Should criminals be denied cryonics?

venetian

If someone is sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty, should they also be prohibited from signing up for cryonics? Specifically, I'm referring to people like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_death_row_inmates

I am not talking about providing it for them, just allowing them to sign up for it provided they can somehow get enough money together and allowing a response team into the prison to retrieve the body after the prisoner has died or been executed by lethal injection. I think they should be allowed access to cryonics, because we don't know enough yet about the brain to determine how much of their criminal behavior is due to mental illness/disorder and how much is due to free will. It may be possible to diagnose and cure people like Jeffrey Dahmer in the future before they commit any crimes, or to cure those already in prison such that they won't commit any more crimes.

As cryonics gets more and more popular, this will become an issue, especially when the first death row inmate wants to sign up for it.

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.

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.

Bad evidence and an incompetent judicial process is a different problem to be addressed separately from weak evidence. I didn't say this was a solution for irrational convictions, just relatively weak ones.

-1[anonymous]15y

Well, the system can be (shall we say) less than optimal without being very much biased in favor of "arbitrary" convictions. For starters there are no plea bargains that result in a death penalty. In Less Wrong terms, plea bargains may be analyzed by means of game theory, which does not show that they are equivalent to coerced confessions. I'm also not sure what you mean by "corrupt judges." Stupid and/or biased, I would grant you, but that's true for much of humanity, isn't it? I would suggest that judges in criminal cases in the U.S. and common-law nations, in their official capacity, suffer from fewer biases than the average person. I understand that similar precautions mayexist in European nations governed by civil law, but I'm not familiar with the specifics. On the other hand, I'm reminded of Chesterton's poem, on another subject: You cannot hope to bribe or twist Thank God, a British journalist; But seeing what the man will do Unbribed, there’s no occasion to. Strictly speaking, in most American criminal trials, the judge does not have the power to convict -- a jury does. Granted, the jury is chosen by a procedure that may not be calculated to produce the very best decision-making body. But I would hesitate to say that they are systematically biased to give "arbitrary convictions." With that said, I don't think reading Radley Balko should be regarded as a punishment.

2

Should criminals be denied cryonics?

2

2

2

Should criminals be denied cryonics?

2

2