What is Digg?52 Comments
- zspade, on 11/04/2009, -0/+37Let me get this straight... They determined this indivdual had genes that might make him more likely to kill... So they hastend his return to the public?
- mikeinto, on 11/04/2009, -0/+37"Your Honor my client's rape gene was acting up on the night in question."
- alexgdorman, on 11/04/2009, -1/+23ummm, if this whole "aggression gene" business is true, why would you want him back on the streets sooner?
- Frankzulla, on 11/04/2009, -2/+21I reckon folks should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of any certain predisposition.
- Nakket, on 11/04/2009, -0/+19Aggressive genes? Sounds like a pre-existing condition. Probably shouldn't give him health insurance.
- TBombadil, on 11/04/2009, -1/+17this seems like more of a reason to increase the sentence......
- MrFisty, on 11/04/2009, -1/+12Just wait til his midichlorian count comes in from the lab. Maybe then they can prove he was...
*sunglasses*
...forced to kill.
YEEEAAAAHHHH - noahgelman, on 11/04/2009, -0/+9You should let repliers to take care of the YEAH part. It helps us bond.
- Lavarock, on 11/04/2009, -0/+8So his genes made him a *****. So his ***** parents made him a *****. So the horrible rape he endured made him a *****. So the war made him a *****. So the gas made him a *****.
It doesn't matter. He's a *****. That sucks. He was ruined. But it's not about what made him that way. It's about what he is.
We put ***** in jail. We don't reserve jail for nice happy people who just woke up one day and twirled their mustaches and decided to be evil. Works for them too, but it's for all the *****. Hitler was only evil because he was traumatized for most of his life. Doesn't excuse him. If we'd caught him, we would have killed him. He was a *****. He probably had the same ***** gene as this guy, but that's getting into eugenics. - scyphozoa, on 11/04/2009, -0/+8GATTACA
- Velocity14, on 11/04/2009, -1/+8All things set aside, why would anyone cut sentences of people who have "aggression genes" anyway? I mean... shouldn't that be a red flag of some sort...?
(Edit: So apparently people have thought this thought before me.) - fragomatik, on 11/04/2009, -1/+6I'm going out on a limb here but I'd guess he was human
/s - sacxnz, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4Well men are much more aggressive than women, perhaps there should be a reduction in sentence for Y chromosomes.
- gankige, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4So, if my ancestors raped, pillaged, killed and burned... It's in my genes to do it to!
- byrdboy, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4YEEEAAAAHHHH
- thecoolestguy, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4That's ridiculous. If they don't have free will due to their genes, then they don't deserve freedom. Any one with that gene should have their freedom reduced on account that they have less ability to control themselves. That is what this logic ought to lead to.
This inconsistency in justice, which is motivated by a desire to let criminals off the hook, and an unwillingness to do justice to victims, leads to a society that breaks down. - Berkana, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4He should also be prevented from having offspring. If they want to make this about genes, we'll just have to go there.
- sndream, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3Well, as long as we can nutter him. Not doing so should be considered gross negligence.
- gcnaddict, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4Those of you suggesting that those with this gene should actually be held away from public even longer are missing a very thorny issue:
Eugenics is immoral.
Eugenics is immoral because every single person has a right to exist based on what they were given. If two people committed the same crime but one was predisposed for violent behavior, the one with a genetic predisposition must not receive a harsher sentence as it infringes on his right to a life based on his circumstances. In fact, the decrease in his sentence also follows this mindset as his condition is likely a disability which may be significantly harder for him to control. Therefore, giving him the same sentence as a criminal who actively committed a crime without predisposition despite the fact that the first guy was genetically predisposed for this kind of behavior also infringes on the predisposed person's right to a life based on his circumstances.
The argument may arise that no single person deserves a life based on a given set of circumstances, but if you were in his situation, I'm sure you would beg to differ. - DrCyclops, on 11/04/2009, -2/+5Since we live in a deterministic universe, nobody can truly be said to be "responsible" for his or her actions. This does not, however, excuse those actions. It merely explains them.
- Snottlebocket, on 11/04/2009, -1/+4Justice isn't about revenge, it's about accountability and keeping society safe by removing unsafe elements. If this guy has genes that give him a propensity for violence it's an extra reason to deal with him. Not an excuse to go easy.
- theghostofme, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Wait, so he's more prone to aggression and violence because of this "gene" so they're letting him off lighter? Christ, Bernie Madoff should have had this guy's attorney. "Your Honor, my client clearly shows early signs of the Greedy ***** Gene; what he did was not his fault."
- cfuse, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2I think someone needs to tell the judge how genes actually work. Still, better than that idiot jury that was using the Bible in deliberations on a death penalty case.
- banderwocky, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2Wouldn't this mean he is most likely to commit a violent act again? Why the hell would they reduce the sentence?
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Um....maybe because that's not what it is?.
- alexgdorman, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1:|
- EnderSaveUs, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1The article gives a good counter-argument if you actually read it.
Nita Farahany nailed it right on the head. "She says genes may provide a guide as to how someone is likely to behave, but they will never tell us why they committed a specific act."
I think the problem is as a society we are being somewhat negligent in creating environments or even allowing negative "predispositions" or genetics to be nurtured. I don't mean this in a eugenics sense, though, I'm speaking mainly in context to this specific case. The guy may have a predisposition to be violent, but there's an environment he grew up in that most likely nurtured it and there are most certainly events that led to him committing the murder.
Does that make him the victim? No, every person must be responsible for their own actions, but to say that he is completely responsible for his own actions is like saying he lived in a vacuum up until the murder. He is most definitely guilty of a heinous crime, but I'm going to assume he had a very good lawyer that was able to convince the jury that society also had a hand in allowing this genetic predisposition of violence to be nurtured or even thrive.
Crimes are, by a loose legal definition, offenses to society and if a lawyer is able to convince a jury that society has a hand in the offense the level of punishment may decrease (it really depends on the jury imo, some juries buy that ***** up and some are the complete opposite and of course there are the juries that are in between). - cybrguy, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1LOL, good point. A healthy dose of irony on this cupcake of stupid.
- Inaktivist, on 11/04/2009, -2/+3So let me get this straight... that fact that we can PROVE he has a tenancy towards violence gets him a reduced sentence? Makes sense to me.
- Fustigations, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1If eugenics is immoral one way, then it's immoral the other way too. Having this gene exposed should have no effect what so ever on the judgement
- bluesman3535, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1This is as bogus as OJ Simpson's judicial escape--- 'If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" Slip some money under the bench, blame genes as a cover and the judge gets a Happy Ending in Little Italy.
- gcnaddict, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Addendum: I mentioned eugenics because creating harsher sentences for people genetically predisposed for certain behaviors is exactly the direction needed for a eugenics program to begin.
Therefore, people predisposed for a particular behavior cannot and must not have their quality of life affected as a result of said predisposition. However, for the sake of public safety, measures which satisfy quality of life and the public must be implemented. I don't know what these would be, but extended jail sentences certainly don't count. - konsole1981, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Doesn't matter what I'm packin' in my denim it's what's in my genes. The only smoked meat the only sausage I would eat is made by Jimmy Dean..
- darkened, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I have to disagree with you on this, the "justice" system has changed from it being about correction and rehabilitation to just pure punishment. It's the entire reason recidivism is at all time highs because it does everything it can to ruin a person for life.
You goto prison for a few years, you're surrounded by nothing but other criminals and will be exposed to levels of crime beyond anything they already experienced. Now, they finally get out of jail and are forced to disclose they are an "ex-con" which they are labeled with and denied almost every single job because of it. So now they have no way to have income except everything that rubbed off on them in lock up. So they return to a life of crime because they're forced to by our society.
This needs to change where prison is more about bettering a person so they can come out and offer value to society through education, skills training and therapy. When you treat man like an animal for years and then let them out of their cage, how else can they be anything other than an animal? - sonofabe, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I'm not sure you'll get any more insight by knowing the race... but guessing from the name, Egyptian methinks?
- jhollida, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Many mental illnesses are genetically linked and mental illness is already, rightly so, a consideration in our justice system. As with mental illness, a genetic predisposition wouldn't excuse your actions but they certainly could be considered as mitigating circumstances in some cases. The role of the courts isn't to punish or to advocate for the victim, it's to judge the evidence and circumstances impartially.
Take the classic example of the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, he is clearly wrong to steal but given those circumstances we would all do the same. In a case like this the court would take these mitigating circumstances into consideration when sentencing the man and rather then sending him to jail for stealing he might instead be sentenced to pay back the store for the stolen bread and be given no time in jail.
Similarly, the defense lawyer for a person with a genetic predisposition to violence should have a responsibility to argue for a lenient sentence that maybe included anger management training or maybe medical treatment that might allow the individual to better control their anger. The prosecuting attorney would also argue any circumstances against leniency such as prior offenses. Ultimately the court then has to judge based on all the arguments what the best course of action is and that often includes leniency in consideration of the circumstances. I'd much rather a compassionate court system than a punitive one. - sniffymcdougle, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Don't like to curse on digg, but that is ***** up.
- biogears, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1The moral confusion continues.
- JustLoren, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I only dugg for the excessive use of "*****"
- r3bol, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1I was just about to say the same thing. I can't see the logic behind that one at all. Maybe it was reported from opposite land where all the murderers walk free and the pacifists are imprisoned until they kill stuff on a regular basis.
Seriously though, if they want to go down the, "it's in my genes" route, they should build more humane prisons for these people and keep them locked away for good. - copypastry, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1Forget pleading the fifth... plead the fifth chromosome!!
- Crazymage, on 11/04/2009, -0/+0I think this judge was unaware of the fact that just because something is genetic doesn't mean it cannot be changed/avoided. The man obviously chose to be a murderer and deserves his time.
- Stormwern, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2BS, everyone's born with issues they need to deal with. If you're a responsible human being you'll realize that uncontrolled rage is a bad thing and put in a greater effort to stay calm. Different story for people who are actually incapable of controlling themselves, as that falls in the mental illness category.
- inactive, on 11/04/2009, -0/+0"Mens rea".
- DareToDelve, on 11/05/2009, -0/+0I don't know whether to "Digg" this so more people see it and the sheer absurdity, or just dig a hole and bury it for the garbage it is. (Of course, that wouldn't change the fact that it ACTUALLY HAPPENED> WHAT THE HELL?) I feel my feet slipping and gravity pulling me down a slope.
"Leaving aside the question of whether this link is well enough understood to justify Reinotti's decision" Yeah, let's leave that one little wrinkle out- that genetics and neuroscience are convoluted tangles of interactions. And I think this thread's response to the rest of the question: "should genes ever be considered a legitimate defence?" has been pretty unanimous . . . and I SERIOUSLY, with every fiber and nucleotide of my being, hope opinion stays this way. - crenzero, on 11/04/2009, -0/+0yeah this is why they're playing around with chemical neutering, cause they figure if their junk is gone its not rape, its just murder and sexual assault.
- khail250, on 11/04/2009, -1/+1We went a long way from the OJ Simpson trial
- Disgod, on 11/04/2009, -2/+2***** NO. Dammit, I'm all for genetic testing to figure out what makes people tick, but in the end it really is the INDIVIDUAL responsible for their own actions. Genetics are not precise, even the same genes can produce radically different results, even identical twins can sometimes end up radically different. It is the INDIVIDUAL who in the end, genetic tendencies or not, chose to commit those actions. There can be thousands of people with that exact same gene that do not ever commit murder or a jail worthy crime. Genetics does not take responsibility away from the individual, sadly lawyers are able to make a brilliant argument that I am wrong, which is probably what happened here.
Now, what we should do is in the future is use this knowledge to assist people before they commit crimes and let them understand that they do have a propensity for aggression and try and work on it before it becomes a problem. Right now people are screwed, but that's life. They were born before technology caught up with life.
Note: Wrote this after reading headline only, and realize after reading it I basically said pretty much the same thing the article says. - DotFreelance, on 11/04/2009, -1/+0That really is the question; what can we do to keep these dangerous people from the public, but how can we ensure their continued access to quality of life?
I think until we are capable of genetic modification, we really are forced to impact this man's quality of life. - ElAmo, on 11/04/2009, -2/+1so pedophiles should get lesser crimes than the average joe child molesters, cause ya know, pedophiles have it in their genetics.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is