NationStates Jolt Archive

Most of us have read science fiction stories that involve a technology called "brainwiping". It was posited by Larry Niven (among others) as a possible punishment for violent crime.

The idea is that your brain is wiped of all memories and beliefs that society thinks contributed to your violent acts. Of course, since it's a science fiction story, it works well. People are not turned into drooling, incontinent morons as a result of the process - they are still productive members of society, but they don't have the urge to be violent and don't even remember the crime they committed.

Would you think that this was an ethical method of treating criminals (or terrorists, or even terrorist supporters)? By wiping their minds of the incorrect thinking? Would you restrict it completely, or would you restrict it to convicted criminals, or would you use the technology wholesale on populations (let's say you wanted to stop an insurgency, so you march the entire local population through the machine)?

Is it worse than the death penalty? Or is it more humane, and a scientific advance over current methods?

Clockwork Orange baby. ;)
Kubrick explored that very question in the movie. The problem with such treatments as suggested by the movie is that it makes you a person with no real ability to make moral choices anymore. In other words you did not choose to improve your behavior. Your personality was just tweaked in order to fit with what society wants you to be. But of course you could always argue that the criminal could be asked to consent to the treatment and that is his moral choice. I don't know.

By wiping their minds of the incorrect thinking

Can you say "1984"

Can you say "1984"

1984 :p

Clockwork Orange baby. ;)

I'm thinking of something even more thorough. Something that can completely erase, and then replace, your personality.

Sounds like Nevinyrral is on to something...I think it might be a good idea, although I would be concerned that the person would not actually be memory-wiped; they might try to feign it or the process would repress the memories rather than erase them, and it would only require a trigger to set them off.

It's better to turn them in to productive members of society rather than waste the resources keeping them in jail or killing them...at least they'll repay society's investment in their punishment through being part of the economy and paying taxes.

Well, there is an obvious flaw; if you wipe their memory, what are they being punished for? They would have no recollection of the crime, and so you would have to tell them about it, which would surely go against the whole process.

However, if you don't tell them, then you have to let them go so they never know. So you'll have a situation where murder/rape is ok, because even if you get caught the worse that will happen to you is that you'll never remember it. Even if you don't let them know, are they truly being punished when they don't remember, or are you actually detaining an 'innocent' person?

Having said this, you mention that they are wiped of the 'causes' of the crime, which doesn't necessarily mean the crime itself. In that case, I can't think of any obvious downsides to the idea.

Well, there is an obvious flaw; if you wipe their memory, what are they being punished for? They would have no recollection of the crime, and so you would have to tell them about it, which would surely go against the whole process.


It isn't punishment, it's medical treatment. You are sick, and then you are cured. And the personality that did the crime no longer exists. But we haven't jailed you longer than 24 hours, and we haven't killed you.

It isn't punishment, it's medical treatment. You are sick, and then you are cured. And the personality that did the crime no longer exists. But we haven't jailed you longer than 24 hours, and we haven't killed you.
Then that raises the problem of the second point - what deterent is there against committing a crime? In fact, it may even encourage people who feel that way to do it, if all that will happen if they act out their desires is they are 'cured'.

Then that raises the problem of the second point - what deterent is there against committing a crime? In fact, it may even encourage people who feel that way to do it, if all that will happen if they act out their desires is they are 'cured'.

Technically speaking, the "you" - the interal "you" of your mind - will cease to exist, and will be replaced.

You won't remember a thing that they don't want you to remember.

That's a pretty substantial deterrent. Mental death, not physical death.

Isaac Asimov's Galactic Empire Trilogy for example - The Currents of Space in particular. The scope for abuses by tyrannies is endless.

I'm thinking of something even more thorough. Something that can completely erase, and then replace, your personality.

Well I think this is one of those cases where you have to ask yourself whether you want your government to be operating on deontological or utilitarian principles. On one hand you could reduce crime and improve the lives of the convicts. On the other, people might be uncomfortable with making society better by erasing someone's ability to make moral choices.

Technically speaking, the "you" - the interal "you" of your mind - will cease to exist, and will be replaced.

You won't remember a thing that they don't want you to remember.

That's a pretty substantial deterrent. Mental death, not physical death.
Does such a process not assume that actions and behaviour are learned, based on our experiences, and not innate?

Isaac Asimov's Galactic Empire Trilogy for example - The Currents of Space in particular. The scope for abuses by tyrannies is endless.

Isn't that true of any law, policy, or technology? That while something may be applied well in a just and fair society, it will by definition be turned to bad purposes in a tyranny?

Does such a process not assume that actions and behaviour are learned, based on our experiences, and not innate?
To a large extent. Although one might argue that sufficient learned experiences can override the innate.

While not a cure for absolute madness (say, paranoid schizophrenia), it works quite well on the physically normal person who might otherwise be involved in crime or terrorism.

if the people who are erasing the criminals minds become corrupt, we would have a bunch of mindless hitmen out there

I wouldnt mind some of my past issues being wiped from memory permanently as long as the psychosis that comes with it goes away too. Perhaps they can keep the memory on file and if the procedure turns out to skrew me up more, they could put it back. I have a feeling it's a lot like time travel.. you go and change something from someones past and you never know the future consequences.

If this worked in reducing crime and prison populations and showed that the person who goes thru it can live a happy crime free life afterwards, then I would be willign to consider it as a good alternative to prison where there is little to no rehabilitation.

To a large extent. Although one might argue that sufficient learned experiences can override the innate.

While not a cure for absolute madness (say, paranoid schizophrenia), it works quite well on the physically normal person who might otherwise be involved in crime or terrorism.
Well in that case, while not addressing the obvious issues of Government abuse or failures of the justice system because you asked about ethical questions, I would say there is no problem. When someone commits a crime they are surrendering (most of) their rights, and the majority have the right to protection from them.

Why not give them a second chance at life?

Well in that case, while not addressing the obvious issues of Government abuse or failures of the justice system because you asked about ethical questions, I would say there is no problem. When someone commits a crime they are surrendering (most of) their rights, and the majority have the right to protection from them.

Why not give them a second chance at life?

So I guess the real question, if the technology works well, is whether or not you trust the government to make judgments on when to use it on whom.

So I guess the real question, if the technology works well, is whether or not you trust the government to make judgments on when to use it on whom.
Indeed, and I do not, I'm afraid; nor do I trust the justice system to never convict an innocent person.

Most of us have read science fiction stories that involve a technology called "brainwiping". It was posited by Larry Niven (among others) as a possible punishment for violent crime.

The idea is that your brain is wiped of all memories and beliefs that society thinks contributed to your violent acts. Of course, since it's a science fiction story, it works well. People are not turned into drooling, incontinent morons as a result of the process - they are still productive members of society, but they don't have the urge to be violent and don't even remember the crime they committed.

Would you think that this was an ethical method of treating criminals (or terrorists, or even terrorist supporters)? By wiping their minds of the incorrect thinking? Would you restrict it completely, or would you restrict it to convicted criminals, or would you use the technology wholesale on populations (let's say you wanted to stop an insurgency, so you march the entire local population through the machine)?

Is it worse than the death penalty? Or is it more humane, and a scientific advance over current methods?Well, in that case, you are killing someone, in a way. You are killing their personality, and creating a new person, so it is ethically equal to the death penalty, although it has a more positive effect on society (also will discourage crime: few would want to be mind wiped, fewer than would want to die). Perhaps it could be ethically better if criminals on death row could option to be brainwiped.

Well, there is an obvious flaw; if you wipe their memory, what are they being punished for? They would have no recollection of the crime, and so you would have to tell them about it, which would surely go against the whole process.

However, if you don't tell them, then you have to let them go so they never know. So you'll have a situation where murder/rape is ok, because even if you get caught the worse that will happen to you is that you'll never remember it. Even if you don't let them know, are they truly being punished when they don't remember, or are you actually detaining an 'innocent' person?

Having said this, you mention that they are wiped of the 'causes' of the crime, which doesn't necessarily mean the crime itself. In that case, I can't think of any obvious downsides to the idea.

This leads on to a minority report (blargh) type situation where the society assesses whether you are likely to commit a crime and takes proactive measures to prevent it.

As soon as you permit the 'adjustment' of personality to prevent future crimes of convicted criminals, you open the door to the demand that these adjustments are being made too late. After all we could prevent the initial crime - saving lives and eliminating trauma to innocent people.

Then it moves on from crimes to "unorthodox" behaviour - no more bikers or hippies - no more gays or muslims - no more liberals etc.

I think I prefer to take those convicted of criminal acts and sentence them to hard labour or death.

Wow. Actually, this was addressed in DC Comics a while back.

Basically, the good guys mindwiped and brainwashed a lot of super-villains, so they'd either forget all about their alter egos, they'd become super heroes, or they'd become too incompetent to pose any actual threat.

It backfired.

You can change a person's personality, you can erase memories, alter personality...But what happens when others hear about it? If you do it to a guy in the mafia, the entire mafia will be after you. Most likely all of organized crime.

In the end, from every movie I've seen on the subject, from every book I've ready, my conclusion is that it wouldn't work as desired.

So you tweak the majority of a population into being "good people" and the perfect role-models of society. The people doing the brainwashing still have their flaws, as does the government. Now that a large chunk of the people are "perfect', they can take over a democracy by sheer numbers. What they'd do to the "flawed" humans can range from taking no action against them, to widespread purges.

It's a fun idea to tinker with, but actually implementing it would result in horrific results in the long run.

Also kind of reminds me of Demolition Man. Which is not so much of a problem unless you freeze people from our time and thaw them out in the new utopia. :p

This leads on to a minority report (blargh) type situation where the society assesses whether you are likely to commit a crime and takes proactive measures to prevent it.

As soon as you permit the 'adjustment' of personality to prevent future crimes of convicted criminals, you open the door to the demand that these adjustments are being made too late. After all we could prevent the initial crime - saving lives and eliminating trauma to innocent people.

Then it moves on from crimes to "unorthodox" behaviour - no more bikers or hippies - no more gays or muslims - no more liberals etc.

I think I prefer to take those convicted of criminal acts and sentence them to hard labour or death.

*gives wide grin thinking of bolded part of quote*

Seriously, that is a legitimate concern. If brainwipes become possible, what safeguards will there be to prevent them from being used against people who are unorthodox, but not dangerous?

Isn't that true of any law, policy, or technology? That while something may be applied well in a just and fair society, it will by definition be turned to bad purposes in a tyranny?
The consequences of abuse of such technology by tyrannies are so exceptionally horrible, that the possibility of misuse is sufficient for a universal ban, in my opinion. This is why there are international treaties banning chemical and biological weapons - there will always be arguments in favour of responsible military use, but the consequences of misuse by nutcases outweighs this.

Wiping a criminal's memory doesn't guarantee he won't be persuaded in future to commit another crime, whereas prison and the death penalty does ensure that they wont commit another crime.

Wiping a criminal's memory doesn't guarantee he won't be persuaded in future to commit another crime, whereas prison and the death penalty does ensure that they wont commit another crime.

Well, DK specified that the treatment would involve erasing the memory of crimes committed and also the tendencies that led to committing them.

Most likely, the only thing close to a good safeguard, would be to make these changes on the people who will make the changes. Tell them what is "right" and tell them to put it into the people they're mindwiping. If their morality won't allow them to rebel, or cause physical harm to human beings, they'd basically be less like humans, and more like robots.

But then again, you'd have the watchmen watching themselves. You'd just have to hope that they were mindwiped perfectly.

I'm thinking of something even more thorough. Something that can completely erase, and then replace, your personality.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! No! :eek:

Wiping a criminal's memory doesn't guarantee he won't be persuaded in future to commit another crime, whereas prison and the death penalty does ensure that they wont commit another crime.
Not true. A good majority of the people who go to prison, wind back up there. Usually for the exact same reason.

The death penalty, on the other hand, does solve that problem.

who the hell is to say what is ethical and is right? society? what makes that right, no. that is not right at all.

Clockwork Orange baby. ;)
Kubrick explored that very question in the movie. The problem with such treatments as suggested by the movie is that it makes you a person with no real ability to make moral choices anymore. In other words you did not choose to improve your behavior. Your personality was just tweaked in order to fit with what society wants you to be. But of course you could always argue that the criminal could be asked to consent to the treatment and that is his moral choice. I don't know.


dont say movie dude, the book came first

dont act like you know clockwork man

dont say movie dude, the book came first

dont act like you know clockwork man

And don't insult me like anything I wrote seriously detracted from my main argument. Yes the book came first. But I've only seen the movie and I loved it.

Clockwork Orange baby. ;)
Kubrick explored that very question in the movie. The problem with such treatments as suggested by the movie is that it makes you a person with no real ability to make moral choices anymore. In other words you did not choose to improve your behavior. Your personality was just tweaked in order to fit with what society wants you to be. But of course you could always argue that the criminal could be asked to consent to the treatment and that is his moral choice. I don't know.

That could happen... that or the brain would relapse and the person would return to normal. :D

Also kind of reminds me of Demolition Man. Which is not so much of a problem unless you freeze people from our time and thaw them out in the new utopia. :p


yea, that's where I got my idea from

The death penalty, on the other hand, does solve that problem.
And oddly results in a higher crime rate than life imprisonment. Funny that.

And oddly results in a higher crime rate than life imprisonment. Funny that.
I'm from the Stalinistic viewpoint of "No man, no problem."

And please, we all know that life imprisonment is only a suitable punishment for those that made a deal with the devil in order to become immortal.

well... touchy subject but it's a good question. i might agree (would have to think about this one a bit more) based on at least a few conditions:

1. the process had to be proved to work well.
2. only the most basic morals could be "loaded up"; like not killing, not stealing, not beating, not lying, not discriminating based on race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, etc. (fundamental human rights).
3. the decision on which morals to be loaded-up and the process of doing it would have to be done by an independent and non-governmental panel of scientists, constituted by people from a mix of different races, faiths (and lack of) and political views to avoid dangerous manipulation.
4. criminals would be offered the option between imprisonment and freedom (if he consented being part of the program).
5. criminals would be offered the possibility of keeping their sexual orientation (if they had a relationship, they wouldn't want to loose it).

the pitfalls:
- how to get to point 1 without potentially tragical experiments to individuals... not sure how you can possibly avoid this one.
- ensuring the independent panel wasn't corrupted to load information, other than what was authorised by law.

i don't think punishing criminals should ever be the priority of a government. i'm more adept of rehabilitation. unfortunately, there are obviously a few "lost cases".

also, it wouldn't necessarily stop someone from doing it again, since a harsh life following could throw someone back to crime.

i do strongly believe that a criminal mind is usually the product of past experiences - including education of course - as a child. much more so in sexual or violent crimes. some crimes, like child abusing, may often be the product of past experience. i don't have a source for this right now but i'm pretty sure that i read somewhere - a long time ago - that people (particularly men) abused as children are much more likely to become child abusers themselves. the logic is that of neurological association, how our personality is built up in our brain. the theory goes that if your first sexual experience happens as a child with an adult, your brain is much more likely to associate the idea of sex to an action between one adult and one child. sex is like a chemical fix. like with any drugs, your brain scans you memories for the strongest footprint and associates the chemical with that experience. the first experiences are usually the strongest and most memorable ones.

So let's say you're dealing with an insurgency (and we'll leave out their political motivations). And we're in that ideal, non-abusive government that we are presuming as a first quality for the public consent to the use of such a device.

Now you've captured some insurgents, and some of their supporters. You try them for the crime of insurgency, conspiracy to commit insurgency, and aiding and abetting insurgency, as appropriate.

Do you put them through the machine?

intesting thing idea. Is the death of a man's personality the same as the death of a man?

I guess from a societies's point of view, killing a personality is less of a guilty burden. After all the body is still alive.

But from an individual's point of view, I would say both methods are the same. What remains after the mind wipe process is a version of me, but not really me. The same bit of my personality that drove me to commit a crime would also be the same force that drove me in other parts of my life.

So let's say you're dealing with an insurgency (and we'll leave out their political motivations). And we're in that ideal, non-abusive government that we are presuming as a first quality for the public consent to the use of such a device.

Now you've captured some insurgents, and some of their supporters. You try them for the crime of insurgency, conspiracy to commit insurgency, and aiding and abetting insurgency, as appropriate.

Do you put them through the machine?
i'm assuming you can cover the pitfalls. still, i wouldn't do it against their own will. they would have to be pretty dumb to chose to spend their life, or a long period of it, in prison. if they chose not go be put through the machine, it would be their problem. the number of people that would choose to be put through the machine should compensate for the cost of having a few nutters in prison.

intesting thing idea. Is the death of a man's personality the same as the death of a man?

I guess from a societies's point of view, killing a personality is less of a guilty burden. After all the body is still alive.

But from an individual's point of view, I would say both methods are the same. What remains after the mind wipe process is a version of me, but not really me. The same bit of my personality that drove me to commit a crime would also be the same force that drove me in other parts of my life.
hence why i emphasise the choice of the individual to be put through the machine or spending their sentence in prison.

in that sense, i would see it more like a second chance. you could argue that a lot of criminals are not 100% guilty of having a criminal mind; i.e. part of the guilt lies in the cirmcumstances surrounding their life as a child, their education and - who knows - maybe even their genes. i think we are assuming you couldn't select which memories to remove; i.e. the only possibility would be a complete wipe. it would be like being a child again, which isn't that bad considering. obviously, it would be a child in an adult body and it would require re-education so - again - it's much more complicated that in looks at first sight.

this is all hypothetical of course and i'm thinking as i write so my thoughts are far from perfect. if the person in question is "just" a burglar looking into a couple of years in prison, it might not justify a wipe (from the individual's point of view), since it takes years to build a personality. however, if we were looking at a rapist, a child abuser or a murderer, who was going to spend their life in prison, it's a very different matter. in these cases, i rather give that person another chance than letting them rot in jail.

5. criminals would be offered the possibility of keeping their sexual orientation (if they had a relationship, they wouldn't want to loose it).



And here we have a major argument against this - here is an otherwise (I presume) rational person suggesting that we should probably try to wipe someone’s sexual orientation.

What else? Next abortion clinic bombing and I say we wipe away this 'Christianity' nonsense.

Clockwork Orange baby. ;)
Kubrick explored that very question in the movie. The problem with such treatments as suggested by the movie is that it makes you a person with no real ability to make moral choices anymore. In other words you did not choose to improve your behavior. Your personality was just tweaked in order to fit with what society wants you to be. But of course you could always argue that the criminal could be asked to consent to the treatment and that is his moral choice. I don't know.
It's a book :).

Most of us have read science fiction stories that involve a technology called "brainwiping". It was posited by Larry Niven (among others) as a possible punishment for violent crime.

The idea is that your brain is wiped of all memories and beliefs that society thinks contributed to your violent acts. Of course, since it's a science fiction story, it works well. People are not turned into drooling, incontinent morons as a result of the process - they are still productive members of society, but they don't have the urge to be violent and don't even remember the crime they committed.

Would you think that this was an ethical method of treating criminals (or terrorists, or even terrorist supporters)? By wiping their minds of the incorrect thinking? Would you restrict it completely, or would you restrict it to convicted criminals, or would you use the technology wholesale on populations (let's say you wanted to stop an insurgency, so you march the entire local population through the machine)?

Is it worse than the death penalty? Or is it more humane, and a scientific advance over current methods?

Don't know about rest of you but I'd rather be dead than brainwiped.
If you're going to kill ME than kill the the body too don't use for somebody else.

In that case, I can't think of any obvious downsides to the idea.

I can think of a few. Primarily that whoever is in charge wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to abuse it. Lets take for example, a neo-con religio fundy freak. Lets see what happens if such a person was in charge.

You aren't a Christian? *mindwipe*

You support abortion? *mindwipe*

You disagree with government policy? *mindwipe*

You voted democrat? *mindwipe*

etc, etc, etc.

How would you stop that from happening? And since it's a mindwipe process, nobody would even know it was going on save for the operators. It's like a device for dictatorships made easy.

Nothing is worse than death.