What's more ethical: a life sentence in prison, or a drug that slows someone's perception of time to make them feel like they've spent 10 life sentences in a day? The question was asked last year by an Oxford University professor, but isn't the real question: if we could make a drug that let people do multiple lifetimes of thinking, why would we waste it on punishment instead of giving brilliant minds multiple lifetimes to solve human problems? Also what's it like to feel like you have an itch for 1,000 years? 

[editor's note: I came so close to calling this episode "ONE MILLION YEARS DUNGEON." WHERE MY LEMONGRAB FANS AT???]

We Have Concerns is entirely listener supported! To keep us ad-free and get early episodes/bonus content, check out our Patreon:  http://patreon.com/wehaveconcerns

Hey! If you're enjoying the show, please take a moment to rate/review it on whatever service you use to listen. Here's the iTunes link:  http://bit.ly/wehaveconcerns

Jeff on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/jeffcannata

Today's story was submitted by d3vourm3nt:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10697529/Prisoners-could-serve-1000-year-sentence-in-eight-hours.html (original essay:  http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/08/enhanced-punishment-can-technology-make-life-sentences-longer/)

If you've seen a story you think belongs on the show, send it to [email protected] or leave it on the subreddit:  http://reddit.com/r/wehaveconcerns