This is a good question… If you see it as punishment of an evil person, it follows that they should be denied cryonics for the same reason they are being killed.
I would not necessarily say it follows. Sentencing someone to information death is a whole different level of punishment than sentencing them to execution. In most cases even historically the soon to be executed criminals are allowed to see a priest. This suggest that the intended punishment is not usually eternal in nature.
Sure, but cryonics isn’t religious, it’s medical. Like doing CPR on the patient. And information death is what happens with the current death penalty. Taking away information death would be changing the punishment’s essential nature.
It is action taken based off premises. It indicates intent. Those instigating the punishment quite clearly do not intend for it to go beyond the cessation of all function in the body.
And information death is what happens with the current death penalty. Taking away information death would be changing the punishment’s essential nature.
The current death penalty doesn’t talk about cryonic preservation at all much less incorporate it as part of the essential nature. It is current death—and the cremation or burial of bodies rather than preservation—that results in information death.
Prohibiting cryonics is not the default state, the status quo. It would be an additional punishment.
Those instigating the punishment quite clearly do not intend for it to go beyond the cessation of all function in the body.
This is not clear to me. It could just as easily be that the intent is for the person’s memories to be completely erased from the body in order that the person would not be able to return to life and commit the same crimes again. Otherwise it would not be as much of a punishment.
Prohibiting cryonics is not the default state, the status quo. It would be an additional punishment.
From a legal rights standpoint perhaps this is correct. But from an actual action-taken standpoint, it isn’t. The status quo for a condemned criminal is to die and rot. If condemned criminals started doing cryonics, it would be a disruption in this pattern. Those in favor of the status quo of condemned criminals dying and rotting would be against this and in favor of regulating cryonics to prevent it.
I would not necessarily say it follows. Sentencing someone to information death is a whole different level of punishment than sentencing them to execution. In most cases even historically the soon to be executed criminals are allowed to see a priest. This suggest that the intended punishment is not usually eternal in nature.
Sure, but cryonics isn’t religious, it’s medical. Like doing CPR on the patient. And information death is what happens with the current death penalty. Taking away information death would be changing the punishment’s essential nature.
It is action taken based off premises. It indicates intent. Those instigating the punishment quite clearly do not intend for it to go beyond the cessation of all function in the body.
The current death penalty doesn’t talk about cryonic preservation at all much less incorporate it as part of the essential nature. It is current death—and the cremation or burial of bodies rather than preservation—that results in information death.
Prohibiting cryonics is not the default state, the status quo. It would be an additional punishment.
This is not clear to me. It could just as easily be that the intent is for the person’s memories to be completely erased from the body in order that the person would not be able to return to life and commit the same crimes again. Otherwise it would not be as much of a punishment.
From a legal rights standpoint perhaps this is correct. But from an actual action-taken standpoint, it isn’t. The status quo for a condemned criminal is to die and rot. If condemned criminals started doing cryonics, it would be a disruption in this pattern. Those in favor of the status quo of condemned criminals dying and rotting would be against this and in favor of regulating cryonics to prevent it.