From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 10:47:50 MST
I would analyze this question in two parts, corresponding to our civil
and criminal laws. The first part asks how our voluntary relationships
are affected by copying, and the second asks about our mandatory ones.
My perspective will be purely pragmatic: what system will be the most
convenient and lead to the greatest quality of life for all concerned.
Philosophical issues of identity will play no consideration whatsoever.
I trust that the recent discussion will have made clear why this approach
is advantageous and in fact mandatory.
In terms of civil laws, if you take on an obligation and make a copy,
is it bound by the obligation? If not, then you could escape your
obligation by making a copy and then killing yourself. If so, then
your copy would have its freedom of action circumscribed; it could
not go off to Mars, because the original might at any time suffer a
mishap and then the copy would be obligated to perform in your place.
Neither of these is desirable.
In some cases, a failure to perform can be resolved monetarily. If the
original dies, his estate doesn't all go to the copy, but it must first
pay a penalty to the person who was owed performance. This allows the
copy to have freedom of action, without the original being able to escape
from the obligation.
Given the variety of situations which can occur, ideally the issue can
be resolved on a case by case basis, at the time the contract is made.
The minimum requirement has to be that it is possible for the original
to *voluntarily* create a copy who is bound by some obligation. Just as
a person can bind himself with a contract, he has to be able to bind his
copy at the instant of its birth. This allows both solutions above to
be explored and used, as circumstances dictate.
If we don't allow for this kind of copy creation, it will be too easy
for people to escape obligations, and either copy creation will be
illegal, or else no one will be able to bind themselves with contracts.
I think allowing the creation of obligated copies is the lesser of all
these evils.
In the case of criminal justice, some of the same considerations apply.
A person could break the law, create a copy and then kill himself. If
we don't hold the copy liable, many people will adopt this method to
avoid justice and we will live in a dangerous and lawless society.
And there are new considerations in this case which make it harder.
Suppose the original doesn't kill himself, but ends up going to prison.
If the copy still goes free, then some potential criminals will see this
as lessening the chance of being punished, thereby leading to more crime.
Also, what if the original makes a copy, and then one of them goes on to
commit the crime? That's not so different from the case where they commit
the crime and then make the copy. If the intention and plan to commit the
crime was fully developed, then the copy made, then the plan carried out,
the one who did not commit the crime still carries some guilt for the
overall procedure. If he is not punished then, again, some criminals will
see this as a way of avoiding consequences.
But at the other extreme, if someone makes a copy, then one of them
decides to commit a crime, but the decision was made after the copy,
then it seems wrong to hold the innocent one responsible for the crime.
Given these considerations, here is what I see as the pragmatic and
practical approach. Let's take the easiest case first: someone commits a
crime; shortly afterwards, they make a copy; and shortly after that they
are caught (both them and the copy, or only the survivor if one of them
is dead). In that case I think both should be punished. Each arguably
shares culpability for the crime; each remembers committing it.
And unless we punish both of them, we are going to encourage more
criminal actions.
Now let's take the case where the copy occurs before the crime.
In that case, the issue should be whether the intention to commit the
crime was in place before the copy occured. This will depend on the
facts of the case. We already have a distinction between premeditation
and spur of the moment crimes in the case of murder in the first and
second degree. The legal system is able to grapple with the question
of at what point a person formed the intention to commit the crime.
Where a copy was made, evidence must be gathered to show whether there
was intention before making the copy. This will determine whether the
copy is held responsible.
Granted, this will not be easy, and in some cases, guilty copies will be
set free because there was no overt evidence that the plan was conceived
before the copy was made. That's the penalty we pay for a society
where we are innocent until proven guilty. In practice, if we see a
lot of cases where criminals "just happen" to create copies shortly
before committing their crimes, juries will tend to be more skeptical
of whether the copy was innocent. There will be a certain amount of
feedback in the system if it starts to be abused.
We might draw an analogy to the crime of conspiracy, where it takes a
plan to commit a crime, plus a single overt act in furtherance of the
plan, to constitute conspiracy. The copy could be said to be guilty
of conspiracy, if at least a single overt act in furtherance of the
planned crime occured before the copy was made.
In speaking of punishment here, I am talking about physical coercion
like prison terms, probation, even capital punishment. If the crime is
punished only by a monetary fine, should it be doubled in the case where
a guilty copy exists? I'd be inclined to leave that up to the judge.
A person's assets are not increased by making a copy, so a single fine
would still be as significant a penalty; but their earning power is
doubled, so over time they could afford a doubled fine. It might depend
on the timing between when the crime occured, the copy was created,
and the criminal(s) caught.
Summing up, for voluntarily relationships we should encourage voluntary
solutions, where people simply state what they will do in advance, when
the contract is made. This does require having the option of binding
a copy to follow a contracted agreement as a condition of the copy's
creation. For criminal actions, we should punish copies if they have
a past history (including the history of the original before the copy
was made) of committing the crime, or of taking some explicity step in
furtherance of a plan to commit the crime. This is necessary because
otherwise many people will see the creation of copies as a loophole that
allows them to commit crimes without consequences, or with a lessened
chance of being punished.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:53 MST