Repentance

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.

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.

A number viewpoints on the nature of guilt and approaches to corrections are explored here in cursory, but thoughtful ways that needn't be reiterated here. What is interesting is that the A and B stories present us with two types of inmates to present these ideas, the first is a sociopath who is definitely guilty of his crimes, and the second is a model prisoner whose a member of an ethnic minority that is over represented within the society's penal system. The former explores neurobiology as it relates to culpability when it comes to violent crime, while the other introduces the idea of structural inequality in the criminal justice system.

The episode gives addresses the A story with an acceptable amount with intellectual rigor, while kind of unforgivably punting on the subject of bias in corrections in the B story. What makes the latter so infuriating is that idea is treated as naive by beloved characters whose skepticism serves as foreshadowing for a not terribly unpredictable twist. Systemic inequality was then and is now a far more pertinent subject for this type of allegory, and deserved better treatment than what happens in this episode.

Crime hawks will not be entirely satisfied with this episode. Abolitionists will be let down entirely. But those who never find themselves thinking about these issues at all may find themselves engaging with some new ideas here.

This episode can be understood as a criticism of today's legal and justice systems. The parallels to the US system in particular cannot be overlooked. Unfortunately, the episode tries to raise the warning finger a little bit too often:

On the one hand, it examines the question of whether a civilized society should use the death penalty to punish crimes. According to the biblical motto "an eye for an eye". Another line of thought revolves around who should actually administer justice. Judges? Jurors? Or the victims' families? When the doctor essentially cures the felon, it raises the question of whether there are any mitigating circumstances for crimes. E.g., due to a mental or genetic illness (or even due to a problematic childhood). But the episode doesn't stop there. It also puts the finger in the wound of minorities at court. Especially here the criticism of the USA is very clear, because it is the minorities, the black community, who are punished and in prison at an above-average rate. And last but not least, the episode also wants to point out the unequal treatment of defendants. Wealthy and influential people often get away with a black eye, while the petty crook often feels the full force of the law.

All interesting questions, but too many to give them enough space in one episode.

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.