= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Should criminals be denied cryonics? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
The judicial system is extremely unreliable-- this in itself suggests that denying cryonics as though you're sure that all the prisoners with life or death sentences are guilty isn't sound.
Furthermore, while I doubt that permanent murder will ever be legal, sometimes the laws under which people are sentenced change.
This is a good point. Perhaps the courts could specify a minimum timeframe to keep the person cryopreserved, which is longer if the evidence is weak. At the end if the criminal is still considered guilty they are thawed and buried. If they are exonerated, their preservation becomes indefinite until a resuscitation method is developed.
You are sentenced to read The Agitator until you understand how biased the system is in favor of arbitrary convictions. There are coerced confessions (otherwise known as plea bargains), corrupt judges and prosecutors, and inept forensics labs.
The evidence doesn't have to look weak to be bad, and some of what makes for bad evidence (a line-up can imply that the guilty person is included) can be pretty subtle.