Do You Guys Think Iko Deserved to be Executed in "Repentance"?

[Lonely Horse]

"Iko was a Nygean with a history of violent behavior, including the unprovoked murder of a young father. In 2377, he was due to be executed on the Nygean homeworld, but the prison shiptransporting him suffered a critical accident. Iko and the others were transported to the USS Voyager.

"Upon his arrival on Voyager, Iko held Seven of Nine hostage, but was tricked into switching her for The Doctor, not realizing he was a hologram. He was subsequently stunned by Tuvokand taken to the cargo bay. Later, he was severely beaten by the warden Yediq and his guards after threatening Yediq's family, which caused a severe edema in his parietal lobe. The Doctor was able to bypass the edema using Seven's nanoprobes, but as a side effect the nanoprobes repaired a congenital birth defect: a disconnection of a node analogous to the Human pineal gland, responsible for regulating behavioral impulses and decision-making, effectively awakening his conscience.

After the procedure, Iko's behavior changed completely and he came to experience remorse for the first time in his life. The Doctor asserted that the neural defect responsible for Iko's earlier sociopathy had been corrected, and thus his death sentence should be reevaluated. However, Yediq was skeptical and Iko himself refused, believing that he deserved to die for what he did. In the meantime, Iko became friends with Seven, who had a vested interest in the success of his reformation due to her own atrocities committed during her time as a Borg. She found in common with Iko an interest in astronomy.

During the attempted break-out engineered by Joleg and his brother, Joleg took Yediq hostage. Feigning a desire for revenge against the warden, Iko was able obtain a weapon and stop Joleg from killing Yediq. This convinced Yediq that Iko had indeed changed, prompting him to influence the family of the victim to hear Iko's appeal. His appeal was nevertheless rejected, and he was presumably executed shortly after."
Memory Alpha - Iko (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Iko)

 

[Sophie74656]

I'm not sure if I believe in execution in general but I do think he should have been punished for the murder. Even if he was sorry about it later, he still did it. He still murdered someone knowing full well what he was doing.

 

[at Quark's]

Voted 'definitively no'. Simply because to me, a death penalty is unacceptable under any circumstance.

Now, the actually hard question for me is to what extent he still should be punished. I think I would give him a severe, but still somewhat mitigated punishment. Something like: what you did should land you in prison for life, but given that your personality seems to have changed and your remorse seems genuine, let's commute that to a 30 year -term.

 

[Ghislaine H. B. BRAEME]

Iko was was undoubtedly guilty, no matter the causes and the circonstances. The fact that he deeply regretted his action afterwards was a good thing for the victim's family and for himself, in a certain way, for the peace of mind.
But in the end, Iko deserved to be punished for the crime he had committed and if the murder of an individual is a crime punishable by the death penalty on Nygean homeworld, well, he shall be sentenced to death penalty and no one should try to interfere ...as Janeway, Chakotay, Seven and the Doctor have tried to do, feeling the need to meddle in this affair (what was clearly a breach of the Prime Directive!), under the pretext to have been asked to collect the prisoners. Even if the latter refuted the death penalty as a means of punishing but they had no right to impose their point of view, knowing that Iko has benefited from a fair trial.
-> it's too easy and even loose to hide oneself behind a mental and physical weakness, to excuse the crimes committed!

 

[MacLeod]

The biggest argument against the Death Peanlty is that at some point there is a chance an innocent person will be executed.

Despite the PD, it's likely that the UFP will try and influence others if they hold polices they disagree with. Sure they may say the ultimate choice is yours.

 

[Ghislaine H. B. BRAEME]

The biggest argument against the Death Peanlty is that at some point there is a chance an innocent person will be executed.

Despite the PD, it's likely that the UFP will try and influence others if they hold polices they disagree with. Sure they may say the ultimate choice is yours.

France has abolished the death penalty in 1981 and replaced by a life sentence incompressible or almost, as seeing as each time, this kind of sentence is accompanied by a suspended sentence of 22 years. I know that the United States still struggle with the death penalty and the risk to convict an innocent but alas,
there will always be errors committed, whatever with the death penalty or the life sentence. Errare humanum est ignoscere divinum. (=to err is human, to forgive divine).

But in Iko's case, there was no doubt that he was the murderer (and besides, he confessed it) so, as I wrote, he deserved to be punished for his crime and the fair trial that he had, led on a guilty verdict of the charge(s) brought against him with, in the end, a sentence of death penalty.
When some people try to influence the justice of a country/homeworld in order to change the sentence, under the pretext they disagree with the initial one, is, IMHO, like an attack on the sovereignty (which translates into different formes) of that country/homeworld, nothing less and it's serious, especially when the will to interfere came from a personal opinion and not as a Starfleet representants,
held by the Prime Directive.
.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think it's a complex philosophical question whether somebody who has a medical condition that prevents them from feeling empathy is 'Not guilty by reason of insanity'. If he had contracted a virus one week before which interferes with your moral judgment, would it still be so simple to say 'He certainly committed the crime'? Should Seven be brought to trial for all the murders she colluded in when she was in the collective?

These are not simple questions with simple answers. You must possess 'Mens rea' when you committed a crime to be morally responsible for it, so it's a question of whether somebody who is totally of sound mind and body and capable of logical judgment but is medically incapable of feeling compassion has 'Mens rea'.

 

[at Quark's]

France has abolished the death penalty in 1981 and replaced by a life sentence incompressible or almost, as seeing as each time, this kind of sentence is accompanied by a suspended sentence of 22 years. I know that the United States still struggle with the death penalty and the risk to convict an innocent but alas,
there will always be errors committed, whatever with the death penalty or the life sentence. Errare humanum est ignoscere divinum. (=to err is human, to forgive divine).

But in Iko's case, there was no doubt that he was the murderer (and besides, he confessed it) so, as I wrote, he deserved to be punished for his crime and the fair trial that he had, led on a guilty verdict of the charge(s) brought against him with, in the end, a sentence of death penalty.
When some people try to influence the justice of a country/homeworld in order to change the sentence, under the pretext they disagree with the initial one, is, IMHO, like an attack on the sovereignty (which translates into different formes) of that country/homeworld, nothing less and it's serious, especially when the will to interfere came from a personal opinion and not as a Starfleet representants,
held by the Prime Directive.
.

You are right that it would not be appropriate to try to 'interfere' with the Nygean justice system. However, it is a very thin line. Trying to influence another countries' justice system is commonly accepted today.

For example, France and the U.S. have an extradition treaty that stipulates (http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/France International Extradition Treaty with the United States.pdf , article 7):

"Capital Punishment 1.

When the offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State and is not punishable by death under the laws in the Requested State, the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides the assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

2. In instances in which a Requesting State provides the assurance in accordance with this Article, the death penalty, if imposed by the courts of the Requesting State, shall not be carried out."

As far as I know this is a fairly common clause in extradition treaties the U.S. has with other countries (mine included).

I'm not sure what this covers exactly, though. Does it cover a criminal that was already found guilty, sentenced to capital punishment, and then managed to miraculously escape to a country the U.S. has such a treaty with, or only to those whose sentence still has to be determined? (I could read the 'if imposed' part as 'we still formally reserve the right to sentence him to death, but not actually carry it out').

Then again, you could say this is a very different situation, as there is no such treaty with the Nygean government....

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The question of whether he deserves to be executed is different from the question of whether Voyager had a right to interfere. Clearly they chose not to interfere, they just gave them more information and asked them to reconsider their decision.

Although a justice system that lets the victim decide the punishment is pretty awful, blatantly abusable, and something that will obviously lead to all sorts of discrimination not to mention rich people paying victims off to prescribe lighter sentences. If it were a political crime or some petty theft where the victim decided the punishment was execution because he didn't like him and not murder there might be asylum situations there.

The more difficult question is whether Iko was of sound mind or whether his behavior was the result of a neurological condition.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The more difficult question is whether Iko was of sound mind or whether his behavior was the result of a neurological condition.

Difficult? Seemed pretty clear to me. Iko was clearly unhinged before his treatment, that was because of a deformity in his brain. The nanoprobes fixed it, which is why Iko suddenly felt remorse for his crimes (he obviously didn't before).

 

[MacLeod]

The question is even with his neurological issue did he understand the difference between right and wrong?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I think he did. He just didn't care.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Exactly my point, how murky and debatable this would be in real life, if they suddenly had a cure for sociopathy. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a tough sell but diminished capacity, perhaps. These are people who are capable of rational thought but due to a neurological condition not capable of moral thought.

And then what happens when other sociopaths learn their inability to feel remorse is a get out of jail free card? Worst case scenario they get treatment and suddenly feel bad about what they did.

 

[Shikarnov]

Exactly my point, how murky and debatable this would be in real life, if they suddenly had a cure for sociopathy. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a tough sell but diminished capacity, perhaps. These are people who are capable of rational thought but due to a neurological condition not capable of moral thought.

And then what happens when other sociopaths learn their inability to feel remorse is a get out of jail free card? Worst case scenario they get treatment and suddenly feel bad about what they did.

It comes to the heart of what prison is or should be. To the best of my knowledge, for today, it serves the triple purposes of removing dangerous people from society, punishment for bad behavior, and deterring others from committing similar acts.

If a criminal can be cured of an affliction that caused -- or was a major contributing factor -- to the crime, then what's the point of incarceration? A dangerous person won't be removed from society, and other criminals who are untreated are unlikely to be deterred from anything. That leaves punishment, and I'm not inclined to think punishment would be productive in such a case since the treated patient/criminal is already unlikely to repeat the crime, is already repentant, and has no lesson to learn from punitive activity.

I suppose we could add a fourth purpose -- justice -- to the list, but I tend to think most people's ideas about justice amount to little more than revenge and ought not be a factor in deciding whether or not to strip somebody of his or her freedom or life.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

In that case wouldn't the dangerous person be removed from society? Or rather, the danger is removed from the person. The threat to society is neutralized in this case. And if a person is considered not responsible for their act, then there is no point in retribution. The issue is that it doesn't deter others.

And also this kind of punishment is kinda sorta what Clockwork Orange cautions against.

 

[DonIago]

I'm not a fan of the death penalty, so there's that.

Babylon 5 postulated a justice system in which telepaths could administer "death of personality", wiping someone's brain to the point that they effectively became a different person. In this case, I would argue that Seven's nanoprobes inadvertently administered this punishment to Iko and justice has been served.

 

[Jayson1]

If the guy has a genetic flaw how is that no different from a mental illness? He should have been placed in a mental hospital, maybe for life IMO and not prision and not death. People want to call it a excuse to let criminals go but it is a legitmate excuse.

Jason

 

[Sophie74656]

Iko was was undoubtedly guilty, no matter the causes and the circonstances. The fact that he deeply regretted his action afterwards was a good thing for the victim's family and for himself, in a certain way, for the peace of mind.
But in the end, Iko deserved to be punished for the crime he had committed and if the murder of an individual is a crime punishable by the death penalty on Nygean homeworld, well, he shall be sentenced to death penalty and no one should try to interfere ...as Janeway, Chakotay, Seven and the Doctor have tried to do, feeling the need to meddle in this affair (what was clearly a breach of the Prime Directive!), under the pretext to have been asked to collect the prisoners. Even if the latter refuted the death penalty as a means of punishing but they had no right to impose their point of view, knowing that Iko has benefited from a fair trial.
-> it's too easy and even loose to hide oneself behind a mental and physical weakness, to excuse the crimes committed!

This. They've stated that they have to follow the local rules and laws. Even when it's been the case where a crewmember would potentially be harmed by the local laws, such as the episode Random Thoughts.

 

[DonIago]

Is the question whether we think Our Heroes should have obeyed the local rules and laws, or is it whether we personally feel Iko deserved to be executed? Those are two very different questions. The question as stated in the OP seems to favor the latter interpretation.

 

[Ghislaine H. B. BRAEME]

It comes to the heart of what prison is or should be. To the best of my knowledge, for today, it serves the triple purposes of removing dangerous people from society, punishment for bad behavior, and deterring others from committing similar acts.

If a criminal can be cured of an affliction that caused -- or was a major contributing factor -- to the crime, then what's the point of incarceration? A dangerous person won't be removed from society, and other criminals who are untreated are unlikely to be deterred from anything. That leaves punishment, and I'm not inclined to think punishment would be productive in such a case since the treated patient/criminal is already unlikely to repeat the crime, is already repentant, and has no lesson to learn from punitive activity.

I suppose we could add a fourth purpose -- justice -- to the list, but I tend to think most people's ideas about justice amount to little more than revenge and ought not be a factor in deciding whether or not to strip somebody of his or her freedom or life.

"No peace without justice, no justice without forgiveness". (dixit Saint Augustus)
The experience showed me that when a crime(murder) is committed, the victims families believes this is reasonable to expect that the justice of their country does its best to find the perpetrator, judge him/her fairly and punish him/her righteously. In particular, to facilitate their grieving. And when they see that the said perpetrators
switch from killers to victims status and narrowly excaped prison or death because of a mental illness or a procedural error at trial, the families know that they will never mourn and keep moving in their lives so, the justice didn't do its job and they are right to think so. And do not let me on the risk of recurrence!
-> in summary, if the perpetrators has the right to have a good defense, the victims - and by extension the families - should also have the right to see justice done in the name of the deceased.

About the question asked by Lonely Horse, "Do you think Iko deserved to be executed in "Repentance", I agree with Jirin Panthosa, it is a complex philosophical question. But I still think that Iko deserved to be executed because: 1) no matter he had a congenital birth defect, which was the source of his
violent outbursts, he killed a poor man and nothing could change that! 2) he was fairly judged and although he was found guilty the first time, he had a right of appeal, which (here, I refer to the whole procedure) has been more than what the victim had! Alright it failed at the end but at least, this appeal in front of the family of the victim offered him the opportunity to apologize to them and surely allowed to both parties to finally have peace of mind.