|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 07/19/2005 : 07:04:21
|
Let's have some fun with a hypothetical...
Say that medical scientists of the near future develop a one-time pill which effectively doubles the human lifetime, with only a one-in-a-billion chance of negative side effects. This magical pill also reverses physical aging to the appropriate relative point (an 80-year-old would get back the physical health of a 40-year-old), without making people "children" again.
(Q1) Should the U.S. Government (or any other government) force prisoners with long jail terms to take this pill (if they haven't done so already), in order to serve those sentences more completely? For example, today a 70-year-old who's given a 40-year sentence is likely to die in jail from natural causes, but with the pill, would get out at 110 with decades of life ahead of him.
(Q2) Should the government deny the pill to people who've been given life sentences, in order to reduce the burden to society?
(Q3) Should a judge or court, when assigning a sentence, take into account whether or not the guilty party has already taken the pill?
(Q4) Should a "life sentence" be redefined as some number of years (say, 120), or should we stick with "you're in jail until you die?"
(Q5) Would any of your answers to the above change if the pill added 500 years to a human life, instead of just doubled it?
(Q6) 1,000 years?
(Q7) 10,000 years?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 07:18:11 [Permalink]
|
(Q1) Should be given the choice.
(Q2) No. Should get same choice as Q1.
(Q3) Yes. Sentences are based on time relative to life expectancy.
(Q4) Life sentence should be defined as "you're in jail until you die". If you are in jail for 10,000 years - that might be a good deterrant (if jail conditions make it such)
(Q5) No.
(Q6) No.
(Q7) No.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 10:59:42 [Permalink]
|
Got bored at work, Dave? 
Anyway, I'm pretty much with Pleco. Reminds me of that Highlander chapter when an immortal was given a life sentence... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 11:16:48 [Permalink]
|
(Q1) No. Eighth and Fifth Amendment--US Constitution Bill of Rights.
(O2) Not without due process.
(Q3) Yes...It depends on the crime and the ability to rehabillitate.
(Q4) Life sentence is the same regardless of life expectancy.
Finally, no, no and no, unless I change my mind in the next 500, 1,000 or 10,000 years. A lot of things can happen in that long.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 15:28:31 [Permalink]
|
| An addendum: life sentences are not allowed on Brazil's constitution and any sentence going beyond the max 40 years (I've seen sentences dished out of as much as 120 years) is reduced to 40. That's what would happen in Brazil, I suppose. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 15:54:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(Q2) Should the government deny the pill to people who've been given life sentences, in order to reduce the burden to society?
I'm going to disagree with most other people on this and say, yes, they should be denied the pill. Why would you unnaturally extend the life of a person who is sentenced to die in prison? Then again, I don't think prison inmates with life sentences should be getting kidney transplants and such either.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 18:05:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
Got bored at work, Dave?
Actually, bored during an hour-long commute, on Monday morning. Heard on the radio about the possibility that Eric Rudolph could be looking at four life sentences, and thought, "I wonder how much time that'd take to serve consecutively." One thing led to another, and the magic pill was born.
Seriously... H, the only reason I can think of is "in case of pardon."
And honestly, I hadn't actually given these questions much thought, and had no answers of my own. And I was honestly surprised at the unanimity of response (until H. spoiled it). Perhaps this is one of those age-old (haha!) questions, and I just missed its discussion in my youth.
But here: (Q8) Could a refusal to take this pill be considered an attempt at suicide, especially the 10,000-year version? Especially since it restores health? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 18:21:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But here: (Q8) Could a refusal to take this pill be considered an attempt at suicide, especially the 10,000-year version? Especially since it restores health?
No. Is someone that refuses to quit smoking comitting suicide? I think the difference is "shortening" of life as opposed to a sudden "ending" of life. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/19/2005 18:21:39 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 21:15:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
(Q2) Should the government deny the pill to people who've been given life sentences, in order to reduce the burden to society?
I'm going to disagree with most other people on this and say, yes, they should be denied the pill. Why would you unnaturally extend the life of a person who is sentenced to die in prison? Then again, I don't think prison inmates with life sentences should be getting kidney transplants and such either.
I don't think it is so clear cut as you would like it to be.
For example, would a proper diet be extending one's life and thus it should not be allowed?
And if the argument is that a diet is natural, let's imagine the prison inmate is a vegetarian. Is it ok to give them B-12 vitamins?
Or take for example someone who has a kidney failure. Should he really be denied the transplant if one is available? If not, how is this a life sentence and not a death sentence?
Or how about an inmate who has sustained a life threatening wound. Should they be saved then?
Prisoners must have rights as well. One of these rights is to live a healthy life. I think that a healthy life can only be defined by comparing it to the average citizen. If it were such a case that all or almost all Americans were taking them, then I would say that inmates should get them as well.
1.) The U.S. government should not force any kind of optional medical treatment on anyone. In short, no.
2.) The government should keep all inmates, life sentence or not, healthy. In such a case, the pill should be allowed to those who wish to take it.
3.) No, sentencing should be based solely on the crime.
4.) No, there should be no maximum on sentencing.
5.) No
6.) No
7.) No |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 21:37:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But here: (Q8) Could a refusal to take this pill be considered an attempt at suicide, especially the 10,000-year version? Especially since it restores health?
No. Is someone that refuses to quit smoking comitting suicide? I think the difference is "shortening" of life as opposed to a sudden "ending" of life.
Oh, but there are big differences.
Let's get one thing out of the way: no matter what a person chooses to do, whether it be taking the pill or quiting smoking or whatever, they could, the following day, get hit by a bus and die. So this is about potential life, and not actual life.
Secondly, people who smoke can, and often do, life a "full life" (up to or beyond the national average life expectancy). Choosing to keep smoking can only be considered "suicide" if the person already has debilitating emphysema, or some other problem which makes smoking a "clear and present danger" to their life.
On the other hand, choosing to reject upwards of 10,000 years of potential life in a way in which a person is guaranteed to die before they might otherwise do so, says to me that such a person doesn't want to live beyond a certain number of years. How is that not suicide, even if the person has (at the time of the decision) 80 years left of "natural" life?
Perhaps there would be a different answer to this question:
(Q8B) if (for whatever reason) you only get one chance to take the pill or not, at age 40, is refusal a form of suicide?
Or,
(Q8C) If you're on your deathbed with only age-related health problems, and refuse the pill, is that suicide?
How about this one:
(Q9) If you had the opportunity to take the 10,000-year pill right now, would you?
I sure would. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 22:14:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I don't think it is so clear cut as you would like it to be.
I don't recall saying it's clean cut. I just have a problem with career criminals getting on a waiting list for organs when law abiding citizens cannot.
quote:
Prisoners must have rights as well. One of these rights is to live a healthy life. I think that a healthy life can only be defined by comparing it to the average citizen.
And I disagree. Prisoners should not expect to compare their lives to average citizens. There are certain benefits that abiding by the law provides that should not be conferred to convicted felons.
quote:
If it were such a case that all or almost all Americans were taking them, then I would say that inmates should get them as well.
Why? Why should a guy who chopped up his family with an axe expect anything that free citizens receive? He is being punished. In my opinion, a pill that extends life expectancy falls beyond an inmate's right to basic health services.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/19/2005 22:16:55 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2005 : 22:49:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(Q1) Should the U.S. Government (or any other government) force prisoners with long jail terms to take this pill (if they haven't done so already), in order to serve those sentences more completely? For example, today a 70-year-old who's given a 40-year sentence is likely to die in jail from natural causes, but with the pill, would get out at 110 with decades of life ahead of him.
Will agree with Tim on this one. The concept of forcing someone into longer life to 'more fully' serve their term falls under the header of 'cruel and unusual'.
quote:
(Q2) Should the government deny the pill to people who've been given life sentences, in order to reduce the burden to society?
I'm going to disagree with Tim on this one, due process does not apply. Here you are setting precedence by not forcing someone to take the pill to more fully serve out their sentence. Additionally, allowing a prison inmate to take this pill will cause more stress and overcrowding in an alread burdened system. Allowing an inmate to take the pill would literally result in cruel and unusual conditions of confinement.
quote:
(Q3) Should a judge or court, when assigning a sentence, take into account whether or not the guilty party has already taken the pill?
Most likely not. If it is determined that a longer term of incarceration is required, then that alteration should be made. It is the repugnance to society of the crime that should be considered when sentencing an individual, not the inderterminate term of their lifespan.
quote:
(Q4) Should a "life sentence" be redefined as some number of years (say, 120), or should we stick with "you're in jail until you die?"
A life sentence in currently termed as 99 years. Some life sentences can result in parole after 33 years of incarceration. So this is technically a misunderstanding of the term 'life-sentence'.
quote:
(Q5) Would any of your answers to the above change if the pill added 500 years to a human life, instead of just doubled it?
Debateable. Though a term of 99 years in a life-sentence would render the term of life a moot point, should the person only need to wait until they were released to enjoy the next 350+ years of their life. Though I'd really hate to try to get a job with that record and that many years left.
[quote(Q6) 1,000 years?
(Q7) 10,000 years?[/quote]
See answer to Q5. Thank you. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 01:26:21 [Permalink]
|
Oh, here I go, again. I hope I don't start an argument...quote:
Posted by Trish
I'm going to disagree with Tim on this one, due process does not apply.
I feel that 'Due Process' always applies when concerned with the application of law. We need to be sure that each law is not too vague or overly broad and that they are applied procedurally equal acroos the board.
quote:
Here you are setting precedence by not forcing someone to take the pill to more fully serve out their sentence.
This was the intent of my answer. In this case in particular we would need to delve deeply into previous decisions and legal opinion to set precedent on how the law is to be enforced. Whether that precedent is set in agreement or in opposition to the forced or voluntary prescription of Dave's super pill is beside the point. The point is that the precedent needs to be made.
quote:
Additionally, allowing a prison inmate to take this pill will cause more stress and overcrowding in an alread burdened system.
This is not the concern of any individual law, unless that law specifically addresses these regrettable conditions. A judge in criminal court should not have to take the condition of the penal system into account when sentencing a convicted felon. Unfortunately, we realize that's not happening. The conditions of prison overcrowding are the responsibility of the state, not the criminal court, (unless those conditions become criminal).
quote:
Allowing an inmate to take the pill would literally result in cruel and unusual conditions of confinement.
Would it, really? I think most of us would choose to live on in typical conditions of prison confinement than to die prematurely. And, with the release of Dave's super drug to the general population, dying in our mid-seventies would indeed be premature.
Trish, your assessment of a 'life sentence' may be accurate, though I was under the impression that the definition varied by state. In any event, this is an example of 'Due Process.' The defining of the sentence makes the law fair to all concerned. Dave's super pill requires the same consideration.
From the 14th Amendment quote:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Emphasis mine, of course.
After mulling over 'Due Process' I was wondering if anyone would apply 'Substantive Due Process' to this case.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 07:23:24 [Permalink]
|
| TIm, later when I have a bit more time. I have to catch a bus in 1/2 hour. No, no arguments here, maybe I might learn something I didn't know. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 07:41:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
But here: (Q8) Could a refusal to take this pill be considered an attempt at suicide, especially the 10,000-year version? Especially since it restores health?
No. Is someone that refuses to quit smoking comitting suicide? I think the difference is "shortening" of life as opposed to a sudden "ending" of life.
Oh, but there are big differences.
Let's get one thing out of the way: no matter what a person chooses to do, whether it be taking the pill or quiting smoking or whatever, they could, the following day, get hit by a bus and die. So this is about potential life, and not actual life.
Secondly, people who smoke can, and often do, life a "full life" (up to or beyond the national average life expectancy). Choosing to keep smoking can only be considered "suicide" if the person already has debilitating emphysema, or some other problem which makes smoking a "clear and present danger" to their life.
If they are mentally and physically addicted to ciggys, then would they be committing suicide? Kinda off-topic...and relates to another thread in another forum here...
quote:
On the other hand, choosing to reject upwards of 10,000 years of potential life in a way in which a person is guaranteed to die before they might otherwise do so, says to me that such a person doesn't want to live beyond a certain number of years. How is that not suicide, even if the person has (at the time of the decision) 80 years left of "natural" life?
We probably need to agree on a definition of suicide. I say that suicide is the willful, intentional, immediate ending of one's life. With that defintion, then the not taking the pill would not be suicide. (my definition differs from the dictionary by adding the word "immediate")
quote:
Perhaps there would be a different answer to this question:
(Q8B) if (for whatever reason) you only get one chance to take the pill or not, at age 40, is refusal a form of suicide?
As per my definition above, no.
quote:
Or,
(Q8C) If you're on your deathbed with only age-related health problems, and refuse the pill, is that suicide?
Again, no. In my personal health care directive, I have instructed no life sustaining treatments if I am terminally ill. Am I committing suicide or dying naturally? I know that there is a big differnce between "terminally ill" and "age-related health" problems, but my point here is that allowing "natural" progression of age/disease to take course I don't think should be considered suicide. Maybe another term?
quote:
How about this one:
(Q9) If you had the opportunity to take the 10,000-year pill right now, would you?
I sure would.
Hell yes. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/20/2005 07:47:44 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2005 : 07:48:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Let's have some fun with a hypothetical...
Say that medical scientists of the near future develop a one-time pill which effectively doubles the human lifetime, with only a one-in-a-billion chance of negative side effects. This magical pill also reverses physical aging to the appropriate relative point (an 80-year-old would get back the physical health of a 40-year-old), without making people "children" again.
(Q1) Should the U.S. Government (or any other government) force prisoners with long jail terms to take this pill (if they haven't done so already), in order to serve those sentences more completely? For example, today a 70-year-old who's given a 40-year sentence is likely to die in jail from natural causes, but with the pill, would get out at 110 with decades of life ahead of him.
(Q2) Should the government deny the pill to people who've been given life sentences, in order to reduce the burden to society?
(Q3) Should a judge or court, when assigning a sentence, take into account whether or not the guilty party has already taken the pill?
(Q4) Should a "life sentence" be redefined as some number of years (say, 120), or should we stick with "you're in jail until you die?"
(Q5) Would any of your answers to the above change if the pill added 500 years to a human life, instead of just doubled it?
(Q6) 1,000 years?
(Q7) 10,000 years?
Q1: Should be up to the prisoner's discression, but also at the prisoner's expense.
Q2: Not without due process
Q3: No. Whole 14th Amendment thing.
Q4: In Illinois, there is a difference between life and natural life in prison. Life = you get sent home in a box. Natural Life = 40 years. The law will have to adapt to such rulings based on the nature of the crime. Maybe even a redefinement of who is eligible for the death penalty.
Q5: No
Q6: No
Q7: No
With all of these things there is a second question of retirement. Expect to hear the sonic boom of law being changed to include it in their Medicare/Social Security laws. I'll be eligible for SS when I'm 67.5 years old. If this pill comes out, I can expect that to increase to 135 years old. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
