• nifty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I know it’s a shitpost, but the idea behind something like this is counter to the point of rehabilitation. Civilization should move towards rehabilitation instead of punishment as the idea is that you want to integrate someone back into society. I am not sure inducing trauma and mental damage is conducive to rehabilitation.

    • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      9 months ago

      Technology like this could actually be used to help the rehabilitation process by dilating time, and allowing the offender to be rehabilitated without actually wasting much of their actual life.

      It would most likely be used for harsh punishment in this universe, but its nice to imagine living in a better one, sometimes.

      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think so. It probably just screws with the perception of time, I doubt it actually speeds anything up. If it did, we’d be able to use it for way more things than punishment, like for example, doing a deep delve into a subject in a matter of hours.

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      So I was on a jury pool in December.

      After the attorneys for both sides finished their dog and pony show, the judge himself made each of us answer the following question:

      What is the purpose of criminal incarceration?

      A - Punishment

      B - Deterrence

      C - Rehabilitation

      After all seventy five of us had answered, all of us who responded with anything other than punishment were dismissed. Even those who answered a combination of the choices. Nope. Punishment was the only correct answer.

      To my amusement, this barely left enough people available to fill the jury box.

      I followed the case. Guy robbed a convenience store. No death. No injury. Got fifty nine years.

      • nifty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s just emblematic of a broken justice system. We have to examine what is “justice” for any one case individually, and sometimes punishment may make sense, but even then its severity is determined by humane and ethical considerations. Justice systems can be reformed, the will to do so must be there—even if that means protesting till an objective is achieved.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s not complete horseshit. The application might be, but the idea isn’t.

      I remember a Slavoj Zizek anecdote about it.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I know it’s a shitpost, but the idea behind something like this is counter to the point of rehabilitation.

      Its counter to our understanding of entropy. Brains simply don’t work like this.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211233934.htm

          Even though participants remembered their own falls as having taken one-third longer than those of the other study participants, they were not able to see more events in time. Instead, the longer duration was a trick of their memory, not an actual slow-motion experience.

          Your memory is imperfect. But your actual capacity to perceive time is still limited by the facilities you use for that prescription.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            One experimental result does not define the entire domain of consciousness.

            You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist”, which is always a logical fallacy.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              You are essentially making a statement of the form “X does not and cannot exist”

              Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a Family Guy meme.