X-Message-Number: 20315
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 20:39:44 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Re: Reward Murder?

James Swayze, #20310, writes:
>For Mike and Thomas,
>
>What happens to our credibility and public opinion, should freezing murderers
>become actual sentencing practice, the minute some selfish bastard figures out
>that though he personally might not be able to afford cryonics and longevity
>methods, he could just kill someone, pay his penance and enjoy immortality?

We certainly would not want to encourage murder so the offender could be 
suspended, where otherwise he might not be. You can't rule out someone 
acting with this motive, if any instance of a murderer being suspended ever 
occurred (and were made public). More generally, though, there are a lot of 
things you can't rule out, and trying to establish a policy of only 
suspending those with "pure" motives is a difficult road to follow, morally 
as well as in other ways. Today few people, including criminals, take 
cryonics seriously, and cryonics organizations in addition have no policy 
of taking on criminals as charity cases. So there is little likelihood of a 
murder being committed just so one could be suspended. If the state, 
however, had a policy of suspending people rather than killing them (doing 
this at state expense, a pretty farfetched prospect, but let's consider it 
for the sake of argument), a number of provisions could reduce the 
likelihood of someone killing for the very privilege. One (the only one 
I'll consider here) would be that the criminal would be made to understand 
that the future for him would be far from a "bed of roses" for a long time. 
Invasion of privacy on a scale not possible today, curing the offender, 
making him remorseful (possibly suicidally so, only also prevented from 
committing suicide)--would be what to expect. I'm not claiming this sort of 
pitch would solve all the problem, but I think it would go a long way. (I 
don't imagine cryonics organizations themselves taking on such 
responsibilities, that is, rehabilitating dangerous criminals, but 
appropriate, cooperating agencies would do the task.) Another thought is 
that, for the state to go so far as this, cryonics would have to become so 
widespread that one can hope there would also be charity organizations (or 
medicare, say) so that all the poor could be suspended anyway.

Today, however, we also face the same sort of problem, in theory. Someone 
who does not want to work for a living could commit a crime that results in 
a life sentence. Someone seeking a "moment of glory" and painless execution 
(because his life seems empty and meaningless anyway) can try to copy 
McVeigh. And so on. I'm not aware that actual crimes are much committed 
with these sorts of main motives, however.

>I find the act of taking another life
>indiscriminately so disgusting I feel those that do it should forfeit 
>their own
>lives. Suppose the person this selfish bastard kills is destroyed beyond 
>repair
>or even suspension? Should one get the reward of eternal life for the act of
>ruining same for another?

The revenge motive you express is very understandable. My personal feeling 
is somewhat different, though I sometimes find I'm fighting a drive for 
revenge too, and not a small one. Killing is disgusting. Killers should not 
experience indiscriminate "rewards" that motivate them to the very 
egregious things they do. There would, of course, be ways the future could 
be made most "unrewarding" to the reanimated bad guy--to return to the 
topic above. He might wish many, many times over he'd not done what he did 
and just accepted oblivion instead (if that had been the only alternative), 
before he is finally and unquestionably cured. (After that, of course, his 
punishment would end and he could "join the angel band" but not before. 
Perhaps I should note here that, for reasons I elaborate in my book, I 
don't consider any form of death an absolute; even the victims of killing 
will not be gone forever.) One would, of course, have to employ those 
treatments that would be justified on truly enlightened grounds, no doubt 
invoking intelligence, wisdom, and understanding beyond the present human 
level, rather than acting from a primitive motive of revenge.

>You know how the public would see this. They'd be outraged. That outrage could
>spread to legitimate cryo patients.

Cryonics organizations would have to protect their own security, and (as 
Steve Bridge points out) do reserve the right to refuse suspension services 
if, in their judgment, there is an unacceptable threat. So far, though, we 
are just speculating about possibilities, that is to say, no cases as far 
as I know have not gone through for such reasons. (No, that isn't quite 
true either. I seem to remember a case of a just-deceased dictator whose 
family requested suspension services. In view of the perceived dangers they 
were quoted a much higher figure than normal, $500K or so, and the 
suspension didn't go through.)

In closing I'll remind readers that James Swayze himself is someone who may 
have narrowly escaped a death sentence, for the simple reason of lack of 
funds to make cryonics arrangements. This I personally find 
disgusting--that is, that a sentence of execution could be based on one's 
bank balance. (Yet I well remember how some patients thawed because there 
were inadequate funds, and the organizations folded, so I certainly don't 
blame cryonics organizations for insisting on funding.) More generally, 
killing is so disgusting to me I am opposed to all of it, unless justified 
on the grounds of being the lesser evil (if, say, it would prevent a still 
greater amount of killing, other factors equal). So, while I deplore acts 
of murder, I remain committed to curing rather than killing the offender. 
Such a cure must convince the offender (still the "same" person in some 
reasonable sense) that his act was definitely not worth it. We are hoping 
for a lot of fantastic things in the future, and I expect this sort of cure 
will be within the feasible range. The would-be offender today, if any 
there be, who is thinking he might get a joy ride, would do well to reconsider.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20315