Sfdebris.net

Would probably make for a good Discovery episode.

Well I had a feeling Chuck would be putting out a two-parter after this was pushed back in the unofficial schedule posted on the front page. Could have done without part 1 and will likely skip over it moving forward on any rewatch. Context is all well and good but it just didn't affect the episode review all that much in my opinion. But no problem overall in looking into the matter. If you are pro-death penalty for the worst of crimes as I am or against it as others are. And there are plenty of reasons for both sides in this imperfect world filled with imperfect people and imperfect systems built by those people.

On the episode itself I just see this as one of those overly preachy Voyager episodes which I can take or leave. One thing I do approve of is that the killer was willing to die for their crimes here much in the way that Lon Suder was when helped away from his imbalance. It's kind of funny in that way; Once these monsters regain some of their "humanity" they agree as I do that death is a moral and just end for the crime committed. Though to be fair Lon Suder saved the ship by killing yet more people, so there is that.

The arguments against the death penalty aren't bad ones. But one FOR the penalty that I feel is oft-forgotten... when a heinous criminal with a life sentence has it commuted and kills again after release. This has happened more than once.

And I can be a bit torn on the brain damage issue. Yeah... we can definitely acknowledge that some people are more prone to certain behaviors because of abnormalities. But also, people with the same abnormalities have also managed to refrain from becoming criminals. Perhaps the real argument is whether humans(/aliens) are more than just their brain chemistry. I believe we are.

Swiftbow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 10:26 am And I can be a bit torn on the brain damage issue. Yeah... we can definitely acknowledge that some people are more prone to certain behaviors because of abnormalities. But also, people with the same abnormalities have also managed to refrain from becoming criminals. Perhaps the real argument is whether humans(/aliens) are more than just their brain chemistry. I believe we are.

A case near me (well as I heard it from people in the pub, so take with a pinch of salt, but it still serves as an example). Someone killed his grandmother, who he normally doted on. They said he'd forgotten to take his medication and would be devastated when he realised what he'd done, and they were concerned for him as much as his grandmother.

Swiftbow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 10:26 am The arguments against the death penalty aren't bad ones. But one FOR the penalty that I feel is oft-forgotten... when a heinous criminal with a life sentence has it commuted and kills again after release. This has happened more than once.

That is a failure of social services and law enforcement, not a failure to murder someone in the name of the state. State sanctioned murder is always morally wrong, but since you won't accept that then the same argument you make about maybe someone innocent getting killed if you get it wrong is the same argument against the DP. You cannot guarantee that you won't murder an innocent person, especially since people who have made a confession, and had seemingly rock solid forensic evidence against them, have been later found innocent. If you can't guarantee that an innocent person won't be murdered, then you can't risk killing them in the state's name.

So start finding another way. Rehab, social care, social welfare, actual honest to goodness genuine preventative policing.

I definitely disagreed with Chuck's 'you can acknowledge there's arguments on both sides' take on this one. Sure there are political arguments where such a position is a good thing, and it's healthy for there to be debate to be able to see where the other point of view is based on.

However there are some specific political matters where you have the correct answer, and the WRONG answer. State sanctioned murder is such a horrific and shameful policy that for me there can be no compromise and certainly no polite agreeing to disagree.

Swiftbow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 10:26 am one FOR the penalty that I feel is oft-forgotten... when a heinous criminal with a life sentence has it commuted and kills again after release.

That's not a good argument. You might as well be saying "prisoners escape too often, therefore we should just execute them." If you think too many people are being released, the solution isn't "execute them", it's "don't release them".

Haha, DoJ has a national public defenders department.

stryke wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 3:13 pm I definitely disagreed with Chuck's 'you can acknowledge there's arguments on both sides' take on this one. Sure there are political arguments where such a position is a good thing, and it's healthy for there to be debate to be able to see where the other point of view is based on.

However there are some specific political matters where you have the correct answer, and the WRONG answer. State sanctioned murder is such a horrific and shameful policy that for me there can be no compromise and certainly no polite agreeing to disagree.

I think there's a misunderstanding: it's not that both are correct, it's that both have an understandable perspective, and understanding that perspective is the first step in persuasion to change someone's mind. A perspective can be perfectly understandable and also completely wrong. It's not about agreeing to disagree, it's about beginning in a place that maximizes its chance to persuade. Otherwise, there is no pragmatic benefit to talking other than feeling better at being right... it's the same outcome at agreeing to disagree, no change of opinion. But if you try to show you understand even if you don't agree, then maybe you're the first step in changing someone's mind. Maybe the next time, when the thing you showed them happens, they'll remember, and that seed will sprout, and they'll reconsider.

Basically, that pretty much sums up the show. Maybe if people see that I may not agree, but always respect them, try to understand them, and just want to give them something to think about... maybe in time they'll reach the conclusion on their own.

I've mentioned this interpretation before in this forum. On the question of why General Order 7 has the death penalty but nothing else does. I took it from the episode (where it is mentioned the Talosians have become addicted to their illusions and dismotivated) that the Talosian illusions constitute an existential threat to human life as what my mom used to call the last invention, a means of just stimulating your brain so you have all the pleasure and satisfaction you could want.

Therefore contact with the Talosians risks us all become unmotivated addicts of Talosian illusions just as the Talosians themselves are. Therefore the death penalty is as someone else said more (in the same thread just after me) of a quarantine procedure form a deadly social plague.

Of course the holodeck is also such a threat. So the worry here is a bit selective.

On the broader themes in part 1. I tend to agree that debates about the death penalty are over simplified and I thought Chuck's framing was fine but maybe a bit much for how much it mattered in the review (although lots of reviews by Chuck are at their best in long tangents from the actual review). I would say that as Chuck said of TNG's the High Ground, there is no need to make the story too much about the issue rather than just having an issue that motivates characters and interests the audience without the writers needing to make an original or profound statement about the issue. Maybe that was part of Chuck's point here to, but it felt like Chuck was saying that the B plot was not original enough and did not use the setting enough. I think that plot sounded like it could have been done in an interesting and exciting way and been a Star Trek episode even if that way did not depend on the Star Trek setting and was not novel.