NationStates Jolt Archive

This is more of a "food for thought" thread than anything else. When cryonics becomes cheaper, more economically feasible, and more popular, millions of people will be frozen, rather than the hundreds we have now. These people will come from all walks of life - bankers, doctors, lawyers, grad students, factory workers... and like with any large group of people, you get your share of criminals. Some of these criminals will be locked away for life.

The question at hand is, when cryonics is big, what does "life" mean? In some jurisdictions, one can be sentenced to spend "the remainder of one's natural life" in prison. That's explicit enough - at first glance. When their heart stops beating, their sentence is up and it's off to the cryotanks with them.

But we're dealing with criminals here. Criminals can be ingenious at finding ways to screw the system. Let's say we have a prisoner cut their wrists in the first week of their sentence. Today, we'd consider the life sentence to be up (so much for "natural" life), they're taken out of the prison in a box and buried, or cremated, or whatever. Fifty years from now, though, someone might cite this precedent and be in the cryotank inside of a week. Where would we be in a society where "life" is no longer a deterrent?

Also, what about jurisdictions that don't use the explicit wording "natural life"? Would a frozen inmate who died after 70 years in prison simply be thawed out as soon as they were fixed up, and kept incarcerated as a form of perpetual hell? Would prisoners be denied cryonics (which could be argued as sentencing them to death, despite such sentence not being directly handed down by a judge)? Will the entire concept of "life" imprisonment be abolished and replaced by sentences of hundreds of years, as we already do in some cases - 500-year prison terms are not unheard of, but people aren't expected to survive them. How will we handle those in the future who do?

Basically, I'm trying to explore an aspect of cryonic preservation I don't think anyone else has seriously written about. Let's see what NSG has to say about it.

Demolition Man wasn't serious?

Hey, it's not cruel and unusual punishment if they're in suspended animation...

Let's see what NSG has to say about it.
I've always been against the idea of termed imprisonment. Imprisonment should be about protection, prevention and rehabilitation. People should be imprisoned if, and only if, they need to be re-educated, protected or isolated, and only let out when, and exactly when, they are able to be returned to society. I suspect that Cryonics would accelerate the tendency of the penal system to adopt such an approach.

When cryonics becomes cheaper, more economically feasible, and more popular, millions of people will be frozen, rather than the hundreds we have now.
From what I know, we don't exactly freeze people now. We freeze corpses. Waiting for the Second Coming of Jesus to resurrect them, perhaps.


But we're dealing with criminals here. Criminals can be ingenious at finding ways to screw the system. Let's say we have a prisoner cut their wrists in the first week of their sentence. Today, we'd consider the life sentence to be up (so much for "natural" life), they're taken out of the prison in a box and buried, or cremated, or whatever. Fifty years from now, though, someone might cite this precedent and be in the cryotank inside of a week.
Jesus will judge rightly and send him to Hell if he was imprisoned rightly, or to Heaven if falsely.

Seriously, why would he be in a cryotank, and how is "life sentence" is no longer a deterrent, if you die, with just a hope that there's a tiny chance that someday someone will be able to create a creature with the same personality as you?


Will the entire concept of "life" imprisonment be abolished and replaced by sentences of hundreds of years, as we already do in some cases - 500-year prison terms are not unheard of, but people aren't expected to survive them. How will we handle those in the future who do?
Not sure if cryogenics have anything to do with it. That's rather life prolongation, perhaps as a reengineered species.
And, so what? A person can't change in 500 years?

I personally don't get the whole idea of locking people up if you don't expect them to ever get out. Fine people for small crimes, sent to rehabilitation for major ones when possible. If they can't be rehabilitated, just kill them, don't torture them by locking them up for life.

The only real reason against death penalty is the possibility and high frequency of judicial mistakes. Cryogenics, then, open a new option - no life sentences or DP, just freeze people to be restored if they are found innocent later, or discarded if they aren't in any reasonable time (a couple centuries).

people in prison on serious charges would be ineligible for cryonics

I've always been against the idea of termed imprisonment. Imprisonment should be about protection, prevention and rehabilitation. People should be imprisoned if, and only if, they need to be re-educated, protected or isolated, and only let out when, and exactly when, they are able to be returned to society. I suspect that Cryonics would accelerate the tendency of the penal system to adopt such an approach.

Whatever world you live in must be full of butterlys and everybody defecates purple sherbert.

Demolition Man wasn't serious?

Beaten to it in the first damn post...

Whatever world you live in must be full of butterlys and everybody defecates purple sherbert.

I despise this reaction, because it presumes that rehabilitation is all about hugs and daisies and dancing with the butterflies, when it's really about actual true rehabilitation, which differs based upon the crime. Theft for food? You get taught job skills and are given a job. Rape? You get many years of psychological counseling, and probably other stuff. Etc etc.

As for the original post question, I daresay cryogenics aren't our only worry on this line. We've also got possible life-span expanders, such as nanotechnology and genetic manipulation, which could easily transform a natural lifespan from eighty to eight hundred, or more.

Demolition Man wasn't serious?
What do you mean it wasn't serious? It had Sylvester Stallone, Sandra Bullock and Wesley Snipes in it, now if that isn't some serious academic credibility I don't know what is.