Reading an article on Wired about French Anderson (who happens to have a wiki entry, for the inclined to research him), I thought of an ethical dilemma that I don’t remember seeing here recently.
Those who are familiar with the case, please let us not turn this into a debate of the particulars of the case. Instead, let me use it just as inspiration for a hypothetical.
We have Doctor A. who is a recognized researcher in groundbreaking medicine. He has already cranked out novel treatments to previously incurable diseases. Let’s say cure for cancer. He has given the first steps and he has plenty on the pipeline
He commits a serious crime. The crime is a personal crime. It is not the case that it was the first of a series. It was an issue of circumstances that lead to it. Let’s say child molestation on a relative (Ms B.)
The fair thing to do, of course, is to imprison him. That, however, would result on the stoppage of his research. Sure, someone else might get his papers and pick up from there, but the man does have genius and this will result in at least a significant delay of the progress of that field.
Is there a fair way to allow him to continue his research without this meaning that he gets away with his crimes?
Imprisonment does nothing for the victim. This man is not a danger to society. His imprisonment results in a net loss to society. Is there a way around this?
Punishment of criminals is a net benefit to society, whether or not he’s going to do it again, sheerly for the sake of justice and the benefit of the deterrent factor. The last thing we need is people thinking they’re so important that they’re above the law, just because the’re a scientist or politician or whatever.
And my response to the situation proposed would be, “It’s a real shame that the doc did something so stupid; now book 'im!”
I’m having trouble reconciling these two statements. Child molestation is a very serious crime. How can you say that there’s no social interest in locking him up, to protect Ms. B and other children?
Some members of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church in the U.S. used exactly this type of analysis to justify moving child molesting priests from parish to parish. It didn’t work out well…
I’m with begbert - giving important people a get out jail card because they’re important undermines the law. If jail is the normal punishment for this offence, then Dr. Child Molester should go to jail.
How is this a “personal crime”? It’s a crime, pure and simple. I’m also not seeing the circumstances that lead up to you molesting a child. I was expecting this to be something accidental, like manslaughter. Oops, I molested my relative’s kid?
If he’s molested a child, how is he not a danger? And how is this doing nothing for the victim? It’s keeping her safe if she’s still a minor.
Ok, since this seems to be tripping some people. Let’s say the crime is not child molestation, but murdering his wife who was cheating on him. He is not driving around for people to murder, he is not likely to murder anyone else. He did kill her, it was murder, there is no excusing him. Still, he is not a danger to society.
And for the record, I do agree that he should be punished. It is just that I think that locking him up next to Gas Station Robbin Smith is a waste of a mind. Is there some kind of accommodation that would allow him to pay for his crime and still be useful to society (in way better than making license plates)?
I know some people go to work during the day and sleep at night in prison. Or maybe some form of house arrest with continuous surveillance. He should pay, and life should be rough for him. He made a crime and should pay for it. Still, just locking him up sounds like throwing the baby with the bath water.
I’d agree with begbert2 and Northern Piper that in the long view you can’t start making exceptions.
But, I don’t see anything wrong with doing something like “lab arrest” (as a play on house arrest), where he’d be imprisoned but given access to a lab during the day. It’s no different from having him make belts.
Should someone be able to buy their way out of jail, if by money or by other talent? From what Ive heard jail is incredibly boring, and getting a menial job is great relief. Allowing some sort of ‘lab arrest’ would show favoritism. Also though it would not be cruel, it would be unusual punishment.
I am working on the assumption that Dr. Crime does want to continue doing his research, of course. You cannot force him to do it (or hope to get decent results if you do).
BTW, although I did say I didn’t want to get hung up on the particulars of the case that inspired this, French Anderson was dropped by his lab as soon as he was accused. Two years before he was even judged!
I think the flaw in your argument is that you’re trying to set up a situation where a serious crime has been committed, but no likelihood of repetition, in support of the position that it’s acceptable to let the convict have greater liberty.
But if you’re downplaying the seriousness of the crime that way, what’s the argument for putting wife-killers in jail generally? Once you say “Well, this guy’s not likely to repeat so keeping him in jail isn’t so important,” in fairness you have to accept that as a principle of sentencing for all wife-killers, regardless whether they have some valuable talent. Otherwise, you’re still saying that talented people get treated more leniently by the justice system than those with less talents.
Is the opportunity to contribute to society a form of leniency? The only “privilege” I am asking for is the ability to continue with a research of unquestionable value to society. Were it a talented musician, I would say “so what”. I am sure that if we were in a losing war and the developer of the [soon to be finished] death ray killed someone, he would get a free out of jail card.
If this means setting up a lab on the solitary confinement wing of jail, I would still be ok with it.
Morally, what’s the big difference between this and immunity-to-testify plea bargains? Obviously, he’d be punished in some way, but we’ve already accepted that reducing or eliminating sentences in return for cooperation is A-OK under our legal system.
Then again, the Beatles could’ve gang-raped a nunnery and I’d have given them a pass.