Not quite hypothetical question: Genetic crime correlation

[Erik Mesoy]

Okay, so I've seen a bunch of suggestion that we incarcerate by group in order to be sure we catch the [offenders here]. For example, Red Stranger said just now in another thread that it was okay to capture 14000 people because we had probably caught 1400 suspected terrorists. The generalization of this is that it's okay to capture and imprison many members of [group] if [group] has a high prevalence of [evil people].

Now, I'd like to ask about a sort of genetic marker question in the same veign: If we know that, for example, 95% of all violent crimes are comitted by a certain group of people with a distinct characteristic, how acceptable is it to imprison large numbers of people with this characteristic?

For those wanting exact numbers so they can deal with cases, let's say that US prisons contain a fourteen-to-one ratio of people with the Evil Genetic Marker of Criminality compared to those without it.

Should we begin screening for this genetic marker in any way?

Please explain.

(And if you know where I stole this from, or you recognize it, please don't spoil it. It would be nice to see a discussion of this in the hypothetical, at least for a while.)

 

[JonnyB]

It's Innocent until proven guilty. Not Innocent unless statistically likely to become guilty of something at a future date.
I thought we learned this lesson from the Japanese internment camps in WW2

 

[carlosMM]

If such a correlation existed, I think it would be OK to SCREEN these people without direct evidence - that is if a crime has bene commited you will, in addition to those who are suspects, check out all those in the vincinity who have the marker.

Imprison? Never!


We live in a free society that grants equal rights to all. Obviously, individual rights may be restricted for the good of the people, but this would be unnecessary (just to lazy to do proper crime prevention).




@JonnyB: well said

 

[El_Machinae]

Gene nothing:
Fetal alcohol syndrome ... is associated with a plethora of problems in adulthood: 60 percent have trouble with the law, 50 percent are involuntarily confined, and 50 percent are accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour.

The strongest correlated behaviour by upbringers to innappropriate behaviour was treating the child as being worse/dumber than it actually was.

 

[Brighteye]

yep, same again. No imprisonment without guilt. It's called justice, and I value it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Would it be immoral for someone with this putative genetic condition to choose not to have children as a result of passing on this genetic condition?

 

[Brighteye]

People are allowed to choose not to have children for whatever reasons they like. Their thoughts are their own, and having children is not compulsory.

Of course, if they were forbidden from having children then that would be a bad law.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Nobody wants to defend this form of grouping-by-marker, as opposed to, say, arresting Arab Muslims from the Middle East?

Okay, let's hypothetically say that in addition to the fourteen-to-one rate of incarceration, Bin Laden has this genetic marker, and so did the 9/11 hijackers, and the 7/7 bombers. (Don't ask how this is known.)

 

[CartesianFart]

People are allowed to choose not to have children for whatever reasons they like. Their thoughts are their own, and having children is not compulsory.

True that it is not compulsory,but i like to add that as long as the one element or many in culture(speaking on behalf of my country) that give a sense of purpose on bearing childrens,there will always be bad criminals producing more 'potential-in-waiting' criminals.Of course,what is a criminal?A criminal who wants nothing to contribute to society for the whole.So it is not in that fact that we should lock up these individuals for the prevention of producing more potential criminal individuals,but to take custody of these potential-in-waiting son or daughter of the criminal that is locked up in order to reform any elements of contamination by these said criminals.The State can do better to eliminate this problem in society,then trying to reform the contaminated parents or single parent.

 

[warpus]

I'd only be okay with this if this is how it was implemented:

1. Crime takes place
2. According to past data, people with gene X are more likely to commit this crime
3. People with gene X who might have had a motive / live in the area / were in the area at the time of the crime / the detectives are suspicious of for one reason or another, are brought in for questioning

... and that's as far as we take this.

Throwing people in jail because they have this gene? NO.

Innocent before proven guilty, biatch.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Okay, so I've seen a bunch of suggestion that we incarcerate by group in order to be sure we catch the [offenders here]. For example, Red Stranger said just now in another thread that it was okay to capture 14000 people because we had probably caught 1400 suspected terrorists. The generalization of this is that it's okay to capture and imprison many members of [group] if [group] has a high prevalence of [evil people].

Now, I'd like to ask about a sort of genetic marker question in the same veign: If we know that, for example, 95% of all violent crimes are comitted by a certain group of people with a distinct characteristic, how acceptable is it to imprison large numbers of people with this characteristic?

For those wanting exact numbers so they can deal with cases, let's say that US prisons contain a fourteen-to-one ratio of people with the Evil Genetic Marker of Criminality compared to those without it.

Should we begin screening for this genetic marker in any way?

Please explain.

(And if you know where I stole this from, or you recognize it, please don't spoil it. It would be nice to see a discussion of this in the hypothetical, at least for a while.)

If only we had such a genetic marker. Fact is that genetics is only 50% of the story, and the environment is the other. Having a gene that predisposes you to a given disease (let's call it "criminalism") increases your chances of getting it, but it's by no means guaranteed. I would say that if we had such a genetic marker, we should screen everyone at birth, but then do nothing until the first felony is committed. Those convicted of that crime should get harsher penalties, perhaps double the prison time, fine, or an upgrade in penalty, such as a lifetime in prison upgraded to execution. The rationale for this is that such people are unlikely to be fixed and so need to be removed from the population more readily. Many people are looking into the possibility of child sexual predators as bearing such a gene.

 

[carlosMM]

btw, there is a know factor linked quite well to crime: intelligence! Stupid people tend to get caught early on, while smart ones keep commiting crime after cimreaftercrimeaftercrime....... it pays, after all!


(hint: prison pop have average intelligence, but the dumber the more likely caught. So where are the smart criminals?)

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Hehe. Came across this while looking for another thread. Might as well bump it and reveal the answer...

If only we had such a genetic marker.

We do.

The common factor (bin Laden, 14-to-1 in prisons, etc) is being male.