Repentance

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.