Karen, I agree. It isn't a hot button issue for me particularly but it is the tip of the iceberg for a whole host of social issues involving our approach to crime and punishment.
In most cases I think they probably got the right guy, but "most" is not all. Someone made the argument that even the ones that aren't guilty probably weren't stellar citizens. That argument seems perfunctory and not very balanced. Even if one thinks that "criminals get what they deserve" unlike most punishments meted out, the utter permanence of this one is rather disturbing. If we look around the world, we are the ONLY First World power still doing it. That should tell us something.
I think that people are largely the result of their genetics and environment in combination. In that sense, a serial killer is not responsible for what they do. Does that mean they should roam free, killing? No! But neither do I think we should debase ourselves by committing the acts for which they would be punished.
We should certainly study them and try to find a mechanism. At some point a defective brain may be incurable even if found early. What if a genetic predisposition for violence was found? It would probably only manifest at some proportion in those that had the gene, largely depending upon environmental stressors. How many expectant mothers do you think would abort a fetus with a 90% predisposition for violent behavior? I think it is probably the same as those who found evidence for spina bifida.
If we don't do something proactively, what do you do with 20,000 people of which 18,000 are likely to commit violent crimes but at the same time 2,000 may never do it? There are also civil liberty issues involved. It is probably best if those at risk weren't born in the first place, but I'm sure that sounds like eugenics to some.
These are complicated issues, IMO, with no easy set of answers. People that want easy answers are willfully ignoring some outcomes. |
