• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are murderers victims?

I doubt very much that genetic predisposition covers all, or even most of the cause here. Why are US murder rates relatively high when compared to Japan? Is this because we're genetically presidposed to it? If so, why did so many Japanese troops pillage, kills and destroy so much of Manchuria, whereas the few events considered attrocities American troops commited involved weapons of mass destruction? Germany has a low murder rate, but let's not Godwin this thread.
 
If a murderer is unable to control his actions, there is so much more reason to keep him locked up for years and years! The primary goal for the penal system should be to prevent crimes, and the more likely you are to repeat the crime, the more reason to take you out of circulation.
 
andyandy said:
it's a truly horrible debate, because our whole justice system rests upon the assumption that people are responsible for their own actions.....
Click to expand...

In part I think it boils down to there simply not being a better alternative?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I doubt very much that genetic predisposition covers all, or even most of the cause here. Why are US murder rates relatively high when compared to Japan? Is this because we're genetically presidposed to it? If so, why did so many Japanese troops pillage, kills and destroy so much of Manchuria, whereas the few events considered attrocities American troops commited involved weapons of mass destruction? Germany has a low murder rate, but let's not Godwin this thread.
Click to expand...

hmmmm....another thorny issue....:D I would say that the Japanese atrocities were at least in part down to social conditioning rather than genetic pre-conditioning.....in the same way that you don't have to go back too far to see how white Europeans and Americans saw blacks as second class citizens - and before that as little more than savages....and as a result treated them appallingly....The japanese WWII soldiers exhibited a belief of racial-superiority over their asian neighbours....this seems a major factor for the widespread acceptance within the army command of truly horrific acts....such as the seizure of korean "comfort women" or the rape of conquered Chinese cities....

Japan as a case-study is a really interesting one to choose....seeing as it does have such low crime rates.....
one thing to note is that there is a much stronger family bond and social bond than in the West. Divorce is still very much frowned upon, and it's not so unusual for three generations to live in the same building.....
There's also a much greater social control on children - school exerts a great amount of power.....anything that a child does, even if it's outside school hours is regarded as the school's (and homeroom teacher's) responsibility....
So maybe all this is able to counter-act any chemical imbalance, maybe there is less opportunity for child abuse to go unnoticed like in the west.....i don't know....but it's another avenue to explore.....
 
One of the problems in looking at behavior is you end up with figures like 75%, 84%, 55%, what about the other 25%, 16%, 45%? It is merely an association and not necessarily the cause. Until we understand the matter better we have to attempt to control murderers by removing them from society. I am fairly sure they are products of society, however we lack the knowledge to prevent murders, so must deal with what we have. Even if it turns out that some hormone level is responsible for some killings this would just give us a preventative to try to keep those murderers from repeating.
 
it gets a bit "minority report" - arresting people before they commit a crime, because you're pretty sure they will......
it all seems to come down to a debate on utilitarianism.....which are more important - the rights of the individual or those of the group?

i would tentatively say the group....but then i'd probably disagree if i was the individual....:D
 
I think it's best to approach sociopathic personalities or pedophiles similar to how we treat ebola or sharks or other dangers to society. Certainly the Y chromosome is involved to some extent in violent behavior--men kill more people and commit more violence than women. And brain damage and environment and genetics can all play a role. But the bottom line is not what causes this behavior, but how we keep people who exhibit dangerous behavior from hurting others. (I'm all for castration, personally...some people should not be released into society with their gonads--repeat violent sexual offenders and pedophiles, for example.) Some people have problems controlling primal type behaviors (look at all the super obese people who cannot control their food intake without help.)

I am reminded about the Alzheimers patient that drove the wrong way on the freeway and killed 6 people. What good is punishment. Let's just make damn sure he doesn't get behind the wheel again.
 
I less than three logic said:
I’m probably a bit harsh on the subject, but I don’t necessarily agree with diminished responsibility for mental handicaps. Especially so for “temporary insanity”, don’t buy that defense one bit. What’s to stop them from “temporarily” going insane again should similar circumstances come along? If someone commits acts of violence they are dangerous to society, whether they are mentally ill or not. Sure, the treatment for the mentally ill should be different, but the results should remain the same. That is to remove the threat they pose by removing them from the public.
Click to expand...

Which is what is usually done. The "temporary" thing hardly ever flies, IIRC
 
If someone has enough mental ability to carefully plan out a crime, they should be held responsible for committing that crime. Doesn't matter what their genes or society is like, at all.

As for unplanned crimes: You have to examine if the person is mentally stable or not (we can get into a whole argument about how to do that, but for argument's sake, let's assume we have the ability to do it). In BOTH cases, the person ought to be punished - although the mentally unstable person more caringly than the sane. However, society matters not.

In summary: "Society" is the scapegoat of the uncivilized.

(ETA: Brain chemical imbalances directly due to genetics are not part of society.)
 
andyandy said:
it gets a bit "minority report" - arresting people before they commit a crime, because you're pretty sure they will......
Click to expand...

Aha, I knew it! You're underestimating the number of people with high testosterone levels and lower seratonin levels. At least, I think they're large enough for you to underestimate them. And I will continue living in this reality until I see a more thoroughly explained one.

Men are much more likely to be murderers than women, and women are more likely to abuse their spouses. Statistical prediction is not causation, and causation is the measure that shapes the law.
 
rwguinn said:
One can be predisposed to something, and make a choice not to go ther. Genetic predisposition to alcoholism can be overcome by chosing not to drink. I know this. One who choses the POV that society's rules are non-applicable to himself has shown what he thinks of society, and must be willing to accept the consequences of society withdrawing from him.
Or her--no sexism here.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but what makes you (or someone you know, not sure if you're talking about yourself) different to the person that can't overcome the desire to drink alcohol despite the dire consequences?

Because they have no will power. Why?
They're lazy. Why?
etc

Getting back to the OP, it's an interesting question and leads to a case for jails only being used as protection, for the public, and a deterent, not a punishment.
This doesn't change the amount of people we lock up, it just changes the reasons for doing it.
 
Just to show how muddy the waters become if you start to look at chemical/biological explanations for crimes....

Testosterone has been related to aggressive criminal behavior in a number of studies, almost as many as those linking crime to the female menstrual cycle. It is believed that high levels of testosterone reduce a person's social integration, making them more of a loner, and freeing them up to deviate from society's norms. Female menstrual cycles have been linked to irritability, aggression, and a patterned increase in hostility. Some 70% of women in prison claim to have committed their crimes while experiencing PMS (53% before menstruation; 17% during). Androgens are basically masculinizing hormones. Women normally have one-tenth as much testosterone as men. Too much androgen in the mother's body during pregnancy and birth is associated with aggressive behavior in children.

Serotonin is probably the most important neurotransmitter in criminology. As stated previously, antisocial people have lower levels of serotonin. This may be either genetic or environmental, because neurotransmitter balances are constantly changing as memories are stored in the brain. Every new memory permanently changes the neural pathway structure, thus creating the opportunities for neurotransmitter imbalances. People who are genetically endowed with lower serotonin levels ("born antisocials") may therefore "grow out of it", and likewise, someone who is born with normal serotonin levels may develop an antisocial personality (what is called "reduced serotonergic activity" or a "serotonin uptake problem"). Reduced serotonic activity and crime is one of the strongest connections in biopsychological criminology.

Brain wave activity has been studied, and the general finding is that criminals have slower brain waves, i.e., slower EEG activity. Whether this is an indicator of a central or autonomic nervous system problem depends upon the researcher. The work of criminologist Hans Eysenck points at one of the reasons for why criminals can beat the lie detector is because their slower autonomic nervous system results in their not being easily stimulated, hence they seek out exciting, criminal behavior in a "stimulus hunger". Mednick, a sociobiologist, points out that criminals have a lower rate of skin conductance response (SCR), the time it takes the skin to conduct electrical current. He argues that this affects the ability of criminals to benefit from negative reinforcement, and since fear is the most powerful reinforcer known to psychology, criminals experience no fear or anxiety. Lobe dysfunction, which can occur with head injury or birth trauma, also has been studied in criminals. Prisoners often report having had a head injury involving loss of consciousness, and 80% of violent criminals had greater than average birth complications. There's evidence to suggest that frontal lobe dysfunction may characterize violent offenders while temporal lobe dysfunction may characterize sex offenders. Research involving newer imaging techniques (MRI, CT, PET, SPECT) is ongoing.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect05.htm
 
Even if there is no chemical connection between murderers and non-murderers, killers are still, in a sense, victims. When it really comes down to it, whether it is fuelled by chemicals, previous experiences, abnormal lusts, or thoughts, we're all at the mercy of our brains, and none of us really get to decide how those brains turn out.

That doesn't mean we should be any more forgiving to murderers, though.

They still need to be locked away so they don't harm again.
 
I know I'm generalising wildy. But if you are mentally fit to make the choice to kill someone for whatever reasons - be they jealousy, anger, financial gain, plan out the finer details of the murder, cover your tracks so you don't get caught, then you're mentally fit to stand trial and be fully responsible for your actions.

If its a 'crime of passion' - a normally lucid person pushed over the edge to murder by circumstances and / or brain chemicals then sorry - I still don't want that person standing next to me in the supermarket or behind me when I wait for a tube. We all have a choice to control that beast within us and if you can't control yours then unfair as it may seem, that person has proved that they can flip at any time and are not responsible enough to be part of society

If someones brain chemistry pushes them beyond the bounds of reality and they are completely at the mercy of seratonin / testosterone imbalances, then all the more reason for them to be out of circulation. I know this sounds cruel, and I know it gets back to the argument of imprisoning people for our protection or as a punishment, and not for reasons of rehabilitation.

But to have large sections of society who we acknowledge to be completely unable to control their violent and aggressive urges walking freely among us because 'is not their fault' doesn't compute.

Can any of us honestly say that if we were not in a current lucid, balanced state (I know I'm making a big assumption about the audience here:) ), and we knew that at some point in the future we were going to lose that grasp of reality and become raging beasts....would we not want ourselves off the streets?
 
The other issue is if you do tests on people who have committed no crime, who will find out? Maybe their girl friend? Or other friends? Could this lead to them committing a crime they would otherwise not commit?
 
I have a low (zero) concern for why a person murders - if it is murdering someone I care for, I will do my best to see they don't survive and if not, I would hope others would. They have no right to inflict their problems on others. I do accept that there may be good reason to kill (I distinguish I admit) and simply do not classify that as murder. Killing a person who harmed/killed another for gain, for revenge (for informing to police in developed/really democratic, non-totalitarian countries, for killing a relative who was committing a crime or committing violence on others, etc. - it's a long list) are good reasons by my standards. I,by the way, have no problem with vigilantes (given certain quirks in our legal system - but then I think that police should be able to smack a smart mouth across the head if he is smart-mouthing - and don't ever get me started on defense attorneys and why I want to dramatically change how they can operate - but if there is a thread on crime labs and police/fire investigators and/or DA's running for office on peoples lives (Neither has happened to me personally by the way) I would sound like I was on the other side. All I want is perfection in the law and its' application.
 
I've got major problem with vigilantes.

Even given correct training and supervision, we know how infallible a police officer can be given the wrong set of circumstances or the wrong mindset. How does that work with an unelected, untrained member of the public who has watched a few too many Michael Winner movies gets together with a bunch of like minded people and decides to mete out justice 'street style'. Can you see a disaster waiting to happen? Get the media to stir up a bit of tension about the latest 'crime de joure' and you have pitchfork bearing, torch wielding hordes on the streets lynching people.

I'm not being dramatic. We had paedophile fever in Britain a couple of years ago and pretty soon, thanks to The Sun, we all believed that every street had at least three child molesters living in it. They're easy to spot you know - they all look like perverts... - and we had patrols in the streets throwing bricks through windows. And thanks to the mental age of the average sun reader and the availability of yellow pages, we even had at least one paediatrician hounded out of his home just because the words appeared similar.

Lunacy. Don't go downt that road. Talking of killing someone makes me very uneasy - I'm very anti-death penalty. I have no qualms about taking someone off the streets and giving them a life behind bars.
 
There was an episode of Star Trek a few years ago that dealt with this topic. A sociopathic murderer on death row suffered a head injury, and was treated with nano-probes. In healing his injuries, however, they also corrected the brain defect that caused him to be a sociopath. Now he was suddenly wracked with guilt for all the terrible things he had done. The big moral dilemma: Did he still deserve to die for his crimes?

Pretty good episode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom