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.
14 Reviews
A solid episode, good ethical dilemmas, a bit heavy handed.
geoffstrickler29 August 2021
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.
Interesting topic but not done with much subtlety
snoozejonc5 August 2020
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.
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.
The most interesting aspect of this episode...
GreyHunter20 January 2020
...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.
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.
A bit preachy but very powerful & watchable....
karacter1 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Strong emotional performances by regulars and guest stars alike, plus a well written & directed story, make this installment one of the better outings in Season 7.
Not a lot of outer space action in this one but, in the best tradition of Star Trek, the cast tackles a controversial human rights issue and leaves the audience with much to think about afterwords.
An especially enjoyable show for me because it finally underscores a major plot hole in ALL the major Star Trek incarnations (with the exception of Star Trek: Enterprise)- the use of force fields for jail cells instead of ordinary bars. Although force fields are certainly more "high tech" (and allow a better view of the guest star prisoners for the television audience), from a practical standpoint they make no sense at all. Force fields require constant power, maintenance, and are always at risk of disappearing during a power failure (which is exactly what happens here, allowing the prisoners to escape and wreak havoc).
Even in the advanced 24th century, wouldn't just plain old fashioned steel bars be much better for confining prisoners? They are relatively cheap, easy to install, require no maintenance or power source, and won't disappear during a power failure. Just a thought.......
Not a lot of outer space action in this one but, in the best tradition of Star Trek, the cast tackles a controversial human rights issue and leaves the audience with much to think about afterwords.
An especially enjoyable show for me because it finally underscores a major plot hole in ALL the major Star Trek incarnations (with the exception of Star Trek: Enterprise)- the use of force fields for jail cells instead of ordinary bars. Although force fields are certainly more "high tech" (and allow a better view of the guest star prisoners for the television audience), from a practical standpoint they make no sense at all. Force fields require constant power, maintenance, and are always at risk of disappearing during a power failure (which is exactly what happens here, allowing the prisoners to escape and wreak havoc).
Even in the advanced 24th century, wouldn't just plain old fashioned steel bars be much better for confining prisoners? They are relatively cheap, easy to install, require no maintenance or power source, and won't disappear during a power failure. Just a thought.......
Can medical faults exonerate one for a crime committed if the malfunction is treatable?
JonPertwho14 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler alert: Voyager renders aid to a prison transport and just before it explodes transports the prisoners and crew to Voyager. One of the prisoners is injured and in treating him a brain malfunction is repaired and he now feels guilt for the crime he has committed. So I posit; should someone with medical a condition that causes their criminal behavior be given a second chance if an operable condition once repaired changes the person to the point that they would become a productive part of society. Furthermore have genuine remorse for the crime or crimes they committed in the past and wish to make restitution.
Guilt and repentance
Tweekums23 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
When Voyager comes to the aid of a stricken ship the survivors are beamed over just before it explodes. It turns out that the ship was transporting prisoners to their place of execution. While the senior personnel aren't too happy about this they accept that the prime directive means they can not interfere. One of the prisoners, Iko, manages to take Seven hostage in sick bay but he is soon recaptured and sent to the makeshift holding cells that have been constructed in one of the cargo bays. When serving the food another prisoner tells Neelix how their system of justice is highly biased; his minority race making up the majority of the prison population and even when the majority race is convicted they get lesser sentences. After Iko is badly beaten by the guards Janeway insists that only Star Fleet security will act as guards. Iko is taken back to sick bay where the Doctor treats him with Seven's nanoprobes, after this treatment his personality is radically changed and for the first time he feels guilt for the crimes he has committed. Later on when a Voyager is attacked and the prisoners escape it is Iko who saves his captor.
I felt this episode was trying to say something about the US penal system with one minority being over represented in the prisons but later on it is shown that most of the prisoners were guilty as charged and willing to manipulate the sympathetic for their own ends. Perhaps showing two conflicting arguments and lettering the viewer decide is the best way to air an issue.
I felt this episode was trying to say something about the US penal system with one minority being over represented in the prisons but later on it is shown that most of the prisoners were guilty as charged and willing to manipulate the sympathetic for their own ends. Perhaps showing two conflicting arguments and lettering the viewer decide is the best way to air an issue.
A good allegorical episode, but not quite a great one.
brianpnorton28 February 2022
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.
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.
Justice.
thevacinstaller19 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Solid episode.
I come down on the side that does not agree with executions as a punishment. It has nothing to do with being the moral/ethical thing to do for me ---- there is a possibility with a flawed justice system that you could kill someone innocent. If we could know for absolute certainty that someone was guilty of murder then I feel execution is the way to go in terms of saving money having to house and feed these inmates. Hey --- I am a bit of a jerk about this but I have been victimized by deplorable people and shed no tears about justice being served. A few people are just evil and that's something you learn with life experience.
It's quite the bummer to see Iko gain perspective and an understanding of his crimes impact only to have him be executed. He now has the ability to feel empathy but does that wash away the intent of his crime? If I was that family I would not be able to let go of the pain of the murder either. That's just how I am wired when it comes to family.
It's an interesting commentary on failed justice systems. The root of the problem with the justice system is actually a failure of society to build better people. Parents, friends, families, associates all drop the ball at some point and lead people to make unfortunate life choices or develop mental instabilities.
The episode doesn't draw a line in the sand one way or the other with the commentary. That's a good thing. It presents a conflict for you to analyze and test your ideas on the subject.
Solid.
I come down on the side that does not agree with executions as a punishment. It has nothing to do with being the moral/ethical thing to do for me ---- there is a possibility with a flawed justice system that you could kill someone innocent. If we could know for absolute certainty that someone was guilty of murder then I feel execution is the way to go in terms of saving money having to house and feed these inmates. Hey --- I am a bit of a jerk about this but I have been victimized by deplorable people and shed no tears about justice being served. A few people are just evil and that's something you learn with life experience.
It's quite the bummer to see Iko gain perspective and an understanding of his crimes impact only to have him be executed. He now has the ability to feel empathy but does that wash away the intent of his crime? If I was that family I would not be able to let go of the pain of the murder either. That's just how I am wired when it comes to family.
It's an interesting commentary on failed justice systems. The root of the problem with the justice system is actually a failure of society to build better people. Parents, friends, families, associates all drop the ball at some point and lead people to make unfortunate life choices or develop mental instabilities.
The episode doesn't draw a line in the sand one way or the other with the commentary. That's a good thing. It presents a conflict for you to analyze and test your ideas on the subject.
Solid.
Decent but really preachy
planktonrules7 March 2015
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.
Another political story pretending to be entertainment...
lathamv19 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
As has seemingly become tradition, the writers have attempted to convince the audience the storyline is "compelling" by trying to draw comparisons between the episode and the death penalty, race, prejudice, and violence as a basis for entertainnent. Not only is this episode NOT entertaining, the comparisons the writers think they are making are overly simplistic, unrealistic, and not even close to what would happen if humans used guilt instead of justice to deal with violent criminals.
On top of all that, the writers want the audience to believe all it takes is some "minor" brain surgery to turn a violent criminal into a repentant, guilty, "normal" humanoid. it had to be because of a mental or physical defect that made him as violent as he was... all that has to happen is forced, unapproved brain surgery under the guise of required medical care to "fix" him. based on his original personality (and how he reacted to his supposed guilt) i doubt he would have approved to be surgically altered. also, just bc the surgery result was a pleasant surprise in the first patient, it would have to be approved by any other prisoner unless they were planning on beating them all within an inch of their life for the sole purpose of implanting nanoprobes.
On top of all that, the writers want the audience to believe all it takes is some "minor" brain surgery to turn a violent criminal into a repentant, guilty, "normal" humanoid. it had to be because of a mental or physical defect that made him as violent as he was... all that has to happen is forced, unapproved brain surgery under the guise of required medical care to "fix" him. based on his original personality (and how he reacted to his supposed guilt) i doubt he would have approved to be surgically altered. also, just bc the surgery result was a pleasant surprise in the first patient, it would have to be approved by any other prisoner unless they were planning on beating them all within an inch of their life for the sole purpose of implanting nanoprobes.
Terrible
dougteach19 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
A terrible episode trying to persuade other individuals to embrace the massive failures in the American judicial system.
This episode tries to make the viewer feel that every criminal that commites a violent crime should be given a second chance because "they have something wrong with them".
People that do terrible acts against others should be dealt with quickly and severely. 80% of people that commit violent crimes in America and are released commit another violent crime. Look the statistic up if you want. I teach Forensic Science and I know this statistic to be correct in the United States. A heinous crime to the victim, if you ask me.
This episode tries to make the viewer feel that every criminal that commites a violent crime should be given a second chance because "they have something wrong with them".
People that do terrible acts against others should be dealt with quickly and severely. 80% of people that commit violent crimes in America and are released commit another violent crime. Look the statistic up if you want. I teach Forensic Science and I know this statistic to be correct in the United States. A heinous crime to the victim, if you ask me.
How about the minority's issue?
entryword17 December 2019
...And Justice for All
tomsly-400155 February 2024
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
