I tend towards a preference of a more Conservative judge when it comes to violent crimes, it is the hard core death penalty judges that worry me, what with DNA testing available now to help prove innocence or guilt.

Many innocent people have fried under the hardcore death penalty judges, who often still refuse to look at new DNA evidence in death penalty appeals.

Other than that issue, I agree, I do not wish for any kind of soft punishment for anyone who has committed a heinous crime, and I would be the first in line to NOT cast a vote for a judge who’s record indicated that hard-core criminals were out on the street in something ridiculous like 2-5 years.

As a matter of fact, T. and I just voted for a solid, Republican local judge who’s record on criminal sentences was much more to our liking than the Democratic judge who was just too lenient.

I also agree with both J.D.F and you on the matter of “can” and “should”. Knowledge is power, and in the wrong hands….shudder

Well I did say that only some liberals would be offended…

Can and should are two different things, and I agree that the question of the latter is too often disregarded. They say that knowledge is power, but power is, in and of itself, amoral. That can lead to a variety of atrocities.

I admit though that I’m less uncomfortable with Conservative judges. Erroring on the side of keeping criminals away from society just doesn’t bother me as much as letting them loose.

Kelly,

At a species survival level such mutations might be a benefit at times. That’s what I meant. That doesn’t mean that the same mutation works well in more civilized circumstances.

In your response above:

“Think about it; we’re biologically still largely a primitive primate who is prey for larger predators. In stress situations a population group could benefit existentially from its young being born more aggressive…”

You seem to be leaning both ways concerning the issue – you say that we should lower the bar on what we expect of these individuals, and yet above, you seem to say that a population group could benefit.

Which, if you look way back to when we were all living in tribes, these “thugs”, should they have possessed this genetic mutation, would be the leaders of the tribe, not staying put as sitting ducks for the larger predator, but moving the group along and getting things done in an aggressive manner for the sake of the tribe.

So genetically, the “thugs” actually might possess a superior genetic mutation that just happens to not have any place in todays society.

And yes, the Italian Court ruling was complete lunacy.

Whatever information we have… whatever discoveries we make… we should always ask not if we can do something but if we should.

Oh and with regards to the comment about Liberal Judges… Judges who are of either extreme and do not view the law with neutrality (or as much as is humanly possible) should not be on the bench.

Have a good day Jonolan.

I’m not sure how much my hypothesis that the MAOA mutation could be a result of gestational hormonal effects strays from the point of the conversation since the conversation seemed centered on eugenics.

If the mutation is caused by stress hormones in the mother, then the idea of sterilization of the people with the mutation would be worthless as well as a disturbing thing to contemplate – for all the reasons that Karita brought up.

I see the whole study as useful mostly for level-setting our expectations. If these thugs are born that way, then we have to expect less of them, and they’re going to have to expect to b treated differently.

It is most definitely not a reason for leniency though, despite the foolishness of the Italian court.

I am a few days late on responding – I find your take on more aggressive children being born due to stress hormones interesting from a primal/survival standpoint, however, that is more a discussion of the primal instinct in all creatures, and strays from the social problem of random violence within society.

And yes, Karita is dead right – my response to zhann’s suggestion is purely knee jerk emotional reaction when senseless killings are running rampant in society.
That is why I added that it was a “solution” that was getting into a very dicey area of choice – Karita very succinctly finished that thought. No argument there.

At this point, what society has available to deal with this problem and NOT go down the slippery and ultimately horrifying “castration road” if you will, is incarceration and rehabilitation. The prisons are overflowing and I do not have the numbers to support whether rehabilitation is successful in any percentage at all.
Still, it is an interesting study, and bears keeping an eye on.

Finally, I guess one would have to shrug and say WWDD:
What Would Dexter Do?

But gang members and psychopaths may be different genetically. Usually a psychopath is a loner who moves around and has superficial acquaintances. A gang member is part of an organization. He’s often with the same people and in one location for years. And the psychopath is very often white.