Out there in the multiverse, Earth analogue-58746384751355-smg is notable because, in the United States of that world, there is far less violent crime than here, and far, far fewer repeat offenders. This is because the US of this world possesses technology akin to that which the Initiative used on Spike in Buffy the Vampire Slayer; that is, they can put a technomagic chip in your head making you incapable of violence in general or certain sorts of violence (depending on how it’s set). The chip causes pain ranging from migraine-level pain when a slap is attempted to sudden, debilitating agony if murder is attempted.
The anti-violence technology is strictly controlled. It’s only used on persons convicted of violent crimes, for one thing, and only after conviction. Even then, in many cases the subject must agree to having it implanted. On first conviction of most violent felonies, you can have your time in prison halved by agreeing to have a chip implanted from the time you’re released to what would have been the end of your sentence. On second conviction for most violent crimes, the chip implantation is mandatory upon release from prison and lasts for five years. On first convictions of violent rape and any degree of murder, the chip implantation is mandatory and lifetime; the same is true of one’s third conviction of lesser violent crimes. It is a criminal offense to use the chip on a person outside these guidelines, and a person convicted of a crime whose innocence is later proven can have the chip removed at government expense (on top of any other compensation of course).
There are some limitations to this tech. For one thing, the technomagic trigger is only tripped by the intention to violence; it’ll stop a strongarm or gun-toting robber, but not a shoplifter or embezzler. It also won’t stop someone from putting a roofie into someone else’s drink, so long as the first someone doesn’t intend death or injury to the victim). The chip also doesn’t allow the subject to use violence in self-defense. Lastly, a small number of subjects die when the chip tries to exercise control. This happens only about 1 out of every 10,000 times, and it always happens the first time the chip comes into play. That is, 0.01% of subjects will die the the first time the chip stops them from committing an act of violence; the remaining 99.99% survive every exposure.
Would you support the anti-violence chip being used in your country? If yes, would the stated stipulations be sufficient safeguards, or would you want more (or less)? If no, why not?
I’m not certain what you mean; please expand. The OP supposes that the same laws that alt-United States has to regulate the implantation would be in place; do you have something else in mind?
I’m for it, as long as there are some reasonable laws put into place. I don’t want to go around chipping every kid who has a school yard fight. The laws described are probably reasonable, though we might want to do a little review of the existing felony/misdemeanor classifications just to make sure there aren’t any unintended consequences.
Part of my thinking is that a 1/10,000 chance of dying makes the chips somewhat safer than being in prison and much safer than being a violent criminal out on the loose. Even ignoring the benefits to society, it seems like the best benefit to the criminal as well.
My only reservation is that it all sounds too good. Technology is rarely so helpful.
I think the fact that the chip may only be used on violent felons might cover your schoolyard fight objection, but do you want to flat-out state that only persons over age 18 may be chipped? Also, can you give an example of an unacceptable unintended consequence?
I don’t know what that is.
The rules as stated prevent you from being implanted with it against your consent unless you’ve been convicted of forcible rape or murder. For lesser offenses it is voluntary and temporary and reduces your prison time by half, and I expect that prison time itself is overall more violent than the chip could be (though I’m willing to be corrected on that).
Since the implantation is voluntary for single offenders, I’m all for it. If you continue to be anti-social, the society can deal with you as they please.
I don’t think conviction of a crime always means that the convict is actually guilt. Which means we would inevitably end up imposing this on some innocent parties.
These parties, aside from being mind-fucked, are now completely helpless and at the mercy of those who would prey on them.
In fact, I think improving the criminal justice system to be more impartial and less error-prone would be a significantly use of Earth-Analogue’s time & technology.
I’m not even convinced that offering to reduce a convict’s sentence by half if they voluntarily submit to chipping is not itself an untenable act of coercion. I’m not entirely convinced that their consent can truly be called ‘voluntary’ in those circumstances.
I don’t think we have a right to mess with people’s minds via magic potions. I don’t think it would be right to do it with technomagic, either.
There’s a mechanism in place to remove the chips from persons later proven to be innocent. But is it your contention that the majority of persons convicted of violent crime in your country are in fact innocent?
It’s not quite mindfucking. The subjects can fantasize about violence all they want; they just can’t carry it out. How does that differ from imprisoning them? Also, we’re not applying a Mark of Cain to the subjects; superficially they appear no more defenseless than Joe Blow on the street.
Irrelevant, since we don’t know how much it cost to develop and use the anti-violence chips.
But imprisonment is in itself coercive. What makes the chip worse than locking people up under threat of being beaten and/or shot if they try to escape?
Why do you use “majority”? Is there some level of inappropriate and unjust sentencing for an invasive and debilitating* punishment that you find acceptable?
*Hell, yes, debilitating. Any thing that strips you of a fundamental human right is debilitating, and there’s no human right more fundamental then prompt self-defense.
Something like this was described in the old “Doc Savage” books, and was explored in the “Squadron Supreme” comic book series.
If the convicted felon agrees, then, yeah, it’s a great idea. It can be a sentencing option, like community service for lesser crimes, or like ID bracelets for home detention.
Unless this is a super-secret procedure, and you can guarantee that a list of people that have had the procedure will never be released, then those that have had the procedure will be targets.
Good point. Unfortunately the criminal justice system has a tendency sometimes to become a political game with each side trying to “win” the most that they can get their hands on rather than seek justice.
To make an analogy, consider the sex offender registry and how it distorts prosecutions. Prosecutors may be tempted to trump-up charges in order to get the defendant convicted of a crime requiring registration, rather than seek the charges that most naturally match what the defendant appears to have done. On the other hand, defendants who are actually guilty may be able to arrange a guilty plea to a non-registry offense in order to dodge the registry. That leads back to the point that penalties ought to be based on the person’s risk, not on the technicalities of their convictions.
Almost every criminal prosecution in the USA now resolves with a plea bargain in which the defendant never gets an unaffordably costly day in court, and the implanted chip is just one more thing to be plea bargained.
Here’s the rub. We already have a variety of judicial responses in place, to apply to those who are adjudged to be guilty. That’s not the problem. The problem is assuring an impartial trial to the accused, establishing meaningful degree of guilt and risk or recidivism, and sorting out how each offender will respond to the sentencing that is already in place. Things which now are at best, slipshod. The USA is already considered a “rogue nation” by the rest of the world, regarding the limits of criminal punishment, with executions, torture, open-ended pre-trial incarceration, and extra-territorial reach, which few other nations countenance, none of which we feel honored to be associated with. Putting one more tool in their hands might add to the problem, not the solution.
Actually, yes. Given that the perfect is the enemy of the good, I’d say that the maximum proportion of wrongly-convicted defendants I’d accept would be somewhere between 1 & 5 percent. More than that indicates a need for a serious overhaul. (And of course the right to appeal needs to be maintained.)