Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We were talking about crime and punishment at work today, and someone brought up a hypothetical that many of couldn't answer. So... I'd thought I'd bring it up here since there are so many that do not hesitate to bring up their opinions, but some even have legal experience to add (even if it's not formal education - if you get my sarcasm! lol).
My disclaimer, of course, is that we would have to accept some things that are not fact yet as if they were.
If all the research we have done in mapping the human genome and are doing in genetic research/engineering could show that criminals have either a valid chemical or genetic condition that could be treated with a shot/pill/gene therapy/simple operation (etc.), how do we treat them after they have committed a crime? Do we continue with capital punishment of the harshest offenders, or lock them up for life? Do we make them do 25 years AFTER the shot/pill/therapy/operation or before? Do we treat them and just let them go?
I don't have the answer and hope someone in these forums can enlighten and sway me to a logical, if not factual, answer.
If all the research we have done in mapping the human genome and are doing in genetic research/engineering could show that criminals have either a valid chemical or genetic condition that could be treated with a shot/pill/gene therapy/simple operation (etc.), how do we treat them after they have committed a crime? Do we continue with capital punishment of the harshest offenders, or lock them up for life? Do we make them do 25 years AFTER the shot/pill/therapy/operation or before? Do we treat them and just let them go?
In my opinion, there's a flaw in the premise of the question.
It assumes that all people are merely the sum of their genetic code - and I believe that not to be the case. People are just as much influenced by their experiences and their environment as by their genes.
A person steals a loaf of bread, but why did he do it? Was it because he was genetically predisposed to thievery? Was it because he had developed a different moral code, i.e. if I can take it from you, then it's mine now? Or maybe he was trying to feed his starving children, and saw no other solution but theft?
Society accepts that a person may be able to perform an act which is illegal, but expects that person to exercise self-restraint when presented with the opportunity to commit the illegal act, or at least have a defensible reason for committing the act.
Having a Corrections and Police background, I'll take a shot at this. In my opinion, if we could "reprogram" inmates, then they should be housed in something like a halfway house(but more secure and with implanted with tracking devices). Get them use to a "normal life" and see how they do. That, or do all the above, but keep them in prison for 10 years, but away from the other inmates that have not been "reprogramed". Alot of it depends on the crime.
My disclaimer, of course, is that we would have to accept some things that are not fact yet as if they were.
If all the research we have done in mapping the human genome and are doing in genetic research/engineering could show that criminals have either a valid chemical or genetic condition that could be treated with a shot/pill/gene therapy/simple operation (etc.), how do we treat them after they have committed a crime? Do we continue with capital punishment of the harshest offenders, or lock them up for life? Do we make them do 25 years AFTER the shot/pill/therapy/operation or before? Do we treat them and just let them go?
Given your disclaimer, and "assuming" then, that there's a simple & humane way to obliterate the bad behavior but leave all the other underlying aspects of the personality in tact - I say we treat them and let them go. The point, in my opinion, is not punishment/revenge but having a civil society that works.
Going along with your premise, when a crime is committed--the person's DNA is tested. The DNA reveals the gene for a predisposition to criminal activity (any or all). If the crime is harsh enough to warrant a prison sentence, I think the person should be treated first and given the sentence, if they have no problems--then let them serve 1/2 sentence.
The reason I say this, if a person has criminal tendencies, then they will usually keep doing criminal activities while in prison. If they don't, then the treatment is working.
New treatments or medicines should be monitored for ten years to determine the efficacy and the late effects. The prisoners would be a controlled group that would make a good study.
If the crime did not warrant prison, then treat the offender then release them as usual with a deferred sentence. Time will tell if the treatment is working.
OK, if you were able to tell if whatever "condition" the criminal has is curable with some kinda pill or something, then I say give 'em the pill, make 'em do the time, let 'em out, then if they do it again, give 'em a hanging.
My contention throughout this conversation is that if it's genetically testable to determine that someone is pre-dispositioned to commit crimes, then why aren't tests conducted at birth and treated then prior to waiting until they commit a crime. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" mentality.
But it's cyclic in nature. It's a moral dilemma. I'm sure there should be justice, but to what extent?
I appreciate the inputs - many of you hit on what we had discussed here as well. Tough situation really, I guess. I'm glad that's not the case in reality.
My contention throughout this conversation is that if it's genetically testable to determine that someone is pre-dispositioned to commit crimes, then why aren't tests conducted at birth and treated then prior to waiting until they commit a crime. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" mentality.
But it's cyclic in nature. It's a moral dilemma. I'm sure there should be justice, but to what extent?
I appreciate the inputs - many of you hit on what we had discussed here as well. Tough situation really, I guess. I'm glad that's not the case in reality.
Aha - to me, that's a very different situation than what was first presented. Pre-disposition does not mean it's a certainty. I'd be against testing and treating for what "might" happen when it comes to criminal activity. I don't like the Orwellian overtones of that - designer society with a database of who is prone to what. Yikes.
criminals have a chemical or genetic condition that could be treated with a shot/pill/gene therapy/simple operation (etc.),
Then we would not get repeat offenders (at least not for the same crime). If we're getting any repeat offenders, the premise I've quoted is not quite right. There's something more to it.
But assuming the premise is right, what I'd do is this: (1) if treating people for the crime capacity didn't not interfere with other abilities, I would require screening and treatment at birth, (2) if treating them for the crime capacity did interfere with other abilities, and it's not 100% the case that if S has a capacity for crime x, S will commit crime x, then I'd only treat them after they committed a crime (whereas even if it did interfere with other abilities and we know with 100% certainty that they'll commit that crime later, I'd still require treatment at birth). In conjunction with (2), where they might commit the crime, I'd keep a punishment period intact. However, and this is the case regardless of this thought experiment, I'm in favor of making prisons more like work camps--they should be sources of free labor for public works. The length of your period in the labor camps would be proportionate to the severity of your crime. Once you've done your time, you've also been "cured" of the capacity to commit that crime, and you're free to go. You should have no more problems that would land you in jail or cause a crime problem for other folks.
(Like others in the thread, though, I do not believe that the premise could be true, so it's purely a hypothetical.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, that last part was a joke.
