Repentance

...was actually the most predictable -- the number of reviewers upset that the episode chose to approach the issue from multiple tangents rather than just present it in the way the reviewers wanted.

Make no mistake (though, of course, angry narrowly-focused viewers will inevitably do so), this episode included a variety of perceptions and a variety of reasonable (if occasionally conflicting) arguments. From Seven's analytic counterpoint to the Doctor's programmed lack of objectivity, from Neelix's embracing of the issue of social inequality to the prisoner's behavior showing that sometimes people are guilty regardless of social problems, from the Neelix's argument for absolute objectivity to his concession to the logic of the prisoner's argument for subjective punishments (which he doesn't actually agree with, just concedes that the argument can be made), from the question of mental illness relative to the question of the safety of society, from the difficulty in imposing one's own system in cases of divergent justice systems, this episode brings them all to bear, and never settles resolutely on one side of any of these debates. The only real absolute is that the Federation opposes capital punishment in its own jurisdiction, and if that upsets a viewer, that viewer should probably have done more research on the history of Star Trek and the world-building that has been done since the original series. If you were surprised by *that*, you haven't been watching closely.

While this episode wasn't particularly profound, it definitely took great pains not to be preachy, making sure most of the conflicting opinions were allowed to go straight to the viewer without an attempt to compel one opinion or another. It's clear that most people getting upset are upset that the alternative views were presented as lucidly and free of excessive preachyness as the ones they themselves held. Like everyone else, I have my views on all the issues presented, and when the episode was over, I didn't feel in the least like the show confirmed or dismissed my own perspective, which is a nice accomplishment on such loaded issues.

Too many echo chambers atrophy our ability to see things clearly, and that's a real shame.

This isn't a bad episode of "Star Trek: Voyager" although it is undermined by how preachy the plot becomes. When the show begins, Voyager comes upon a stricken ship. Aboard are a bunch of prisoners and their jailer. Captain Janeway agrees to take them to their home but problems develop when the crew starts identifying with some of the prisoners. In particular, Seven becomes friendly with a man who is a murderer. But, she understands that his medical condition is responsible and not the man himself--much like her not being guilty for what the Klingons made her do when she was a drone. It's an interesting dilemma but it's also one that is very obvious and one that seems too preachy at times.

Solid performances, and parts of the script are predictable, but it is a decent treatment of several ethical dilemmas. Yes, they've been addressed elsewhere, numerous times, and some of the issues are handled with all the subtlety of of a framing hammer. But the acting is good, the script is solid, and the end isn't nearly as preachy as others have suggested. All in all, it's a better than average episode, and worth watching.

Voyager answers a distress call from a ship transporting a prisoners for execution.

The main focus of this episode is it's social themes around the ethics of criminal justice. Voyager characters are there to help convey varying points of view on the topics discussed. The only one who has any real involvement with the issue is Seven of Nine and this connection is a bit dubious given that she was supposed to be part of a collective consciousness during her past experiences.

The guest characters are very good and show us multiple perspectives, from the reformed criminal, to the manipulative, unrepentant sociopath and the cynical experienced corrections officer.

This is an important episode but I don't feel strongly enough to give it the criticism some reviewers have. It doesn't completely sway in favour of giving murderers a second chance. The final scene with Neelix is one of the most powerful. You know there are those types of criminals and lawyers who would likely exploit any form of weakness they perceived in a system.

My biggest problem is the lack of subtlety in its story telling. The writers might as well have put all the characters in a studio audience on a talk show and had a televised debate with Janeway as host. Also the only element of the plot that wasn't predictable was the final outcome of the appeal.

Good idea with an average execution.

When I was a college student, many centuries ago, a group of us discussed the theme that occurs in this episode. Situation Ethics 101: A man commits a terrible crime, say murder or rape. He is convicted and sentenced to die. While in prison, he has a stroke. The result of that stroke is a total loss of memory and a personality change. When he realizes that he is going to be executed, he has no mental connection to his crime. Should we now execute the body when the mind is completely overhauled? It's an incredibly hard one to answer. I guess what we fall back on is the chances of such an event occurring are infinitesimal. But this presents a unique chance to judge. I also thought the ending was quite believable considering the conditions portrayed.