Repentance

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.

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.

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.

If Ikos case makes sense, should they do they same examination and surgery to every crimes? Also the minority race issue didn't been taken care of or event discussed.

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.