considered void?

[Bauglir]

Hm, interesting. I'd actually rule against it, because the person doing the operation needs to get paid and the new personality might as well be the one to do it, since they presumably owe their existence to the operation. Though, it does bring up some interesting points about whether you'd need to execute the now-dead person's will, leaving their new personality with nothing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hm, interesting. I'd actually rule against it, because the person doing the operation needs to get paid and the new personality might as well be the one to do it, since they presumably owe their existence to the operation.

I would charge the new personality the cost of performing childbirth, seeing as that is the equivalent of what has happened.

[Virex]

I'd actually rule against it, because the person doing the operation needs to get paid and the new personality might as well be the one to do it, since they presumably owe their existence to the operation.

Why should he? He didn't chose for the operation now did he? That'd be like letting the baby pay any bills the mother made if she happens to die during childbirth.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But the baby isn't an adult, where as someone going through this procedure would probably be.

[Armok]

...

There are just so many things wrong with this thread, but I can't come up with a response that wont come out like "lol wtf u barbarians still hold onto primitive notions like 'justice' and 'personhood'?!"

[Fenrir]

Please do explain, as I would like to know what error there is in personhood.

[Armok]

It's a broken concept. I won't even attempt to actually explain it on these forums, trying to discus anything philosophical here just leads to flamewars, if you really wt to know you know how to contact me.

[Strife26]

Effectively, I'd guess that Armok'd argue for something primarily centered on a lack of freewill.


I picked death sentence. It's still the same person, I'm afraid and the legal precedence would cause all sorts of problems. Also, I think that there'd need to be an separation between "I'd take him off death row on the principle that the death penalty is wrong" and "I'd take him off death row cuz he's a different person"

[G-Flex]

Release him. There are no bad implications or precedent set by releasing him; people here have said so, but I simply don't see why, and no purpose is served by executing the man. The murderer is effectively already dead and replaced by someone else.

[Glowcat]

I chose "Reduced Sentence" but what I'm thinking of would probably better fall under "Another Option". Basically, any continuation of the prison sentence would be to watch the subject for relapses into the old personality and designed to rehabilitate for social re-entry.

The purpose of the prison system is to separate dangerous individuals from society at large, theoretically preventing further crime from them, while creating a visible system of punishment that would influence potential criminals away from committing crimes. Since the person who committed the crime is effectively dead in this hypothetical, and no sane criminal would want to escape prison by killing the very essence of who they are, I see no need to get a physical corpse.

[Strife26]

Release him. There are no bad implications or precedent set by releasing him; people here have said so, but I simply don't see why, and no purpose is served by executing the man. The murderer is effectively already dead and replaced by someone else.

You've allowed the "my brain has been changed enough that I'm a different person" exception to any sentence. Believe you me, it's going to get used by just about every death row inmate who has currently burned all their appeals.