Murderer With "Aggression Genes" Gets Reduced Sentence 507
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.'"
Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
... personal responsibility? Controlling our behaviour is one of the things that differentiates us from animals.
Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic, isn't he more dangerous, and therefore should get a longer sentence?
Only if the purpose of imprisonment is to keep dangerous people off the street.
Finding a consensus on the purpose of imprisonment is pretty much impossible.
Ah... do you smell that? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
In some countries like Latvia people go to jail (Score:1, Insightful)
Practical Usage (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where's the... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Where's the... (Score:1, Insightful)
Is personal responsibility compatible with atheism? Before you break out the troll mods, I ask this in seriousness. If we are nothing more than a chemical being, then where does personal responsibility come into play? I am the raw computer I was born with, influenced by external factors beyond my control. I would never blame a computer for a programmer's error. How do we blame a person for its hardware and programming?
Re:Practical Usage (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course - it also means that if you happen to kill someone while drinking and driving - you will receive a reduced sentence due to the fact you are pre-disposed to the condition. You will likely get a pat on the back from MADD for *only* killing 1 person instead of 10.
Congratulations - you have a free pass.
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. I hold both these beliefs. The justice system is not about blame, it's about keeping criminals safe from society and (in my mind) rehabilitating them.
You would never blame a computer for a programmer's error, but you would try to fix the bugs, and if there was a dangerous bug you couldn't fix you wouldn't use that computer.
Re:Backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're confusing your own conviction, with a consensus.
Truly, there is no consensus, and there probably never will be.
Re:Where's the... (Score:4, Insightful)
Says who?
By the way, you may be surprised to learn that humans are animals. We're apes, more specifically.
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is personal responsibility compatible with atheism?
Maybe not. That's not just an atheistic question though - it goes right to the basis of free will.
However, we can accept for the sake of argument that we're all just clockwork beings with no more control of our destiny than a computer program. My programming is telling me that if I am going to continue to achieve my primary objectives (shorthanded as "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"), then dangers to those primary objects (including violent criminals) must be neutralized. This guy's genes may be an excuse, and an explanation for his actions. However, that certainly doesn't make him any less dangerous.
The only way I'd want him to get less time on the basis of his "aggressive genes" is if he were to undergo a chemical or genetic treatment that reduces the effects of those genes.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personal responsibility is a pure fiction in a deterministic universe.
Except that quantum mechanics implies that we are not in a deterministic universe. Replay the same actions twice and you won't necessarily get the same outcome.
Why can it only be one? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that make the punitive aspects of the prison system (which have not been demonstrated to serve any rehabilitative goal) unconscionable?
Not surprising... (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
But... (Score:4, Insightful)
...don't we need to keep him locked up *longer*, since he's more likely to do it again?
Following that line of reasoning... (Score:4, Insightful)
The alcholic who was drunk driving and killed someone should get a reduced sentence?
Re:Where's the... (Score:1, Insightful)
Is personal responsibility compatible with atheism? Before you break out the troll mods, I ask this in seriousness. If we are nothing more than a chemical being, then where does personal responsibility come into play?
That is a question of determinism vs. predictability. There's no experiment you can perform that will prove the universe is determined. All you can ever prove is that the universe is predictable and predictability is not incompatible with free will. There are economic laws, such as "good money drives out bad money" which are not determined but rather arise from rational individuals behaving predictably.
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
And before someone else points it out, yes I meant "keeping society safe from criminals". First cup of coffee, yadda yadda.
If this really is genetic, wouldn't that be an argument for the death penalty as a method of selecting against that gene? Seems to me that giving such a light sentence is counterproductive here, if in fact it is genetic.
Re:Backwards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Finding a consensus on the purpose of imprisonment is pretty much impossible.
True. However, it would be extremely strange for a prison to release an inmate a year early because he is displaying unusually aggressive behaviour.
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hold similar beliefs, and to me, the punitive aspects of prison should only be as required to a) be a deterrence, b) serve as a lesson (as in you have to feel punished so you understand what you did is bad) and c) symbolically represent atonement to society. the latter part is really necessary because then the criminal can feel they deserved their punishment and got better from it, but also have the society consider someone who has finished his sentence as a new person.
Unfortunately, too many people feel that legal punishment is a means to avenge the victim. This is cruel, wasteful and essentially inefficient. Demand punishments as light as possible to deter: this will empty prisons, be less costly, and make for a more balanced society.
Re:Backwards? (Score:2, Insightful)
At one point I might have thought rehabilitation was possible, but as we learn more about genes we discover the brains in some people are simply wired for aggression, or inability to feel emotions, or inability to sympathize. These persons can not be rehabilitated and should be removed from society, especially if they've already spent time in prison (apparently they learned nothing from their first offense).
Re:Where's the... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's always quantum mechanics to throw a wrench in there.
Re:Whoa (Score:1, Insightful)
I think some should go for Slashdot. Some of us have the Troll/Flamebait gene and just can't help trashing Apple users, Windows users, and calling Linux users commie bastards - even though we ourselves may be big time Linux fans (writing this on my Ubuntu 9.1 which is working like a charm.)
I'm just nitpicking here, but that should be Ubuntu 9.10 (not 9.1) the version number refers to the year.month of release rather than some incremental set of revisions or a build number, so the 0 is important.
Can I argue that I have some sort of 'nitpicking gene' to avoid getting modded down?
That's backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Ban it! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Where's the... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't the 'Justice System' be about justice? It doesn't have anything to do with blame, safety, or rehab...
Re:Where's the... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Anyone who mounts a "my genes made me do it" defence should realize that their genes are, for now, immutable and so they are effectively claiming that they cannot be successfully rehabilitated and must be monitored or otherwise controlled for the rest of their lives.
Re:Where's the... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody controls their behavior any more than animals. In order to fit in we have to behave as though we want to fit in, it's simple feedback.
In other words, in order fit in we control our behavior so that we fit in?
Re:Where's the... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the... (Score:3, Insightful)
This essentially reflects my belief. If a person has a genetic disposition to murder and acts on it, they shouldn't be "punished" for this, but may need to be isolated from society. Of course, if we can cure the physical ill (i.e. schizophrenia) then we should cure rather than isolate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think personal responsibility is a crutch that people lean on instead of facing up to the fact that our problems and questions have difficult and complicated solutions. It's far easier to put responsibility on individuals than it is to admit that there may be genetic or social infrastructures issues that encourage criminality in some people and discourage it in others. If we can say the criminal is solely at fault for his actions, then we never acknowledge our own responsibility for the problems that the criminal was trying to correct.
The philosophical Free Will debate finally has a physical answer. Our actions are determined by our genetics, chemistry, upbringing, etc, and on back to the big bang, but the Uncertainty Principle guarantees that at some fundamental level, we can't deterministically predict the future. So the whole debate basically becomes meaningless.
Free Will, per se, is an illusion. So is determinism, for that matter, because on a practical level we can't do anything with it. The reality is that we each have a will (and really, internally we may have several, competing wills), and it is more or less free to act depending on the wills of those who would act for or against our wills. Nietsche solved this one more than a hundred years ago. Heisenberg confirmed it.
Re:Backwards? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it really isn't. In the US at least, the prison system is officially called the Department of Corrections (DoC), and prisons are also commonly referred to as correctional facilities.
Sure, and since we changed the War Department to the Department of Defense, we've only used our military in self-defense, right? Names are just names, and they don't necessarily reflect the true intentions of the times much less modern intentions years after a name essentially became a meaningless label for an institution that's grown beyond it.
Plus, "corrections" could easily refer to either rehabilitation or deterrence. Rehabilitation was a dominant theory in the 60's & 70's, but deterrence was the dominant political theory from the 80's onward with the massive push towards increased sentences and mandatory sentencing guidelines.
I get your point (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:Where's the... (Score:1, Insightful)
Speak for youself. I control myself all the time in what I eat, when I sleep, what I spend money on, and what I do with my time. Another thing I control myself on is how I treat other people. The level of control varies depending on some physiological and chemical factors (sleep, amount of coffee), but I manage to keep myself from head-butting other people pretty much all the time.
Calling all of this a simple effort to fit in is very facile, very vague and very wrong. The proof, or the closest I can come to proof on this soft-science question at the moment, is alcoholics: many of them kick the habit and stay off drink, despite the strong internal need for more of it. If an alkie saying 'no' to booze isn't self control, I don't know what is.
Re:I get your point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I get your point (Score:3, Insightful)
When we start imprisoning people on the likelihood of their committing a crime, you may have a point. Right now, not so much.
Likelihood? He did it. Convicted. And he got a reduced sentence by saying the 21st century version of "the Devil made me do it"
Re:Where's the... (Score:3, Insightful)
Conscious awareness of our own free will is something we each experience. It's fundamental, as basic to all our observations as it gets, and in fact more fundamental than the existence of an objective physical universe.
Every single experience you have ever had points to your existence as a consiousness. Only some of the experiences you have had point to an external common reality. Your emotions are experiences you have had, and point to you as the experiencer, but they don't prove there is a common reality we share. Your dreams are experiences you were conscious of, but your dreams certainly don't prove anything about an external reality, whether one we both share or even a hypothetical one where I'm not real and only you are. Your memories can be in error, you can be fooled by an optical or other sensory illusion, so you can't claim all your memories or all your sense experiences point to an objective external reality either, just some.
All the models that involve neurons, chemicals and electricty, or genetics or DNA as defining the "reality of the human situation" or "our existence", are based on the idea that you have enough proof of the validity of an external, physical universe to prove all those things you directly experience, but that don't help you prove the external part, the physical part, or the universe part (uni-verse means one structure with common laws throughout, after all - we are claiming the real thing that is all things has common rules and isn't just a chaos).
How can you claim that science, which is about the common, externalized, objectively verifiable universe, has the power to completely explain all those experiences that don't justify science itself, but the converse is basically false? Science explains things such as dreams by starting off saying "dreams are nothing more than electrical noise in a brain that isn't fully active". It 'explains' consiousness much the same way.
Yet you and everyone else (if you all really exist), have much more direct evidence for your own consciousness than you do for that external universe in which science works. How can you argue that less than 50% of your experiences prove that more than 50% of your experiences aren't real, and can safely be reduced to basic models that trivialize much of them? How can you argue that anything less than 100% of your experience can explain everything important, except by starting off with the assumption that the other parts simply can't possibly be important?
(Go ahead, argue you don't, and yet you somehow know I don't either even though you are simultaniously claiming there's no real you to know anything at all - that's called naive realism, and real philosophers brush their teeth with people who believe that).