In Philip Kerr’s book A Philosophical Investigation, criminals are punished with ‘punitive coma’: they are rendered unconscious for a period of years, proportional to their crime, up to and including ‘indefinite coma’, where they are left in that state until death. Essentially, it amounts to the state taking years off a person’s life.
There’s a lot to recommend it: the costs to the state of incarceration are ridiculously low, comparatively; there’s no danger for guards or inmates, or the public since the convict can’t escape; the problem of prison as a finishing school for inmates disappears. As a punishment, it’s admirably direct.
As a replacement for the death penalty, it really shines. While a sentence of indefinite coma is, effectively, a death sentence, if the convicted is later found to be innocent the coma can be reversed; this removes a lot of the stigma from the death penalty, namely the uncertainty of our justice system in using it accurately. It can’t be judged inhumane (or at least, isn’t in the book) in terms of suffering, since deep space travel will probably involve exactly the same procedure.
On the other hand, the convicted is unable to assist in his own defense after a guilty verdict, though arrangements could be made for a yearly ‘waking up’ to consult with an attorney. It also rather gives up on rehabilitation, since the convict has no opportunity to reflect on his actions and perhaps change something in his life, such as learning a legitimate trade. However, given the rehabilitation rates of our current prison system, I’m not certain the last is much of an objection.
Ultimately, though, there is something cruel, and possibly inhumane, about taking years from a person’s life. I can’t think specifically why, but it gives me the willies.
So what do you think? First, is it doable with current medical technology? Second, is it a moral form of punishment? Third, is it as pragmatic as it appears?