RE: The nature of obligation

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Oct 31 2002 - 15:22:13 MST


Anders wrote:

>
> Another aspect worth thinking of: the technology necessary to produce
> copies implies very complete brain scanning. It is likely that this
> would enable truth machines or memory audits.

and Lee Corbin wrote:

Of course. It also has a great deal to do with the memories
of entities at various moments, and even more to do with
intentions. But what puzzles me is that the clearest and
best laws always steer clear of intentions.

### Both of you are touching on a very important element - in the rational
application of punishment we want to prevent future crime (not merely avenge
past wrongs) by targeting the mental state of the prospective criminal (be
it the guilty party or others considering the same deed). In the absence of
Truth Machine technology we have to rely on past behavior, and any law that
deals with intentions, like Lee said, will not work well.

With a copyhood, the behavior of one copy offers a very good insight into
the intentions and probable behavior of all others, just like a truth
machine will tell everything about the individual. A murderer's copy would
murder, too, under the same or similar circumstances.

Since to prevent future crime you need to target the malicious will, the
readiness to commit crime, and the behavior of one copy is sufficient proof
of such will in the others, it is reasonable to extend punishment to all the
copyhood. Even the erasure of memories of a crime, or not being directly
involved in the planning of the crime is not a sufficient excuse - we *know*
Mr. Dahmer#2 is bad to the bone, after Mr.Dahmer is found gnawing on one.

In the copy-enabled, truth-machine wielding society we will no longer punish
the deed but we will deal with the malicious intent.

Rafal



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:54 MST