> { snip part about duplication chamber}
> This brings to mind an interesting question. Is the clone to be held
> responsible for crimes (real crimes, like murder) which were committed by the
> "original" sometime just prior to duplication?
> ... For example, if I murdered ... and then I duplicated myself...
> who do they arrest?
> I ask because if the answer is that only the original is
> arrested, then criminal types by the dozens would flock to duplication
> chambers everywhere, as to avoid (at least on one line of existence)
> prosecution. On the other hand, if both the "original" and the cloned copy
> were to be prosecuted, then they would need to be put on trial together, a
> "strange" arrangement. Any comments or answers?
>
Not all that strange. We routinely have trials in which two or more
non-duplicates are put on trial together if the judge is convinced that
all relevant issues are joined. In this case, at the time of the
alledged crime they were the /same/ person. No problem there.
It does get odd if they plead differently, and if one turns and
testifies against the other. This is pretty damming testimony ( "I know
he did it because I was him - I mean us - back when he - I mean I - I
mean we - did it." )
This, in a wierd way, makes duplication a bit of a deterrent against
crime - or crime a deterrent against duplication. Suppose that you
had commited a crime, and had not gotten caught, but that there was
a small possibility that someday you might be found out. You now
have a strong incentive not to be duplicated because your duplicate
would have an incentive to turn you in. Sort of a prisioner's dilemma.
Robert Schrader rms@cts.com