“The implant is ready, sir. It has a 100% success rate and projections show it will be immeasurably more cost-effective than the current legal system. The implant will be synced with our surveillance system and threat assessment AI and should eliminate every potential criminal threat. We have the resources in-place and can begin implanting the device as soon as you give the word.”
“The American people won’t stand for it. Forced implantation of the device goes against every principle of freedom and democracy this country was founded on.”
“But sir, our analysis indicates that the program can only be effective if every individual receives the implant. Voluntary implants won’t result in significant improvements since those who need one the most are the most likely to refuse. The implantation procedure is relatively non-invasive and will result in dramatically improved behavior. We’ve calibrated the device very precisely based on society’s idealized morality, so we’re not even imposing your personal standards. The device only targets the most obvious moral violations. With the recent rise in violent crime and increasing threats of domestic terrorism, I’m sure the American people will understand the need for more extreme measures.”
“The American people have consistently demonstrated that there is little they care about more than their personal rights and liberties. Yes, they are in favor of limiting these freedoms and applying harsh consequences for lawlessness, but only when others are affected, and they themselves remain free to do as they please. They will never support this idea of immediate consequences for thought crimes.”
“But, sir, surveys show that people overwhelmingly agree that criminal actions begin in the mind! If we can address the problem at the root, we can avoid not only crimes like rape and murder, but also embezzlement, fraud, and all other dishonesty in business. We can increase job satisfaction by eliminating workplace gossip. Even calibrated as it is now, the implant’s negative feedback mechanism would improve marriages and family relationships. The shock administered at the precise moment of a negative idea causes the brain to gradually restructure neural pathways so as to avoid punishment. Think of how much simpler it is than waiting for a crime to be committed when the damage has already been done! The device has been shown to work, and we are 100% confident in our ability to implement the program.”
“I’ve seen the data. I understand that implanting the device would be simpler and more cost-effective than the current system. I understand it would eliminate crime and make this nation much easier to lead. I also have no doubts about law enforcement’s ability to carry out your plan successfully.
The question is not about whether we can implement this approach; the question is whether we should. Inherent in your plan is a breach of personal freedom that I simply will not tolerate. I will not punish people based on an assessment of what they want to do. I understand the threat assessment AI tells the implant to kill people it determines are hopeless cases?”
“Well…yes, if a person plans a particularly immoral action, the device induces a current into the pain centers of the brain to interrupt the thought. Ideally, this results in positive behavioral modification over time, but those with low neural plasticity continue to reject the device. Occasionally, an individual is so prone to immoral and criminal desires that the AI determines it is best for society to neutralize the threat. However, this prevents them from carrying out all the damaging actions they were considering, so the result is still positive. It’s really not that different from the current system of punishing criminals.”
“Except that they haven’t technically committed any crimes.”
“But they would have! That’s the whole point. This system stops violence, greed, and even common selfishness before it occurs. We can stop terrorism. We can save the victims of murder and rape. We can bring an end to bullying and hate. Sir, with respect, it would be immoral not to implement this plan when it is in your power to do so. Think of the victims and their families.”
[Angrily] “Have you forgotten my own son was the victim of a violent murder? I know more of suffering than you can imagine, so don’t presume to accuse me of being callous. It is neither a lack of compassion nor a lack of power that prevents me from agreeing to your plan. The problem is that it is fundamentally opposed to the values of liberty and justice that I hold dear. It is the kind of plan proposed by tyrannical regimes who prefer simple solutions to genuine human thriving. You don’t stop dishonesty by cutting out a person’s tongue.”
“But sir, the law does demand strict punishments for criminals. Why not punish them before they hurt others? Is it really that different?”
“Punishing those who have committed crimes is obviously right and just. Everyone can see the wrong for what it is and agree that it is wrong. I will not relegate this government’s public, evidence-based legal system to the world of neurons and circuits. The damaging consequences of crime must be witnessed and exposed in court so the justice and integrity of this government will be known to all.
Secondly, the current system allows for a free society, whereas your plan does not. My administration opposes crime and works against it every day, but I do not believe in eliminating it at all costs. What you are proposing is the destruction of one of the most personal and sacred gifts humanity possesses. The freedom to choose is at the core of being human. Yes, we could stop rape and murder, but it would be at the expense of life itself. That is why I will not invade the minds and wills of the people even if it means they continue to break the law.”
“Well, I see you refuse to see things my way despite the obvious merits of my proposal. I’m afraid I simply cannot agree with your conclusion that the current system, with all its suffering and pain, is better than the implant.”
“That must be why the threat assessment AI recommended terminating you for treason this morning.”
“What?! But…I…how? I didn’t do anything! Please, sir, you can’t…”
“Surveillance has already collected enough evidence to convict you, and I have seen the reality of the threat you pose, but I wanted to invite you here so we could reason together. You don’t need to understand or agree with me, but I want you to trust that I know what’s best for this country. Your plan for others would have resulted in your own condemnation, and that is another reason I have rejected it. I still have hope for you, and I’m giving you a chance to change your mind. Please take it.”