Free Will and Criminal Culpability

[Darth Wong]

Suppose scientists discovered a "criminal gene". In other words, suppose it could be shown that a person with this particular gene is almost guaranteed to commit criminal acts as he gets older. Would this weaken the case for harsh punishment, based on the "it's not really his fault" free will argument?

A lot of criminal defenses already rely on free-will arguments, eg- "he was abused as a child", or "he had emotional problems", etc.

There is a history of people getting lighter sentences if it can be shown that their personal histories constitute a mitigating factor. The prevalence of highly questionable insanity defenses is another example. So in the extreme scenario where it could hypothetically be shown that a particular criminal was genetically predisposed to commit crime, would you support lighter sentencing? Or would you say "fuck him"?

[Imperial Overlord]

I would support more money for gene therapy research. Being abused as a child is a mitigating factor, in my opinion, that doesn't excuse the crime but does affect whether you should be spending your time breaking rocks or in therapy. After all, when these guys get out we don't want them offending again. Being genetically inclined doesn't erase the crime or the harm it does, but it should affect our rehabilitation and prevention options.

[Stormin]

There would be a change in sentencing, yes, but regardless of whether these people are predetermined to commit crimes they still must be removed from the rest of the population for the greater good.
To answer the main question, sentences will not be quite so much prison time but there may be treatments (chemical or otherwise possibly) that may actually be worse from the point of view of the person getting them.

[wolveraptor]

I would be opposed to lightening sentencing time, due to the precedent that might, and has already in the case of insanity and emotional problems, set. I mean, if a man is predisposed to be a serial killer, it's not very safe to give him a 10 year sentence for killing Mike Hunt, and then letting him out, even if he is on parole. It's safer for society as a whole if the dude is on lock down, as is true of most of the criminally predisposed, unless it can quantifiably be shown that therapy can help them. Even then, it'd be much like the fundie "gay camps", only with more rational motives. Surpressing one's genetic desire is a difficult thing.

And of course, the gene therapy industry would recieve a fuckton of money.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Let's say there is a new and highly intelligent species, thanks to Q, which is instinctually bent on killing all other intelligent life. Would anyone except the peaceniks oppose exterminating all, but a few zoo specimens if war broke out?
-Unless a solution can be found that will accommodate this new "genetic predisposition" and the goals of society at large there is going to be a fight. The only questions are whether society will recognize that there is, in fact, an unavoidable fight and what will society do about it.
-If it were "my" society these "predisposed" people would be neutralized as a threat as efficiently as possible while trying to minimize the suffering on their side. However, I wouldn't sacrifice much happiness on my side to do it. I just wouldn't be callous with respect to their suffering.

[Surlethe]

Suppose scientists discovered a "criminal gene". In other words, suppose it could be shown that a person with this particular gene is almost guaranteed to commit criminal acts as he gets older. Would this weaken the case for harsh punishment, based on the "it's not really his fault" free will argument?

A lot of criminal defenses already rely on free-will arguments, eg- "he was abused as a child", or "he had emotional problems", etc.

There is a history of people getting lighter sentences if it can be shown that their personal histories constitute a mitigating factor. The prevalence of highly questionable insanity defenses is another example. So in the extreme scenario where it could hypothetically be shown that a particular criminal was genetically predisposed to commit crime, would you support lighter sentencing? Or would you say "fuck him"?

As you pointed out here,

The criminal justice system has three purposes:

1. To deter crime, by setting up a system of penalties for committing it.
2. To rehabilitate criminals so that they can become useful members of society rather than the worthless dregs that they are now.
3. To generate a sense of confidence among the general population that their society is reasonably safe and that it values law-abiding citizens much more than it values criminals.

The first two purposes are made invalid by the genetic predisposition because they presuppose free will, which in this case does not exist: a criminal who is genetically predisposed to such actions will not be rahabilitated by anything short of gene therapy, and will not be deterred. Thus, the only pertinent point is #3: how will the criminal justice system generate confidence among the populace in its handling of this particular brand of criminal? Presumably, the criminal justice system would remove them from society: the greater the crime, the greater the isolation. Indeed, one could make a case these criminals are sociopathic because the genetic predisposition will necessarily skew their judgment so far they will disregard social and legal norms in their behavior. Thus, based on this assessment, I would advocate removal from society, and further research into genetic treatment.

[Quadlok]

In such a case, until such time as a wa to neutralize such a genetic abnormality, longer prison terms would be justified. After all, you've got veritable proof that, if released, an individual will reoffend. So keep them in lockdown until they can be cured, even if what they did is relatively minor.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Suppose scientists discovered a "criminal gene". In other words, suppose it could be shown that a person with this particular gene is almost guaranteed to commit criminal acts as he gets older. Would this weaken the case for harsh punishment, based on the "it's not really his fault" free will argument?

Yes. I imagine it would bring into doubt the mental state.

There is a history of people getting lighter sentences if it can be shown that their personal histories constitute a mitigating factor. The prevalence of highly questionable insanity defenses is another example. So in the extreme scenario where it could hypothetically be shown that a particular criminal was genetically predisposed to commit crime, would you support lighter sentencing? Or would you say "fuck him"?

I'd still ask what can be done? If it's apart of this persons genetic makeup then he/she obviously can't be rehabilitated.

My suggestion is to build a large wall around New York and then ship these people there.

I'd say fuck em, unless they found a way to rehabilitate.

[RedImperator]

If a gene exists which compels criminal behavior (which, by my understanding of how genes affect behavior, is impossible, but we're playing with a hypothetical here), then the whole concept of prison is moot for these people. Prisons exist to punish offenders, rehabilitate, and deter possible future offenders. These genetic criminals can't be rehabilitated, and harshly punishing them won't deter other genetic criminals (regular criminals probably won't be impressed either, as they'll likely assume laws for genetic criminals don't apply to them). Lightly punishing them is foolish, unless they're only being compelled to do something stupid like shoplift at 7-11. If we're talking about serial rapists or murderers who can't help commiting their crime of choice, it would be an act of madness to let them back into society.

Really, in this kind of scenario, the only solution is to permantly isolate the genetic criminals, either in prison or exile somewhere. I'd prefer exile myself, and save prison space for people who can be reformed by the criminal justice system. Under no circumstances would I keep these people mixed with regular criminals.

[bekeleven]

I remember hearing about a gene like this a few years ago, in an article about "should scientists release people on parole before testing them?" It was something-19 (the gene).


I think that, as scientists unravels more mysteries of the brain, thay'll find more and more how free will doesn't exist, and that conciousness is a set of stimuli and responses, IE the Chinese room model. However, we must, for society to be effective, treat people as thogh they had a choice in their actions; if you don't then the stimuli of reprecussions for crimes would go down, leading to chaos. Therefore, we act as thogh everyone has a choice, and so does everyone else, and the result is civilization.

[Pick]

To me what to do would rely somewhat on what crimes it predisposed them to. If it was petty theft the person was liable to commit, I'd think differently than if it was murder.

If someone were truly murderous or insatiably prone to rape as a result of a genetic flaw, I would support having them in a special facility. Though it would cut down on their personal freedoms, it would not do so as much as if they were in a prison as well as having had an innocent suffer the results of their actions.