/sci/ - Science & Math

welcome to philosophy.

you are about 2500 years behind, have a good read.

What if I have a genetic predisposition to want to see criminals put in jail?

>>2369202
its not exactly their fault, but that doesnt mean that they will just be let off and not punished.
some people are just destined to act like that, and then destined to go to prison.
there is no free will.

Yes, testosterone production for example.

That's how society works and punishment for those who do not play well with others is probably connate too...as a control mechanism.

Society doesn't care about any of that. It is self-preserving, taking every step necessary to its survival, no matter if it tramples the rights of individual people in the process.

now bring this topic up in your intro philosophy class. Instead of violence, try "sex with children" instead and wait for the lulz

Where is that picture from OP? I've seen one other picture, is there a whole set waiting out there on the internet?

>>2369265

to answer OP, yes, there is a genetic predisposition to anger and violence that can be due to an inborn error of metabolism. we tried to set up a study to look for a suite of such errors in a specific biochemical pathway among a prison population, but the ethics are deep & murky.
Your second question is, to what extent are any of us actually responsible for our actions, especially if they cause harm to self or others, if you're genetically predisposed?
You tell us OP, draw your line in the sand.

Criminal Justice doesn't care about the underlying causes of crime, its purpose is to protect the innocent. Just because a psychopath has no conscience and no impulse control, is not a reason to excuse their actions: In fact, its a good reason to lock them up indefinitely. Think that's unfair? Welcome to life.

Incarceration holds four goals. These are, in no particular order : retribution, deterrence, exclusion, rehabilitation.

The latter two are specific to this kind of punishment. It's about, on the one side, to alienate a made-up group called the criminals from the rest of society and cut the traditional sympathy and solidarity between the people and the convicts; on the other side, it's about reforming the individual criminal into some kind of honest citizen.

The two being in theory opposites, they reached an equilibrium that more or less fit the political situation of the moment. Excluding a part of the population is okay because we make efforts to redeem them, and anyway whether it's their fault or not, we can't have criminals around, because they're not like us, right ? If they were, they would not be separated from us...

And it works.
Also, psychiatrists, that like to take care of things, were given control of the ones who are not considered at fault for whatever they did.

So far OP (as far as I know) there is no identified gene that may be solely responsible for outbreaks of violence/rage in an individual.

The only condition I know of is a variation in the MAO-A gene (codes for an enzyme that breaks down certain neurotransmitters) where less of the enzyme is produced and thus individuals may be more likely to outbursts, or risk taking.
However it occurs with relatively high frequency in certain populations and I think it's a bullshit defense, there's plenty of other people with the same condition that don't do these kinds of things.
Google MAO-A or Warrior gene. There was an article in new scientist a few months ago too.