Charles Manson Scenario
Hawkeye
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
Join Date: 2002-10-31 Member: 1855Members
<div class="IPBDescription">..And the human genome project</div> Okay, after having completely decoding the human genome, we have discovered that there was an unmistakable gene in Charles Manson which caused him to go bonkers and kill people. In other words, if he did not have that gene, he would be a completely normal guy like you and I. Unfortunately for his gene, he has to suffer because of it.
Now I ask you, if we had the technology to completely remove the harmful violent tendencies of criminals to guarantee with 101% effectiveness that they would live out the rest of their lives as normal individuals,
A) Would you have the right to do change his personality?
B) If you would remove the 'criminal' gene in a criminal thereby making him like an ordinary person, would you release him back into society after his crime has been committed? (We're assuming it is guaranteed to prevent any further occurences of a crime from that person.)
Now I ask you, if we had the technology to completely remove the harmful violent tendencies of criminals to guarantee with 101% effectiveness that they would live out the rest of their lives as normal individuals,
A) Would you have the right to do change his personality?
B) If you would remove the 'criminal' gene in a criminal thereby making him like an ordinary person, would you release him back into society after his crime has been committed? (We're assuming it is guaranteed to prevent any further occurences of a crime from that person.)
Comments
The issue of punishment isn't really clear-cut though. If it was genetic, they shouldn't be punished, because it isn't really their fault (if we think of the person as their metaphysical mind rather than they're corporeal being). If it was a conscious choice, then by all means incarcerate them.
The good part is, there is no way to plead "Genetics", because the gene could be tested for.
However, only criminals should have this gene removed (or modified). The people who can control it should be untouched, or at the most, monitered and/or submit to being psychologically profiled.
If it was removed from everyone, the army's numbers would drasticlly decrease. Not to mention the gaming industry wouldn't be too happy <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In short, I would be against the removal. Hold people responsible for their actions, and do not shift the blame to genetics.
I think having that gene removed or what not should help in your appeal for parole, but thats it.
I suppose it depends whether the gene is causing a chemical imbalance or whether its causing the neurons to developement in a particular manner. If the former is true, then correcting the gene would solve things. If the latter is true, then repairing the gene will make no difference, as his psychological make-up has already been determined.
TBH, I'd say they're still accountable for their actions, if all the gene causes is increased violent tendancies. If it reduces their ability to tell right from wrong, then sure, its not their fault, but if its just an increased anger problem, its their fault through lack of proper control.
Even if we could remove the gene and stop the behavior then it should be the choice of the criminal.
If we could only remove the gene of fetuses it should be left up to the parents.
Edit:Grammar, grammar grammar
The fact is there is more than one reason why we punish people.
We punish people for
A) Hopefully make them think about their crimes.
B) Provide justice for the victims and/or their families.
C) Prevent further crimes from happening.
I think by removing the gene, we remove only C, but A and B still remain. However, the legitimacy of A and B are up for debate. I could be wrong.
The other option, as people have said, would be to remove it from the gene pool by (a) not allowing these people to breed or (b) screening their gametes (eggs/sperm) for the offending gene and eliminating it. This practice is known as eugenics, and has been the basis for a host of reprehensible programs -- marginalization of blacks/blue collar workers in early 20th-century America, Hitler's Aryan race, and many more.
Lastly, extensive behavioral studies have fairly conclusively shown that behavior is only about 40% reliant on DNA. Having this gene does not make you a murderer (you're not even a 50-50 shot of being a murderer), and being a murderer does not imply that you have this particular gene.
As someone who believes that alteration of our own genetics is (a) inevitable and (b) a step forward for our species, I am adamantly against forced modification of an individual's genome against his will. That is his being, his self that you are messing with.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>hypothetical</b>
Hypothetic \Hy`po*thet"ic\, Hypothetical \Hy`po*thet"ic*al\, a. [L. hypotheticus, Gr. ?: cf. F. hypoth['e]tique.] Characterized by, or of the nature of, an hypothesis; conditional; assumed without proof, for the purpose of reasoning and deducing proof, or of accounting for some fact or phenomenon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that you can remove such a gene from a person is "assumed without proof, for the purposes of reasoning and deducing proof, or of accounting for some fact or phenomenon."
Please respect this request that every further post not concern whether it is possible or not. Assume it is possible.
A) Hopefully make them think about their crimes.
B) Provide justice for the victims and/or their families.
C) Prevent further crimes from happening.
I think by removing the gene, we remove only C, but A and B still remain. However, the legitimacy of A and B are up for debate. I could be wrong.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly what happens in Clockwork Orange.
Alex doesn't feel remorse, he only feels "pain" when he wants to do something bad. All his victims team up on him.
Some people believe that killing is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The fact that you can remove such a gene from a person is "assumed without proof, for the purposes of reasoning and deducing proof, or of accounting for some fact or phenomenon."
Please respect this request that every further post not concern whether it is possible or not. Assume it is possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a molecular biology major, I have to object; that's simply an enormous hypothetical. We don't even have an *inkling* of how to remove a gene 100% from a full-grown organism right now. It's just simply not a practical solution. Would you like to hunt down 6 billion instances (two copies in each of 3 billion cells in the human body) of a fragment of a molecule barely visible with an electron microscope, and then efficiently and safely destroy or disable it without damaging its immediate surroundings (the individual's DNA - any damage to which, of course, would likely kill him)?
I offered a few equivalent solutions, but the only real way to "remove" this gene is to remove it from gametes and prevent its introduction into the next generation.
Regardless of whether it *can* be done, though, (as I said) I don't think it should be done.
I think another thread discussed the castration of pedafiles in some south american country (brazil I'd like to say?). In a sense, this is the same ethical question. Would they have the right to do that? It would prevent the criminal from doing it ever again. Would you release them afterwards?
These are the questions I ask. If removing a gene is too difficult for you, then use that example.
Removing the gene that makes someone messed up would only save a person if it was done at birth, not if they have already been courrupted by it.
Scientists found a way to make a vaccine that destroys this gene in the womb, it is completely harmless and cost effective. This procdure can be done at standard check ups with the doctor during pregnancy and ensures that this gene is not present in the baby at birth.
Do you think it's ethically/morally right to do this, and what would be the results?
I personally think we would need to keep a seperate gene pool of violent individuals for our armed forces, since not every country on the planet would be practicing this sort of medicine, other than that I say go for it.
Not even the genes for <i>early and horrible death</i> are 100% certain. There is a large body of other factors that effect it. Since murder isn't a faulty chemical reaction (at least directly), it has even less to do with our genes.
Discussing hypothetical situations is all well and good when it's feasable, but this isn't.
1) a flawed solution. Genetics are only 40% responsible for behavior, so you've got a less than 50% chance that altering a criminal's genes will even fix the problem.
2) unethical. Criminals today are sometimes sent to rehab or given psychiatric treatment. Criminals in the past were sometimes given lobotomies - the front of their brains were removed or damaged beyond recovery. A lobotomy is unethical, as is any other alteration of the such a fundamental part of the body as a person's genetic code.
3) dangerous. Many genes have multiple functions in the body; simply knocking out one could have disastrous side effects.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Mar 6 2004, 04:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Mar 6 2004, 04:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A) Would you have the right to do change his personality?
B) If you would remove the 'criminal' gene in a criminal thereby making him like an ordinary person, would you release him back into society after his crime has been committed? (We're assuming it is guaranteed to prevent any further occurences of a crime from that person.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A) Question, as I see it, is: would I have the right NOT to? Letting him keep that gene would either kill a number of innocent people or force him to live a life in prison (first one hurts the ones getting killed, second costs us a lot of money). So yeah, I'd say we have the right to remove that gene, since his personality is not one that fits within our society. Of cause, you can ask where the limits of this goes, and what will happen when it goes too far. I'd say that's a risk worth taking, especially because even IF people start altering each other's political orientation and complete personality, the ones who would, by our standards, get a poor life, would probably be genetically coded to like their poor life, and that's just cool. I mean, if we can make the poor like the lives they have, isn't that ultimate charity?
B) Yeah, of cause. No reason to keep him, unless you count revenge. And putting someone in prison merely for revenge is kind of useless. Of cause, if his crime was something that touched someone personally, those people are likely to hate him and have certain traumatic memories related to him. So if he, say, murdered the kids of a lonely woman, it might be reasonable to forbid him to live, or even go, near that woman again. If his personality had really been altered, I'm sure he would even be grieved to know what he did, and wouldn't object to this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While it seems idea, I think that just altering the gene is the easy way out. Why not just teach them to control themselves?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not choose the easy way out. Why take the trouble and suffering if we can cut a shortcut and do it the easy way?