Revolutionizing Criminal Justice and Moving Beyond the Fallacy of Innate Evil

Very short post, at least relative to my other important posts; skippable, unless you're interested in an interesting personal experience or interested in a scientific career or how research in science academia works. This is one of my more interesting posts, not for the ideas it is about, but about the personal experiences and backstory, the story behind this idea and what motivated me to.. let’s say, apply my rationality and game theory skills in real life to out-smart some people who could be trying to out-smart me out-smarting them, or at least them thinking that I’m out-smarting them, assuming that they’ve been intending to out-smart me.

New to this blog? Start here.

Don’t worry if this doesn’t make sense, I’ll just go into the specifics, just setting the stage by being vague abstract ambiguous general as I always do, trying to extract general principles applicable to real life and abstract away from the specifics, as I like the sublime realm of ideas a little more than reality, yet it’s reality that I intend to change through my ideas, so it’s a two-way interaction.

I’ll post two links, and maybe you could read them because there are some interesting comments, both mine and from other Redditors, and then I’ll talk about the story, and finally I’ll explain the ideas which it’s all about at the end of my post, in simple plain everyday casual conversation language, not the more serious scientific formal language that I used to publish the paper in my preprint.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/11vo9y6/reputed_journal_that_doesnt_care_about_age_or/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/11vo5dd/reputed_journal_that_doesnt_care_about_age_or/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

My only three concerns were: 1) My ideas would not be taken seriously by anyone because of my age and lack of UG degree, so I can get that credibility by getting published in a reputed journal, 2) I won't be outright rejected by universities, though a few people have pointed out AOs don't even have time to read blogs or anything, and 3) What if my ideas are stolen and someone else steals credit before I am able to do so? Here’s more from a comment I made in my posts, but first there’s my motivation behind trying to do this, then my concerns:

“I already have a blog, and in fact, I was going to publish my ideas there when a graduate student who I talked to and who works in a field related to my ideas suggested me to not do so before trying to get them published, in order to build some credibility and make it more likely for people to pay attention, so I decided to not publish them for now.

I realize that generating novel research requires years of training, and the reason it's usually PhDs and academics who do that sort of thing, and moreover, I strongly believe in practicing intellectual humility, so thank you for the reminder.

I was just thinking that there should be no harm in trying, as these are topics I'm genuinely passionate about, and if I am able to get some constructive feedback, I could improve and come up with a better solution to the problem and try later, perhaps sometime in the near future when I have the credentials, but for now I just thought it'd be a nice learning experience, and a graduate student suggested that my ideas might be good enough for publication, so I decided that there is no harm in trying.”

“My primary concerns are 1), but I'd like to know your answers to the other questions too. I'm a proponent of free info and I was going to publish my ideas in my blog and YouTube anyway, but then the grad student stopped me from doing so, so I'm just curious what your answer to 1) and 3) is, but just to clarify, I don't have any ego issues and in fact I'd be happy to have my ideas being taken seriously if I am listened to, just afraid that someone will steal them- I don't even care about credit, to be honest- and then people would accuse ME of stealing THEIR ideas, which is why I am concerned.

If I am able to resolve 1) and 3) (I can still do without 2, I think, I will be able to convince the AOs that I'm not whatever they could think I am that could get me rejected) then I will just go ahead and publish them right now, as I was going to do anyway, but not before I have good enough solutions.”

I resolved those queries with some guidance from some helpful Redditors. In short, preregistering or publishing a preprint, and making it all public so I have the time evidence, plus some other things that I’ll describe elsewhere, but let’s come to the more interesting “game theory” part I alluded to in the introduction. Here’s the full conversation if anyone happens to be interested in the context, though it should be clear from my comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/11vo9y6/comment/jd29wy5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Here’s the relevant part from the comment: “That is so.. I can almost feel the frustration of that PhD student, even though my academic career has not even started yet, I can imagine what it would feel like if the graduate student- or anyone, for that matter- were to steal my ideas and publish it as their own and accuse me of stealing their ideas, which is why I'm being so cautious. I have told the graduate student my idea, but he is trustworthy, and just in case it leaks for any reason, I'm moving fast so I can release it publicly on my blog and possible YouTube, and Reddit, of course, so thank you for the cautionary tale.

So I will be even more cautious now, and make sure to not trust anyone too much, I think this is a useful life skill to cultivate anyway even if all the people I know right now are trustworthy, it'd help to adopt such a worldview, and to be honest it won't be so hard for me as I already think that most people in society are very irrational and so it'd be easy for me to switch to my cynical misanthropic mode. Just for this purpose, only this one; not for my projects, else I'll lost all motivation and hope.

"Whenever someone asks you to not talk about something, or not to publish something, I just get a sinking feeling in my stomach." Well. So perhaps, I should just see if I can get it published but even if not, as I said, I am going to publish it publicly very soon, so even assuming the worst-case scenario, that academic who told me to not publish it publicly would still have to wait for some time, Oh wait- he doesn't need to wait at all- he has already published several papers and is from one of the most prestigious institutions of this country, and- assuming worst case- he could already have submitted-

NO.. wow, now you have also me.. as I said, it was easier than I expected to switch into the misanthropic mode, but now I'm afraid for real. Cause that's a possibility, and cause.. well, he asked me if he could co-author it with me and I requested him to let me first-author it this time and co- next time, and he agreed.. a bit too soon. Okay, that's enough. I mean, I'd tell you again that he really is trustworthy and I trust him because of good reasons, but then that grad student who quit her position.. I don't think she would have thought any differently before she was made aware of the unfortunate incident..

Okay, I am going to do it now. I will just make it public soon. Sooner than I had been planning to, because of what I said above.. it would have been nice to- hey, do you think that if I publish it on my blog now, I can still get it published later without anyone stealing my ideas and publishing them first? If I just put it out publicly, then it's very likely that people could do this. Maybe even actively discourage me by saying my ideas are bad and then publishing them themselves and later accusing me of stealing their ideas..

What do you say? Should I take the small risk that the trustworthy grad student may betray me (infinitesimal chance, but then as you said it's possible) and wait so I can find a suitable journal to at least submit my ideas for publication, OR should I take the big risk that someone else will steal my ideas and accuse me of stealing their ideas later on, which is very likely if I publish it on my blog and all social media.. I need to think, and I'd like to know what you have to say about this.. as you see I'm trying to be as cautious as possible, and you tale is just another reminder that I can never be cautious enough.”

Plus the fact that he told me to wait and publication takes 6-7 months at least and in that time he could already have submitted and published, and- maybe he himself didn’t know but we’re in misanthropic cynical mode right now- he didn’t tell me about preregistering and publishing preprints which doesn’t take long and make it public for the time evidence and I hate it that I believed him and trusted him blindly- he still sounds trustworthy but that’s the point, you don’t trust anyone- and I told him my idea, and was okay until I asked some helpful Redditors who told me some cautionary tales that was the stuff of nightmares so now I’m trying to get them published ASAP and for some reason I’m wasting time writing this instead of.. goodbye, see you later.

Fun fact: the grad student is also my cousin. I should’ve told him I have already published it, but then he’s no dummy he would’ve checked and realized I’m bluffing and then grown suspicious and refused to help me and maybe even out of spite publish it as his own to take revenge, I really don’t know if he has such ego issues but it’s not worth trying and testing taking such a risk, the potential upsides or expected utility isn’t worth the worst case scenario, and also very unlikely, so maybe I made the right decision my not telling him.

But then I didn’t make a well-informed decision and made the ‘right’ decision by accident, by chance based on incomplete information- more accurately, information about the selfish world, the possibility of someone close betraying you, so maybe it helps to be a bit misanthropic in that regard, as I’ve already been told several times by my own parents how seemingly nice people will mess you over once they get the opportunity and it’s about their own selfish interests, there is no friend or even family, though I think it’s more optimistic than that and people can chance, be more kind and compassionate and empathetic, currently the evidence points towards the fact that they are not, and I don’t wish to take any risk.

Especially after all the training in rationality and reading about psychopathy, not me, not now, I don’t think I’d be able to recover from such a thing if after all this I turn out to be so stupid irrational or gullible, but then all of it’s been theoretical, and I need some practical life experience too, so maybe it’s okay to make mistakes and learn and grow, just not the sort of costly mistakes that could end my whole career or life. I don’t have trust issues, I don’t have ego issues, but when everyone is telling you to be cautious, it’d be stupid to trust someone blindly even if they seem trustworthy and then fall for something so obvious, in hindsight. I should have told him I’d let him co-author, but then that’d be unfair too because I didn’t’ really intend to and I’d have pre-printed it and that’d have been betraying him, and then I’d be the untrustworthy one simply because I was being too cynical and paranoid, and that’d be disastrous for my career and reputation if he really wanted to help me.

Though it’d be fitting if he didn’t, but I’d never know, and he could easily deny having such intentions, and as smart as he is, he’d have evidence and then my fears would come true through a self-fulfilling prophecy and I’d again be accused of stealing his (my) ideas, so jut by trying to make sure no one does that, I could do stuff that could make it even more likely in counterintuitive and unexpected ways like this; glad to be planning now so I can avoid it, and glad I didn’t act too over-smart by trying to deceive him by thinking he’s intending to deceive me, and then myself paying the price. I was honest, and as in most cases where people decide to lie and deceive, honesty is the best policy, only if I don’t throw caution to the win and get a bit too open and invite people who wouldn’t think twice before destroying my academic career before it’s even started. Glad to learn such an important lesson so early.

I did use my language and persuasion skills to reframe the situation and make him see how it would benefit me and how it’s beneficial for him if I do this- so I kind of showed him how it’s in his own selfish interests to not betray me, for the possibility that I come up with better research papers later and co-author them with him, so at least that’s one thing I did right. The only ‘wrong’ move was to explain all my ideas to him, so even though he gave me some helpful references and acts and cases, I don’t think that information was worth telling all my ideas just like that to someone who could get them published in an instant and accuse me to stealing his ideas; who would people believe- a 19-year-old kid on a gap year, or an accomplished assistant professor from one of the most prestigious universities?

He could even have told me my ideas are bad and I should not even try, but maybe he was smart enough to know that it’s not so easy to discourage me and I’d grow suspicious by thinking that he could be discouraging me and then later publish them as his own, so he simply bought more time, or maybe he really did have good intentions but we’re in cynical mode right now and not gonna lie it’s kind of fun, like playing game theory with all the real-life complexity, a game of chess with a worthy opponent where I made one wrong move but soon going to win the game, check-mate. And it’s not even clear if the opponent is an ally or an opponent. Haha.

Now, I do believe there is still some goodness in society, but it’s very rare, and it’s better to be safe than sorry. Overall though, society is, well, I don’t wish to resort to strong language and go off on rants now, I consider myself more emotionally mature and kinder than that, but you get the point. I’m not exactly a fan of humanity, to say the very least, to put it very mildly. But I want to help them, and I’m going to help them. I can’t not help them, and as long as I’m alive, I won’t waste a second trying my best to change society for the better.

I’ve given up socialization, television, gaming, everything, still 24 hours a day isn’t enough. But I’m going to try my best, and I hate it that I have to sleep so much. I might add some Instagram stories I added during this time later, when I have the time. Just one point worth mentioning here is that if I come off as overambitious or overconfident, I don’t care anymore, because I’m just trying to counter my self-doubt and inferiority complex and stay motivated and not go crazy till I initiate my projects, else usually I’m one to show not tell, who works in the shadows and makes everyone notice when the time is right, but I need this motivation right now, which is why I’m being like this, talking like this.

~

I will post a little of the explanation of my idea here, not all of it, because I don't have the time right now, but this should suffice for now, the main ideas. But one very important warning before proceeding to these ideas:

Do not read this in isolation of my other posts, by which I mean that even though I usually keep my posts self-contained, with no prior knowledge required, you might start getting some wrong ideas by misinterpreting or misunderstanding my main points, which is why you need to check out my other 'important' posts, which I may or may not have published right now (does the meta-post exist yet? I'll check back later and update this if I remember; at least I'll update the intro to this post, if not this part) but one post you can read and that is definitely published is 'Courage'.

Read this, but don't go away with the impression that you get it, before reading that post, is all I'm saying. And as always, I'm open to changing my mind in light of new evidence, and I'd be happy to receive honest feedback or constructive criticism. Before moving on to a simple summary of my ideas with stuff like personal experiences and my own thought processes that I could not include in the preprint publication- and Elsevier submission- I will add the link to the Google doc with the real paper, not the link to the publication because it will take time to display it open source right now, so I'll just post a link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cpiNYqACncBder5h3PXRATpOvvgFZG28/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=114866335897896750328&rtpof=true&sd=true

Moving on to the simple summary of my ideas: My cousin said it was impossible to use interventions to help people with extreme cases such as sociopaths and murderers, and it's just like how the IITD students, the education system and society at large don't take initiative because they are conditioned to accept the way things are. They don't even try to see if it's possible and are still okay with suffering and labelling these people as evil.

My plan involves early detection and prevention of harmful behaviors and psychological issues in children through the use of AI tools and psychological interventions. By detecting and fixing these issues early, we can change their environment and take advantage of their neuroplasticity to instil ethical codes in them. In doing so, we can prevent them from growing up to commit violent crimes or engage in emotional manipulation.

We can also create a stigma-free society where people can seek help without fear of being punished or labelled as "evil." Genetic engineering could also be used to create designer babies with a lower likelihood of psychopathy. It's important to note that morals and values don't exist in reality and can be influenced by power, language, logic, and neuroscientific and genetic interventions. As such, we should be open-minded and rationalize our beliefs.

My proposal is to start experimenting with psychopaths and other criminals sentenced to death to test the effectiveness of our interventions. This would allow us to expand our approach to early detection and prevention of these issues in children and adults through AI monitoring, surveillance, medical checks, and psychological interventions.

Ultimately, my goal is to solve society's issues regarding harmful behaviour and psychological problems, and I will work tirelessly towards this goal. I am passionate about neurolaw, cognitive empathy, and all projects related to early detection and prevention. While it may be necessary to punish and torture those who have already committed crimes, we can use them to test interventions before they die and prevent future Dahmers from emerging. By using current scientific and technological advancements, we can make a real difference in the lives of these people and help prevent future victims.

So, try to be free from external influences and social conditioning, and just follow your genes, early environment, inclinations, and what you feel is true, because logic is guided by emotions and you can rationalize anything, including reality, as subjective value judgments, morals, and reality are all neuroscientific and social constructs, and have no objective bias in external scientific observable events in the universe. (So, you follow the external factors of genes, early environment, and determinism/randomness until you can control them, but you be free of social and neuroscientific influence to the extent that you can, and at least be aware of it all. See the question of the self in blog posts and notepads, and black notepad).

So you don't be contrarian for the sake of it, you just do what you feel happy doing and what feels right and use logic. But you stay open-minded and open to all sides of the debate and detached emotionally (turn off emotions completely, even if at the cost of anhedonia, just be calm, indifferent, no negative emotions at least) and seek differing worldviews, and then rationalize and repeat until you can find no logical reasons. In which case, I'll explain later, but usually, you can rationalize anything and everything, and you will never stop.

I attempted to explain that individuals with sociopathic tendencies are born with a certain brain and genetic makeup, and did not choose to be that way. I suggested that it is possible to use various interventions such as neurotech, pharmacology, clinical translational neuroscience, stereotactic interventional neurosurgery, neural implants, nanotech, and psychosurgery to ‘fix’ them. However, I reluctantly agreed that if necessary, we could torture and kill them, or at least fix them enough to make them realize that what they did was wrong. Research has shown that it is possible to temporarily turn off the conscience and internal moral compass of a neurotypical person by stimulating specific areas of the brain with TMS or tDCS, so it should also be possible to make psychopaths have morals, experience emotions, and abide by ethical codes. If these interventions fail, then we could resort to torture and killing them as a form of closure or revenge. I also inquired about whether it would be possible for them to have a painless and suffering-free death as their last wish.

My future plans involve early detection and prevention of sociopathic tendencies in childhood by using various psychological and AI tools, interventions, and psychological monitoring. We need to raise awareness like we do with sex education so that early environments can be changed, and their high neural plasticity can be utilized to counteract their genetic predispositions, inclinations, and proclivities. We should teach them philosophical theories from the beginning, so they are conditioned to abide by ethical codes that do no harm. We should also create a stigma-free society where they can seek help without fear of repercussions. Even if they do have intrusive impulsive thoughts or desires, they should feel comfortable sharing them so they can be helped before they commit a crime. In the end, we should try to create an environment where the genetic factors are overpowered by the environmental factors, resulting in less likelihood that a person would become a sociopath.

And even if they do feel that urge, create a stigma-free society where they are not afraid to seek help, and where they can be helped and put under surveillance, restrained. They themselves know it’s wrong and share their feelings, feel comfortable sharing their emotions, impulsive desires, and intrusive intuitive thoughts not under their control, so they can be helped before they commit one crime, and everyone labels them evil, and they have to be put to death to take revenge for that family. Even if not violent, just emotional manipulation equally potent but less detectable and not punishable because of no evidence.

And eventually, we could even control genetic engineering, designer babies' probability of reproduction and parental license, and so the environment is perfect and the right genes from the start as much as possible, making it less likely that the person would be psychopathic, and the genetic factors are overpowered by the environmental factors. And eventually, extend that to self-actualization probability and no suffering.

Also, keep in mind that morals, values, etc. don’t exist in reality. If we were like wild animals always eating, killing, and not being aware of it, we could also, as humans, if we have another moral ethical code, be fine with killing, raping, murdering, and fucking animals and kids, and if that were the majority- and it is possible by influence, power, language, logic, and neuroscientific genetic interventions to do so- we would see nothing wrong with it and even punish the people who act in ways currently considered ‘ethical,' and so be calm, indifferent, apathetic, non-neurotic, no negative emotions, and just do what your morals tell you to do and fight for neurolaw, cognitive empathy, and helping all at a relative disadvantage suffering due to random chance blind luck.

So be open-minded and all, but try to defend and rationalize as much as you can, and when you are able to find no logical reasons to carry on, to refute your opponent, then adopt their belief to be consistent with open-mindedness, or don’t, because open-mindedness is another value that doesn’t exist in the external observable universe, so your call, if you want to go ahead with your emotions, intuition, or if you want to stay open-minded- you don’t get to choose, you just get to explore, experiment, see what you’re inclined to like- you follow your inclinations, set by your genes and early environment. And you always follow your inclinations and be the Übermensch and create your morals and values by using your ability to logic and rationalize.

So my neurolaw idea is not less controversial and also more realistic- we could start with experimenting on psychopaths and other criminals already sentenced to death to test if our interventions work because they're gonna die anyway, and then expand to real life.

Earlier, I had contemplated advocating for justice for serial killers and psychopaths, considering their cognitive and empathic processes, as well as external factors outside their control such as their genes, brain, environment, and early societal influences. However, I was confused about the victims, their families, and their need for closure.

Now, I realize that we can punish and torture those who have already committed heinous acts. Although it is a necessary evil, these people have already caused significant suffering, so a little more for the greater good may be acceptable. Moreover, I can test my interventions on them before they die and later extend them to real-life scenarios, including early detection and prevention for both children and adults through AI monitoring, surveillance, medical checks, behavioral and psychological assessments, brain scans, linguistic analysis, and various interventions such as pharmacology, brain-computer interfaces, neurobiology, and genetics. In doing so, we can prevent such atrocities from happening again and help future individuals like Dahmer.

My plan involves using current neuroscientific, genetic, and psych-behavioral interventions to treat criminals who have been sentenced to death for their crimes, specifically psychopaths and sociopaths. I believe that our current systems of policing, the death penalty, and torture are outdated and inhumane, and that we need to develop more effective ways to prevent and rehabilitate criminals. I also advocate for removing the negative stigma associated with psychopathy and using psychological testing and behavioral tools to detect potential criminal behaviour early on.

While I acknowledge that some people may have ethical concerns with forcing criminals to conform to society's standards or using invasive medical interventions, I argue that the harm that could be prevented justifies such actions. My ultimate goal is to create a society with a criminal rate of zero. I believe in presenting both sides of the argument and being open-minded to novel and unconventional ideas. I emphasize the importance of creating a better society and making everyone happier, including victims, criminals, and those who are affected by crime.

This is just a start. I’m slowly going to come to every social institution, like Education. That’s where kids spend their early days and when you can catch their behaviour and detect early signs of something being ‘wrong’ or anything off. Important for early detection, prevention and rehabilitation or treatment. Medical, Family, and many more, starting with the Legal system.

He said, "I was born like this," and nothing that happened to him caused it. Therefore, it's simply nature, genetics, and early environment. Maybe even if he downplays the role of nurture and environment and life circumstances, there are still strong genetic factors. It doesn't mean he was born EVIL, just that he was born with certain impulses, desires, and intrusive thoughts, like normal neurotypical humans have for love, the need for friendship, and sexual needs. It's true that he should have controlled it, but the fact is that no one noticed or helped, and he probably couldn't control it.

It's unrealistic to set unfair standards for someone who is born different. You can call him evil and say he shouldn't be helped, but you've never experienced this yourself. If you were born with those genes and environment and brain, I'm sure you would understand, and it's your duty to help someone who was born like that. They are not evil, their actions are evil, but before they get to the evil actions, they can be treated. With my idea, there would be no victims, no evil actions, and so no evil, and it would be a safer, more humane, accommodating society.

They can be helped by early detection and prevention, and then there would be no evil actions, and everyone could see how I could convert everyone with those genes even stronger predisposition than Dahmer, turn them around with the right interventions, tools, and techniques. For example, interventional neurosurgery, psychiatry, psychopharmacology, brain-computer interfaces, invasive neurotechnology, and other tools, less invasive.

If they don't work, then we use more direct interventions; otherwise, talk therapy, behavioral and psychological tools can be used. I know they can be fixed, and then I'll make you all ashamed of how you all labelled such people evil when they could be not just functioning but highly successful members of society who contributed to society in productive ways.

I'll show you how you all were even more "evil" by your own standards, hypocrites just focusing on punishment and not seeing how they could be helped and prevented, helping the victims before it even took place, in a way even more responsible than the criminal for the future victim whose life was spoiled because you didn't take action when you could have focused on early detection, rehab, and fixing them before they had their first kill and went down the negative vicious slippery slope. Take any desire or need you have-social, food, career- and if we were to prevent you from following your passion or fulfilling your need, would you want that? If you wouldn't, then you should agree that Dahmer and future Dahmers must be helped.

I agree that what they did was very "bad" and "evil," and I also agree that once they did it, they were punished as they should have been to satisfy the revenge and closure. I even concede to that, and I am willing to agree that you can torture and kill them. But I absolutely do not agree that they were evil since birth and nothing could change them. Even if they were, today we have technology and science that can achieve this, and it's possible, so with changing times, we need to change our outdated, irrational, unreasonable mindset that is causing great harm and suffering to humans, both victims and criminals. I'm even willing to agree that if someone commits a crime, then punish them, but at least please learn early detection- not just the legal and police and psychologists, but like sex education- learn early detection, prevention, rehab so this never happens in the first place. I promise that I will make you see how "evil" people can be made into successful, accomplished people.

However, that doesn't mean we should give up on helping people like Dahmer. We need to have a multi-pronged approach to dealing with these kinds of individuals, which includes early detection, prevention, and rehabilitation. There is no doubt that people like Dahmer have committed horrific crimes, and they must be punished for their actions. But punishment alone will not solve the problem. We need to focus on preventing these kinds of crimes from happening in the first place, and that means identifying individuals who are at risk of committing such crimes and providing them with the help they need to overcome their impulses.

The idea that some people are simply born evil is outdated and unscientific. While genetics and environment do play a role in shaping our behaviour, they are not deterministic. With the right interventions, even individuals with the strongest genetic predispositions towards violence can be helped. We need to move away from a mindset that simply seeks to punish criminals and towards one that seeks to prevent crime from occurring in the first place. This means investing in early detection and prevention programs, as well as in rehabilitation programs that are specifically designed to help individuals who are at risk of committing violent crimes.

In the end, our goal should be to create a safer, more humane society, where all individuals have the opportunity to thrive and contribute in a positive way. This means recognizing that even individuals who have committed heinous crimes can be helped and re-integrated into society with the right kind of support and intervention.

In National Law University of India, for instance, there is an ongoing project named 39a that aims for humane treatment of criminals. We have the means to kill criminals sentenced to death with minimum suffering, and this is aligned with the goals of human rights activists and United Nations.

My solution solves the problem of overcrowding of prisons, more humane treatment of criminals while also taking revenge for closure for the mental peace of the victim’s close ones. We can break this negative cycle, this vicious feedback loop, by focusing on early detection, prevention and rehabilitation, treatment or mental-health support, rather than posteriori punishment after the victims have been harmed and the criminal has already crossed the point of no return in the eyes of the public, which would make it harder to treat them and let them re-enter society even if they can be treated.

Prisons were established at a time when we needed more correctional institutions, and today this social institution is counterproductive to the goal it was initially established for, so with my idea, I can not just prevent future crime and minimize the likelihood of victimhood, but I can also reduce the prison population while also respecting the privacy of all the stakeholders, even the to-be-criminals. If they refuse to be treated, after being explained of all the risks and telling them how they could live a more fulfilling and happy life, we could give them the option to either get themselves treated, or die a peaceful death. Keep in mind that I’m talking about a scenario when they have not killed any victim yet, but this is also applicable to a scenario in which they have, though in that case it would be considerable harder to allow them to re-enter ‘civilized’ society without danger to their life or the possibility of mob lynching.

Usually such people, once they are of a certain age, are hard to fix due to their now relatively harder to change predisposition due to an interaction between their genes and early environment, but even assuming that somehow they escape detection using behavioural, psychological and linguistic tools during their school days from their peers and teachers and parents, we could still use neuroscientific interventions and make their lives much easier. Their only options until very recently were to either suppress their desires, bottle up their emotions, till they harm themselves, or give in, succumb to their desires and kill others, but now we could fix them, or if they wish, allow them to die a painless death. Both options, at least in my opinion, infinitely better than the previous two options. This debate then turns into the debate about Euthanasia, and here we could say that for this criminal, we could apply the terms of passive euthanasia, as the criminal could be said to have mental illnesses and not be completely in control of themselves.

This could be put into practical use if the to-be-criminal refuses to be treated or even be put to death, then we go ahead with the latter option, because we can’t force them to ‘fix’ something they don’t consent to- though you could say that’s similar to how depressed patients would act- but let’s just keep it simple for now and say that if the person does not choose either one, we go with the safer option to put them to eternal peaceful sleep because we can’t let them be members of the society and risk them victimizing someone. We’d be responsible for the victims then, just like the people who don’t understand that simply labelling a person ‘evil’ and not focusing on prevention implicates them in the harm caused to future victims, in some way making them even more ‘evil’ by their own standards than the criminal who was unable to control his impulses and whom society didn’t help until the society escalated to a point where suddenly everyone starts paying attention.

I believe that if my interventions are proven to work effectively, I could advocate for rehabilitation instead of punishment. However, I plan to prioritize early detection and prevention measures to stop criminals before they commit any crimes. Once a crime has been committed, it's difficult to release them without giving the victim's family a sense of justice or closure. Even if we can help these criminals, it may be challenging to convince others of that, and I understand why. That's why I'm focusing on preventing crimes from happening in the first place, so no one becomes a victim and no one is labelled a criminal.

So the thing is, I do trust the one person I have explained my ideas to, but it'd be good practice to learn to be more cautious for my future career. I could have good intentions and be hopeful and optimistic, but keep in mind that keeping in mind the current state of society and my current opinion of humans, it might be better to lean on the safer side.

Update: I've decided I'm going to not go ahead with the preprint and use other copyright methods that that would safeguard me from other accusing me of stealing their (my) ideas while also not damaging my reputations among scientific circles even before the beginning of my scientific careers by preprinting an unpolished undeveloped idea, even if it's just a preprint. I have also received confirmation from Elsevier that they're going to accept my ideas for at least feedback without regard for my age or credentials, and I'm going to get a patent publication soon, among other things.

~

If you want a more practical applied demonstration of my idea applied to a real-life popular case, a serial-killed, necrophile and cannibal, check out my post My Friend Dahmer. Here's an excerpt from the post:

I need to listen to some super positive upbeat happy song right now. I will need to revisit that theme from time to time to remember that I cannot rest, cannot live in peace, cannot enjoy anything I am fortunate enough to have been given, express gratitude but that's not enough- there are subjective experiences, mental states much worse than anything a neurotypical average normal human being could imagine, much worse than death, conceivable hell, a lot of suffering, mental illnesses and disorders, that not just compel people to harm themsevles make them suffer a lot, but also that compel them to harm others, even more dangerous and unaddressed, as those people don't get the help they need and no one even realizes that they have an illness, assign subjective labels to them without thinking how they are playing a role in making it harder to prevent such events from happening again in the future, being partly responsible for indirectly being an instrument in this vicious cycle, negative feedback loop, where you don't help those who suffer and make them feel uncomfortable sharing their compulsive intrusive thoughts and impulsive desires, and later when they snap, you assign labels which doesn't only make it harder for them to get the help they need, but also harder to prevent it from happening again in the future. I need to listen to a happy song right now because if I don't, I'll get too depressed, cynical, misanthropic, suicidal even maybe, so I need to just be alright enough to be able to carry out my projects, yet not forget that I cannot waste time on any distractions. No games, socialization, relationships, movies, nothing. Maybe music. Without music, it'll be very hard. But nothing else, minimize it as much as I can. I hope I don't suffer from- I'm already facing the adverse effects of social isolation so maybe I do need to work on socialization, being more extroverted and outgoing and meeting new people. But the important part is being aware of and never losing sight of my goals.