Slashdot Mirror
Murderer With "Aggression Genes" Gets Reduced Sentence
Noiser writes "New Scientist reports: 'In 2007, Abdelmalek Bayout admitted to stabbing and killing a man and received a sentence of 9 years and 2 months. An appeal court judge in Trieste, Italy, cut Bayout's sentence by a year after finding out he has gene variants linked to aggression.'"
I want me one of those genes !!
Maybe I wouldn't have lost my job if I could have proven I have a laziness gene.
... personal responsibility? Controlling our behaviour is one of the things that differentiates us from animals.
By that logic, isn't he more dangerous, and therefore should get a longer sentence? (Until a gene therapy solution comes out, anyway).
Even his original sentence of 9 years, 2 months seems a little light for murdering someone - "aggressive genes" or not. If you look at prison as removing someone from society, does this just increase the risk that he will harm someone else? If you look at prison as a means to force rehabilitation or reconstruction of personal development, wouldn't he require more time than the average murderer (given his disposition)?
I feel bad for the victim's family.
Seems a little bit backwards there.
If I'm actually genetically predisposed to violence, keeping me in society might not be the best course of action.
Seems to me, those that are _not_ predisposed to violence have a better chance of rehabilitating than those that aren't. Shouldn't they need less time in the slammer to rehabilitate?
Predisposed to violence = more time in?
Not Predisposed = less time in?
Honestly - do people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, or lack of actions anymore?
The purpose of jail isn't really to punish anyone, but rather to keep them off the playground until they can "play nice". If law is going to say that genes controll the way we behave, then will Italian courts start locking people up for having certain genes because they will tend to be violent?
..........FULL STOP.
Look out RIAA's CEO
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I can understand that it doesn't seem right to punish someone for things out of their control, but part of the purpose of putting murderers in prison is to make it harder for them to kill more people (at least that's my impression). They could maybe put him in a nicer prison, but if anything having the gene implies he's more dangerous than most people, so there is more reason to keep him in prison longer- not less. Hopefully they can help him overcome his genetic aggression, but it makes no sense to put him back on the streets if he is higher risk than most people.
My webcomic
That he got only 9 years for murder? That will rehabilitate him? People have gotten longer sentences for stealing cars. I suggest when the guy is released from prison, he be given residence next to the judges house.
I find this a bit ridiculous. I really don't care if you have a genetic predisposition to being aggressive. I don't even care if the voices in your head are telling you to cut people into little strips and make belts out of them. The key is that when you *act* on those things and violate the rules society has, you are going to be punished. Then again, this happened in Italy. As a citizen of the US, I'm not terribly worried.
When we have inherent individual faults of some kind, it would be better to have society expect us to strive to overcome them. A mens rea is a big part of crime, but the effects of this kind of biological difference threaten to make grey a matter that the law (and society) relies on being reasonably clear - whether people are to be judged responsible for their actions. If people are drugged through no fault of their own, are insane, or are in a situation where they have little other choice, we may be lenient or forgive certain acts, and if crimes are part of a culture of abuse (gang violence, racial violence) we may judge them more harshly than normal, but accepting genetic inclinations to violence is going too far and is not something we should accept.
Either he requires meds and is responsible for not having had them, he should've been the ward of the state all along, or he's fully responsible.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I have the fat gene....can i get a discount from McDonald's then since the gene is causing me to spend more money on food then i can afford?
It's the smell of free will going out the window, courtesy of people thinking that gene==unable to overcome that impulse. And with free will out the window, there's no liability. And with no liability... well, the court system we have is completely unworkable.
I was wondering when that issue was going to crop up. Thankfully, Italy seems bound to test just how much of a disaster that road will be.
The only solution to this is to ignore genetic predisposition when judging a convicted criminal.
Or, to put it differently: we have no choice but to believe in free will. Our society depends on it.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
In some countries like Latvia people go to jail if they are caught driving with relatively small amount of alchohol in their blood. That's called prevention measures against car accidents. Isn't that a good prevention measure to find those with higher aggression level in their genes ? Let's say: force those parents to stay in jail who born such a child ? In nowedays it can be definitely true measured! All this recalls me a good movie I saw some years ago about what would we see in near future: GATTACA (1997) music - Michael Nyman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9fcHHOCBDg
Both of my grandpas are terribly addicted alcoholics, and my father is a regular drinker. I've been charged with underaged drinking before, so does this mean I couldn't really help it? ;)
Have a propensity for murder? Get released earlier!
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
Unfortunately here in a number of countries in europe the judiciary has swallowed the liberal rehabilitation BS hook line and sinker. They and the politicians seem to believe that criminals are all just misunderstood little angels who if only given a chance would shine and all become rocket scientists or whatever pathetic fucking fantasy they have in mind this week. Punishment is seen as a dirty word by this liberal elite and so we get these sorts of absurd situations and if they can blame the scums behaviour on his genetics then even more reason not to give him some nasty punishment. Its not his fault after all, right?
Its a prime example of the state completely ignoring the wishes of the people.
What a single round of .45 ACP JHP in the back of the head would do to his genetic makeup?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/04/love-of-shopping-is.html
And I agree with a previous comment that he should have gotten an INCREASED sentence, since clearly we can't allow someone who has no control over themselves loose in public.
So if we can explain why you are who you are, then you are no longer responsible for being who you are? Neat.
Given punishments for crimes where judgment is impaired, this makes sense. I don't know that I can agree though. For example, if your are driving drunk in a car and kill someone, that carries a different sentence than being sober and killing someone, in or out of the car. Circumstances dictate different sentences, which they should. In theory, genetic dispositions are not something you can control so could actually require more consideration than drinking. I do think personal judgment should override that however. You can't just get angry and start murdering people because you have an excuse in your genes.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
The legal system shouldn't reduce sentences on account of inevitability or propensity or genetic disposition.
I'm ok with this, so long as the genes are removed from the pool.
How about, "You have bad genes and we're so empathetic that we're lowering your punishment. And because we don't want anyone else to suffer like you do, we're preventing you from procreating."
I think I could get behind that.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As often as we try to "cut the heads off of people" by separating the mind/brain from the rest of the body, we really can't. They are inseparable. We have an abundance of evidence that shows, for example, that homosexuality is not the "choice" that many assert it is and occurs among animals other than humans as well. Some people are quite naturally more aggressive than others and that, in fact, it can be modified through various chemical means.
It would be much more convenient if we could simple blame people for their behvior, their desires and their inclinations, but reality shows undeniable links between biology and behavior and it needs to be factored in. We do not "blame" wild animals for their behaviors because we accept wild animals for what they are. Humans are still animals. While we have enhanced capability to manage our behavior through conscious decision making, our ability to control ourselves is not 100% and certainly varies from person to person with links to inherited genetic traits. Failure to acknowledge and factor in these facts is foolish, in my opinion.
When managing society, failing to account for the reality of who/what humans are misses the opportunity to build the best balance and management systems possible. Without question, society needs to be able to protect itself from dangerous individuals. Dangerous individuals, however, also deserve to be aware of their weakness or deficiency so that they can take compensatory measures so that he may better co-exist with society.
In a conflict between ideology and nature, I have observed that nature wins 100% of the time. You can't will nature into changing to meet ideology, after all.
Prisons serve all three roles. Their existance is ment to be a deterrent to those that have not broken the law, punishment for those that have already broken the law, and protection of the rest of society from those who've demonstrated a willingness to break the law. The nature of the crime will effect to what extent the sentencing is intended to act as a punshment or protective role.
Sentencing of Blue and White colar criminals are going to be aimed at punishment and a warning to others that may be tempted to perpetrate similar acts (embezlement, breaking and entering, etc.). The ancillary effects of incarceration (loss of job, being ostrasized by friends/family, difficulty finding a job post incarceration) are as much part of the punishement as the actuall time spent in prison.
The sentencing of violent offenders is going to be targeted more at punishing the perpetrator and protecting the innocent. That's why they tend to have longer sentences and are locked up in higher security facilities than their blue collar compatriots. Rehabilitation is more important, but less successful with certain groups of violent criminals and thus they serve longer sentences and are occationally euthanized by the state (depending on where they are incarcerated).
The death penalty is the ultimate in both punishment of the criminal and protection of society, and IMO not to be used lightly. It should never be used for those that have not proven themselves to be violently dangerous to the rest of society (ie tax fraud doesn't deserve a needle, but repeated homocides does).
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
And adding a couple extra pounds of carbon to the air. Probably worse than this if you believe all the climate hysteria on the other side of the ocean.
I have a gene variant linked to tickling policemen and, yet, they throw the book at me every time.
There are those who suggest that homosexuality isn't a choice, but a strong genetic predisposition. If one can choose not to be homosexual, they are at core the same as everyone else, and then gay marriage laws aren't discriminating against people, but behavior. Granted the behavior discriminated on is a silly and unnecessary distinction when judging marriages (homosexual couples have demonstrated they can raise children, have stable households, contribute positively to society), but it's no longer a civil rights issue.
Is this a road we want to go down? Surely there must be some consideration for genetic predispositions.
I am not sure this isn't because of the odd Italian justice system. If you want to get a better understanding of the justice system in Italy read the Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston. It is a fascinating read on a serial killer that ran wild from the 60s to the 80s.
What you will learn is that the Italian system is no where near what you would expect a civilized country to have. The prosecutor discarded the idea that it was a single serial killer killing couple and mutilating them for the notion that a Satanic cult was doing it. Anyone who tried to prove otherwise soon became accused of being part of the Satanic cult making the whole event look like the Salem Witch Trials. Preston himself got accused, even though he did not arrive in Italy until the 90s.
The worst part - the judge bought that non-sense. And as an interesting side note the same judge became involved with the Amanda Knox case (the American accused of murdering her room mate). What did they come up with in that case? That the victim died as part of "some kind of Satanic rite, with Amanda allegedly first touching Meredith with the point of a knife, then slitting her throat." It would be funny if it wasn't a court of law.
In the end it made me understand that what would never stand up in court in other western courts can happen in Italy - it just does not surprise me.
--- Tolerance is the axiomatic "virtue" of those without convictions ---
OK, let's say that this is true and it isn't this guy's fault that he's more likely to hurt/kill people (note: pure bunk).
So that means that he is more dangerous than the average felon, because he can control himself less.
Does that mean he should be put away for more time to protect society from his increased danger?
"Agression Genes": Because more dangerous genes means you need to be able to get to commit crimes you can't stop yourself from doing sooner!
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
So remember emacs users, it's really not your fault!
Ducks...
Society has been on a tear lately always looking to avoid personal responsibility and blame someone (or in this case, something else). For example,
--Kids aren't hyperactive or have too much energy. They have ADD and require Ritalin.
--Why isn't my kid cut out to do Algebra in 2nd grade? It's not that he/she might have a disposition for the arts, but that I need to blame the school and the teachers.
--"The Man" is holding me down. I find it odd that at my Fortune 500 company the "White male" is not the majority of VPs.
--I'm not fat, it's just that I have a genetic disposition to eat tons of crappy food and avoid exercise. My genes make me buy ice cream and not even take a 10minute walk around the neighborhood every day.
--I can't get a date b/c I have a genetic disposition to be single, and not because I want to date Hawaiian Tropic models and I look like Bill Gates and dress like a slob.
Damnit people, take a bit of responsibility, there's millions of cases out there of people finding their niche and succeeding or overcoming their obstacles to obtain greatness. I don't recall all the immigrants that came through Ellis Island in the early 1900s saying, "I can't be anything" and blamed everyone else.
There used to be an expression, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." I think to many people this now has become, "When the going gets tough, blame someone else."
...don't we need to keep him locked up *longer*, since he's more likely to do it again?
No, officer, it couldn't have been me; there's not a violent bone in my body (paraphrased).
Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
The alcholic who was drunk driving and killed someone should get a reduced sentence?
I'm just posing the question - does having the gene predispose you to violence or does the gene mean your from a family where violence is the norm and the behavior is learned from generation to generation?
Imagine two families one with the "violent gene" and one with out. Studying them you find one family is normally not violent and very lawfull(except, of course, for the few exceptions), while the other family is violent and ruthless(once again except for the few exceptions). Isn't it a case that perhaps it is not the gene but the learned behaviour that causes the trend, and that it is the family that ties it together not the gene.
Do studies take this into consideration when finding this "violent gene"?
An appeal court judge in Trieste, Italy, cut Bayout's sentence by a year after finding out he has gene variants linked to aggression.'"
So the fact it has been proven he has gene expressions linked to aggression, shouldn't that mean his sentence should be RAISED?
This is a man who proved to others his genes make him dangerous to everyone around him.
That is exactly what prisons are for. To keep such animals away from human beings.
Does this mean if he runs at someone, and gets shot for doing so, it is not murder or manslaughter but just 'putting down a rabid dog' which also can't help itself?
Prison has two purposes: removing dangerous people from society until they are no longer a threat, and deterring future crimes. If this guy really is genetically prone to violence, that would make him more dangerous, and it would presumably take longer to determine that he is not a threat to others. The reduced sentence would also give him less incentive to overcome his aggression the next time he's thinking about committing a crime. It's completely backwards.
Also, reducing the sentence for him might even encourage further crimes by others, whether or not the genetic science is sound. It could give some sense of justification to somebody who's about to commit a crime. For example, just as I'm deciding whether or not to kill somebody, I might think, "It's not my fault I have genes linked to aggression. Hell, they'll even reduce my sentence for it," and then go through with it.
You've got to remember this is Europe, where they don't believe in punishing people. 9 years for murder is a harsh sentence in most European countries. And then they actually reduce a sentence because the guy is violent; shit, any logically thinking person would use this as a reason to increase it. I'd hate to think what their crime rates will look like 30 years from now.
Poor guy, just can't help killing someone.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would think that someone with "gene variants linked to aggression" might be someone you would want to keep locked up. Or maybe get them a job working with the UFC.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Hey! Who needs personal responsibility when you've got bad genes???
sigfault (core dumped)
Oh, forgot my second point.
I honestly don't think sentences should be either longer or shorter based on genetics. While a genetic understanding of a pre-disposition to aggression might be useful in helping to determine treatment/counselling for the convict, it is injust to add extra years beyond what is reasonable for a given crime, just because of a person's genetic makeup, and it's equally unjust to shorten it because of the genetics.
. . . he has the aggression gene and we want people with that gene out in the community with more opportunity for reproduction?
. . . we like to socialize with aggressive people?
. . . people with the aggressive gene should be given an aggressive crime discount?
. . . he is less accountable for aggressive acts that he is predisposed to commit?
. . . he gets one free aggression discount because of his predisposition?
. . . the judges had pity on him?
I'm sorry, but I'm genetically disposed to using an awesome text editor.
Shouldn't someone with "aggression genes" get a longer sentence, to protect others from his aggressive behavior? Since when has "being an asshole" constituted extenuating circumstances? Oh, that's right -- if you are genetically an asshole, then that's ok! So, all I have to do is prove in court that my father and my grandfather where assholes too, and I can get away with murder? That shouldn't be too hard...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So it's ridiculous when a statistical genetic correlation is taken as an excuse for a lack of self control, but it isn't ridiculous when bulimia and daydreaming get treated with drugs?
I beat my kids to death because I have an aggression gene. It's not my fault, but my families breeding habits at work.
No matter what science learns about our gene's roll in the choices we make I'm for banning this information from the court room.
I can see both sides of this to an extent. If someone has less control than it is less their fault, etc.. etc.. If someone has less control they are more of a danger to others, etc.. etc... I don't care. I think any information about ones genetic tendencies should be banned from the courtroom. People should be judged based on their own personal decisions, not their genetic makeup.
Any decisions made based on genes during this generation will effect the genes which get passed to future ones. Those genes must exist for a reason or they would have been selected out ages ago. I wonder how many in law enforcement or the military today have a genetic predisposition for violence? If one country completely eliminated said genes how much of a disadvantage would it be at if another invaded? On the other hand if everyone had them could we keep the peace at all? Nature will keep this in balance. We had better not try.
On a positive note, I suspect if society can reduce violence by other means then the benefit of having such genes around will drop. Natural selection should reduce them on it's own.
What is wrong with you people all advocating or demanding he be locked up again? This is not we as a society(and especially ./'s who are meant to be a bit more enlightened) should be advocating. Here we have a person who, for all intents and purposes, acted involuntarily. As someone who used to have a violence problem, I know just how hard it can be to gain self control, and not just react without thinking.
This guy may be a greater danger to society, but we don't just lock him up again because of that. Jesus. On the other hand, we should be aware that he may be a greater danger. The ideal treatment is then therapy, drugs, or perhaps some isolation. But not simply locking him up because it makes everyone else potentially safer.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
This lighter sentence doesn't make sense. If you accept the assertion that he has a gene that predisposes him to being more aggressive and therefore is less responsible for his actions, you should logically also conclude that he is more likely to reoffend. In most sentencing situations the likelihood or the person being a repeat offender is given a much higher weighting than if the person "couldn't help themselves". Serial killers are a good example of this; they have a psychological predisposition to committing murder. Their short circuited brains should make them less personally responsible, but more likely to reoffend and the latter should give them a longer sentence
Seems like that should lengthen the sentence rather than shorten it. Statistically speaking, he is probably far more likely to become violent again....
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
it is obviously not his fault.
If anything his ancestors are at fault, or perhaps it was environmentally induced genetic damage caused by global warming?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I AM handicapped, I'm psychotic!
That case is like something out of a funny movie from the 1980's. :)
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Great bit of judicial logic, isn't it? "You've got a propensity for violence, so let's get you out of jail sooner." Somehow doesn't make Italy an attractive place to visit.
To me this ruling seems to come more from theism than atheism. We are a product of our genes and our upbringing. The argument that someone cannot control their actions due to some genetic trait or because they were mistreated when they were young implies that there is some outside thing, the soul or wherever free will comes from, that has been abused by heritage or upbringing and is not responsible for its actions and should not be punished. Laws are created to bind members of a society to a code of conduct, and people that breach that code should be held equally responsible for their actions. It may be more difficult for this man to refrain from killing people than it is for you or I, but we should all obey the same rules or face the same punishments.
Would you also keep using the same program and let it run even though it continually crashes or produces erroneous results?
The phenotype of most of our traits is not due to our genotype alone. So unless all people carrying whateverthehell mutation this guy has stab people this ruling is f*cking stupid.
Nope. It is impossible, even at the most basic theoretical level, to predict everything. Basic physics theory shows that it is impossible to even just measure everything to an arbitrary degree of precision regardless of what instrumentation you may have. Go back and read your Heisenberg.
Actually, while complete measurement may be impossible, it does not mean that the actual underlying mechanics are not deterministic. In fact, superdeterminism is considered a viable explanation of Bell's inequality that avoids ruling out a completely deterministic universe by abandoning any notion of free will in performing an experiment.
You can read a longer explanation here.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...and it is frowned upon by most of society.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
effective 21st Century equivalent to "The Devil made me do it!"
Science has become the new superstition.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
People generally want shorter sentences in the hopes of someone being rehabilitated. This guy's defense is basically "I can't be rehabilitated -- I'm a natural killer!" In response, the judge gives a reduced sentence.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can't help yourself for being evil, so you might just as well run free.
After all, the point of jail sentences is not to protect society from harmful individuals, is it?
No, rather your right to freedom is greater than my right to life. Apparently.
So then the question becomes:
Should you continue your current life without murderous tendencies but with the possibility of a longer sentence OR hedge your bets by electing for gene therapy to introduce the aggression gene while reducing your sentence if you do kill someone?
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Hey everybody - Roman Polanski has a slashdot account! :-p
Let's see how a community with next to no competence in social and moral questions, with nearly everybody not being an expert in genetics, reacts to this article. ^^
Protip: If you still think that the concept of "guilt" exists, and/or that punishment is the best thing to do, then you are still in the dark ages, and not up-to-date on these topics.
P.S.: Notice how I do not exclude myself from this. I only learned some things that irreversibly changed my views on this forever. Hint: Try deducing everything that we do from the basic rules of cause and effect! Then you are likely to come up with, what is the modern scientific view on these topics.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
agreed.
Say I was a coke addict with a coke addiction. Would that make it O.K. for me to break into cars just because I am an addict and have an excuse? Nothing I can do about being an addict since my body *needs* the cocaine.
I saw we should only feed prisoners Junk food and Sugary Soda pop.
Forget feeding them three "Healthy" squares a day. Feed them left over Halloween Candy, Twinkies, HoHos, Potato Chips, Soda Pop (the more High Fructose Corn Syrup the better) and any meat is to be fried in lard or High Trans fat oils. Basically anything that puts on weight is a plus.
For exercise I recommend that we make them stay in their cells and provide them with a video gaming system, (Preferable those cheap ass NES and Sega Genesis Chinese rip offs.) Pipe in soap operas on the TV and reward prisoners who watch soaps with a supply of Bon Bons. No one is to be able to use the prison gym and they will be measured ever month to ensure they have a BMI that is well over 30. If they start exercising in their cells on their own you throw them into the hole where they are force fed like a goose being prepared for Fois Gras until their BMI has exceeded 30.
We can also supplement their food with popular diet medication and give them new diet meds every three months as this stuff usually is responsible for increasing long term weight gain, you could even put the whole prison on a Binge/Bust cycle to permanently ruin their metabolism.
Now you may be asking why should you do this? Well the answer is simple, when you release law breakers back into society you don't want a bunch of fit and healthy but angry men who can outrun the doughnut eating cops better than they could before they went to the big house. Instead you want ex-cons that are soft marshmallowy and easy to re-capture should they insist on robbing the local 7-11 for all that is in the register and 4 boxes of Little Debbie snack cakes.
Victims of violent offenders as well would benefit from this as well, as a Prison Fattened rapist would be unable to easily engage in actual rape with a large lump of fat effectively decreasing their "reach". Those who have beaten people up within an inch of their lives would now be out of breath by the time they threw their third punch. It is harder for fat people to even get around to commit crime as anyone living in a bad area of town in an apartment two or three floors up without an elevator would be living in near complete safety from ex-cons.
What are the drawbacks of this? Well you might see an increase in the number of lazy folks Wanting to get into prison and this is remedied by moving some of the Welfare Budget directly to the prison system. You would see more rednecks and white trash in prison, which would lower attendance to NASCAR races.
What are some indirect benefits of this? Well law abiding folks would want to stay thinner so you would actually be increasing the health of law abiding citizens as they would want to be thin to avoid the "criminal stigma" of being fat as an ex-con.
I say we need to create a new class of Jail Bird, The Couch Potato Con.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
However:
1. Is the science mature enough? And more importantly,
2. If the science is correct - a reduced sentence is not the solution.
I mean - are there any murderers who don't have the aggression gene? Hell - let's test every murderer and if they have the aggression gene -reduce all of their sentences!
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
The same thing would be to gather statistics on aggressiveness of people of different color or nationality and sentence accordingly. One could say his nation mentality is more aggressive and get reduced sentence.
It makes about as much sense as giving someone predisposed with obesity an lifetime membership to the all you can eat buffet.
I think because Serial Killers can't help themselves when it comes to leaving people alive we should take pity on them and release all of them.....
What sort of backwards ass bizzarro world are we living on?
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Italy had 1.29 murders per 100,000 people in 2000. We had 4.28 per 100,000 people. (link)
I guess those harsh prison sentences are going wonders for stopping murder here. Gosh, you'd think that with only 9% of the world population and 22% of the world's prison population that American society would be safe, right?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm just "big boned".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Subject A is genetically predispositioned to violence. The subjects older brother has a history of torturing and killing animals. The subjects father has a history of domestic violence, committing and suffering from. The subjects maternal grandmother was associated with a domestic political group associated with violent protests and unconfirmed bombings. At the age of 30 and 3 months, the subject was convicted of murder, but spared the death penalty due to a "violence gene." Anti-death penalty activists heralded it as a victory.
Subject B is genetically predispositioned to violence. The subjects older brother has a history of torturing and killing animals. The subjects father has a history of domestic violence, committing and suffering from. The subjects maternal grandmother was associated with a domestic political group associated with violent protests and unconfirmed bombings. At the age of 3 months, the subject was screened for a genetic violent predisposition and aborted due to its presence. Pro-choice activists heralded it as a victory.
The anti-death penalty activists and the pro-choice activists are one in the same.
Sorry to break it to you, but the Must Listen to Wife gene is dominant; the Must Have Sex gene is not only recessive, but repeated expression of the Must Listen to Wife gene inhibits both the Must Have Sex and Free Will gene receptors from responding to further chemical or hormonal stimuli.
This is doubly so if you also have the Must Have Trophy Wife gene, which when expressed, also triggers both the MicroPenis gene and the Red Sportscar gene, as well as the Bad Hair Combover gene.
Research indicates that it's now possible to prevent the Must Have Trophy Wife gene from successfully activating by ingesting a sufficient dose of CreditCardOverLimitus during the first date.
People with defective Must Listen To Wife genes are usually treated with the combination of a weeks' regimen of SleepOnTheCouchYouBastardex followed by new-age crystal therapy - preferably in the form of a large-carat diamond.
Sometimes, the treatment is unsuccessful; such patients are usually initially diagnosed as suffering from simple LackaNookie Syndrome, but when repeated dosing with medicinal ethanol fails (such as Jack Daniels, Beefeater, Amareto di Soronia, Captain Morgan, Appleton Estates or other name brand product - the class of ethanols collectively known as American Beer lack the necessary active ingredient in sufficient quantity to differentiate them from either water or urine), LackaNookie is simply masking the more serious and usually incurable PussyWhipt Emasculitis.
At that point, radical surgery, with the excision of the problematic tissue via an expensive operation known as a TheBitchGotEverythingInTheDivorce procedure, or more colloquially, a "Walletectomy", sometimes restores partial function.
DNA profiling at birth in 3, 2...
Crichton talks sufficiently about the mis-use of this "I have aggression gene" plot well in his novel "Next". We are going to see all these things being used much more in coming days. It is going to be game-play than any fairness verdicts in courts!
Call me crazy, but if he has a genetic disposition to violence that we don't know how to cure, why is the solution that we let him out EARLY? Isn't the point of prison to keep the populace safe from people like this? Presumably the deterrence is one way this works, but also, just the fact that he's off the streets is beneficial. WTF is this judge's reasoning? I can only think he's saying "it's not fair that this poor victim of genetics is being punished for his impulses." Bullshit. Cure him or lock him up, I don't want him near me.
Currently hooked on AMP
I mean, if it is proven that you have a gene that makes you more likely to engage in criminal/illegal activities than others, doesn't that mean you're also more likely to become a repeat offender and should therefore be put in jail longer than others instead of shorter ?
Free will? Try, freedom. Now everyone who has the same gene, is labeled a murderer in potentia with nothing they can do about it.
Can you hear that? That is the gas-chambers starting up.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Even before the gene results, dude only got 9 years for killing someone???
Let me try to understand this. A person does something because the way they are made makes them likely to do it. They get a shorter sentence. Another person does a thing but only because a strange set of circumstances contrived to lead them into a unique situation which almost forced the crime upon them. They get a longer sentence because usually they would be unlikely to do it.
Both criminals should be put away for the same length of time. The criminally disposed criminal because he is likely to commit the crime again, and the usually law abiding citizen as a warning to all those other usually law abiding citizens, so that they don't get ideas in their heads.
If the summary was accurate, the judge is a fool.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A radical way to look at this problem Ok. He gets a reduced sentence so that he can get out of the jail quickly, reproduce , pass on his genes and have more murderers? Hmm...looks like in the modern world we are naturally selecting murders. I realize that this is not an easy problem to solve.
You make some interesting points and I don't disagree with some of your conclusions, however it is important to keep in mind that "barbaric" is a pejorative referring to a lack of "civilized" influences. The very notion of civilization is that individuals must sacrifice certain behaviors in order to benefit from the synergies of group participation. People who cannot, for whatever reason, conform to a certain minimal extent must be ostracized, for the good of the group.
I don't necessarily disagree, but you might find it interesting to read about the Native American / First Nations systems of justice prior to European colonization. In particular, natives who committed "crimes" would be made to sit with victims in a tent with elders until the elders decided that there was appropriate empathy and repentance by the accused. In contrast, nowadays, the Elders often describe the youth who come out of modern prisons as "forever lost". While there have probably always been people who would be considered "forever lost" (i.e. those who cannot be redeemed), I think the prison system creates such people.
This is just food for thought - there are interesting alternate paradigms to the industrialized mandatory monastery.
Sigh... It never ceases to amaze me how many people think the point of a justice system is to restore some magical cosmic balance. It isn't. The point is to protect the rights and safety of the rest of society --whether it's protection from murder or Bernie Madoff taking all your money. I believe in mercy, but at the end of the day "the system" should give utilitarian goals highest priority.
Ask me about my sig!
"He needed killing your honor." - Felon
"Well, okay, we'll let this pass this time but don't go killin folks who don't need it. Case dismissed!" - Texas Judge
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Time to start gene filtering.
Lazy isn't yet covered under the ADA. Perhaps you'd like to try ADD/ADHD instead? Different cause, same unhappy outcome for your employer, and it's "legit".
What utter bullshit. A moments Google search for total crimes per capita would have shown you that from worst to best, the rank is:
1 Dominica
2 New Zealand
3 Finland
4 Denmark
5 Chile
6 United Kingdom
7 Montserrat
8 United States
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Furthermore, people don't steal because they are poor. They steal because they are sociopaths. Bernie Madoff was not short of cash for a box of donuts and a six-pack. He was not poor or downtrodden or starving.
There are plenty of poor people who never steal, and plenty of rich people that do.
Reproducing the numerical values in the table counts as "junk characters". A tech website that counts numbers as junk. Go figure.
Before you all get too bent out of shape (too late, I know) this comments much more on the Italian justice system, and only to a lesser extent on the increasing debate over whether your genes "made you do it".
Italian law provides for "degrees of guilt", meaning even if you admit your crime certain affirmative defenses result in reduced sentences. They can decide *how* guilty you are after deciding you're guilty, as an official process, as opposed to the fuzzier ways judges think about "mitigating circumstances" and stuff in other places.
Wait, shouldn't that mean he should be locked up LONGER? I mean, if he's genetically disposed to lash out, isn't he a greater threat to society than someone who was just feeling a bit feisty that day?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A person with a proven biological predisposition to murderous violence needs to be locked up for more time, not less.
Of course, the science probably doesn't actually support either response.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let me see if I've understood correctly: being more likely to re-offend means that you deserve a shorter sentence... presumably so you can get out and do some more quality offending sooner rather than later?
This. Ruling. Makes. No. Sense!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't understand, isn't this backwards? If this guy is genetically predisposed to violence, for the good of society shouldn't the judge be ADDING time to the sentence?
...to Fiorina "Fury" 161.
I hear they've got a good place to wait, there...
[End Of Line]
I'm pretty sure we all have a horny gene. These genetic determinists seem to have forgotten that being civilized is overcoming natural impulses in lieu of rationality and morality.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
that approach might be validated in one town in north carolina,
but wouldn't work in hell holes like LA,CA and NY,NY
...It was. Episode 23, Acceptance. The quote was something like: "If we accept that the disease made him do it, then we dismiss the efforts of every other person with this disease who didn't go out and murder six people."
There had better have been extenuating circumstances on this ruling. Otherwise, by the sentiment above, I have to call it a miscarriage of justice.
I'm just here for the pie.
The devil made me do it!
The made me do it!
The Agression Gene made me do it!
The booze made me do it!
The drugs made me do it!
The fact he\she was a two timing whore made me do it!
The television made me do it!
The video game made me do it!
Society made me do it!
The disturbing hentai tenticle monster movie with the school girls made me do it!
Ron Jeremy made me do it!
Rebecca Demorney and Tom Cruise in the mid 1980s classic Risky Business with soundtrack by Tangerine Dream made me do it (on a subway)!
The fact is: Americans no longer have the mental capacity to understand personal responsibility and personal accountability. I can only assume there must be a "personal responsibility" gene that has been weeded out of the gene pool; or the fact they removed any sense of personal accountablility, responsibility, and achivement from the education system and now those that grew up with that removed are acting in step with that concept (or lack thereof).
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
In that case, have them wear tags that say "I have one or more aggression genes". Will that get them discriminated? Yes. But how's that different to what you get now? The only thing is that they'll get discriminated BEFORE they punch or kill someone, not after.