Research task (Hypotheticals & Philosophy):
Imagine that a future technology can erase specific memories without side effects. Craft a detailed policy brief that takes a stance on whether courts can mandate the procedure for violent offenders to prevent the likelihood of re-offense. Justify your response via arguments surrounding deontology, consequentialism, and three relevant historical precedents with citations.  

Evaluation rubric:
criterion: The response clearly states whether courts should be allowed or not allowed to sentence mandatory memory erasure.
weight: 2
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response must be written in the form of a policy brief with clear sections, including executive summary, background, analysis, and recommendations.
weight: 2
axis: Communication Quality

criterion: The response presents 2 deontological arguments (i.e., related to the study of duty and obligation, e.g., courts have a responsibility to protect citizens, the government has an obligation to ensure safety, violent offenders should be rehabilitated, citizens have a moral obligation to integrate nonviolently into society).
weight: 3
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response presents at least 2 distinct consequentialist arguments (e.g., if crime is reduced then this is always justified, any means to achieve a safer society is justified, violent criminals cannot commit crimes related to past trauma if the past no longer exists, erasure of memories will create better rehabilitation programs).
weight: 3
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response explains the relevance of exactly three cited historical precedents to memory erasure (e.g., lobotomy, mandated rehabilitations, forced asylum admittances, chemical castration of sexual offenders).
weight: 3
axis: Explicit Criteria

criterion: The response supplies an in-text citation or footnote for every precedent using a recognized format (e.g., APA, MLA, Bluebook, Chicago), as the prompt requests a policy brief.
weight: 2
axis: References & Citation Quality

criterion: The response must cite 3 primary sources for historical precedents, including the source title, author, and year for each citation.
weight: 2
axis: References & Citation Quality

criterion: The response acknowledges one uncertainty regarding the future of memory erasure technology (e.g., risk of collateral damage from removing good memories, degradation of motor functions, loss of self-identity, or increased violence if the wrong memories are erased).
weight: 4
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response concludes the brief with an actionable directive rather than a summary (e.g., courts should be allowed to mandate, listing ways to ensure checks and balances, ensuring ethical procedures, or taking a definitive stance on the matter).
weight: 2
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response discusses one real-world enforcement challenge related to memory erasure technology used without consent (e.g., unreliability of remaining memory states, potential evidence manipulation, difficulty solving crimes if key details are erased, or accidental erasure of innocent individuals’ memories).
weight: 3
axis: Implicit Criteria

criterion: The response presents at least one counterargument to its position on whether courts should be allowed to mandate memory erasure.
weight: 3
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response must include an economic and resource allocation analysis (e.g., payment of erasure staff, transparent and accountable facilities, reforming the overburdened criminal justice system, or defining which crimes qualify for the procedure).
weight: 4
axis: Implicit Criteria

criterion: The response makes any statements that contradict the main position it takes in the policy brief (and interrupts consistent logical alignment between its stated stance and supporting arguments). (such as supporting memory erasure but providing examples against it, providing deontological arguments but disagreeing with them, listing out the potential benefits on society while going against memory erasure)
weight: -4
axis: Communication Quality

criterion: The response contains a governance, oversight, and procedural framework (e.g., outlining the sentencing process, identifying who will oversee implementation, explaining how consent and victim statements will be managed, and describing the exact method for carrying out the procedure, such as an "obliviate row" similar to death row).
weight: 3
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response addresses a broader sociocultural impact assessment (e.g., government control over memory and the mind, consent in these scenarios, societal competence in making such decisions, and ensuring the absence of racial discrimination).
weight: 3
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response proposes at least one safeguard to prevent misuse of memory erasure (e.g., oversight by independent experts, involvement of neuroscientists, recovery assurance for other memories, or rehabilitation afterward).
weight: 2
axis: Implicit Criteria

criterion: The response presents a plan for the offender’s long-term psychological and social reintegration (such as speech therapy, occupational job hunts, reintroducing to new communities, educational programs.)
weight: 3
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response must limit ethical analysis to the court-mandated memory erasure scenario specified in the prompt, using only deontological principles, consequentialist arguments, and historical precedents for justification.
weight: 3
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response analyzes international human rights law and treaty obligations pertaining to memory erasure or punishment (such as a ban on cruel and unusual punishment which violates memory erasure, protection of people with mental illnesses, treating prisoners with humanity, focusing on rehabilitation for prisoners) .
weight: 2
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response cites at least one quantitative recidivism statistic (e.g., 46% of prisoners released in 2012 were reincarcerated, younger individuals recommit crimes more frequently, property crimes have the highest recidivism rates, or reoffending rises by 82% over 10 years in the United States).
weight: 3
axis: Implicit Criteria

criterion: The response compares memory erasure rehabilitation outcomes to traditional rehabilitation methods (e.g., therapy, confinement, harsh behavioral restrictions, fines).
weight: 2
axis: Implicit Criteria

criterion: The response provides analysis of the proposed rehabilitation’s effectiveness compared to traditional methods (e.g., probable safety increases, social impacts, reduced recidivism, better societal reintegration).
weight: 2
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response analyzes victims’ rights and the implications of restorative justice.
weight: 2
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response mentions lobotomies conducted by the CIA and other organizations.
weight: -1
axis: Synthesis of Information

criterion: The response discusses at length prison sentences and punishments that are not memory-related (e.g., capital punishment, corporal punishment, longer sentences, or probation) and draws parallels to memory.
weight: -2
axis: Synthesis of Information