Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Backwards? (Score 1) 507

by dferrantino (#29982310) Attached to: Murderer With "Aggression Genes" Gets Reduced Sentence
Let me first clarify that I think the ruling is completely ridiculous and a person's genes should never be used by any legal system to determine a person's liability for a crime. Slippery slope, etc. Being predisposed to something doesn't make it okay, because you still made the choice to do it.

My issue here is that if you take the argument "genes did it," how do you plan to fix that? You remove the person from responsibility, removing them from their behavior. If they can't be held responsible from their behavior, how does reform help?

Comment: Re:Backwards? (Score 1) 507

by dferrantino (#29981272) Attached to: Murderer With "Aggression Genes" Gets Reduced Sentence
And it can be argued just the same that people predisposed to violence will be far more likely to do it again, "reformed" or not. What happens when they're in a situation when it's harder to control themselves (drunk, etc)? Just an example but it's appropriate here, and I know the obvious response is that they should know better, but really, if they couldn't control themselves once, would you honestly trust someone to compose themselves in the future, knowing that they're predisposed to doing it again? What do you do about sociopaths? They're predisposed to crime and could similarly be found to be less liable for their actions too. What do you do about them? Do you give them a shorter sentence and release them because it wasn't their fault? On average, people using the insanity plea spend twice as long institutionalized. Pure sociopaths don't even get to use this plea, and the notable among them are sentenced to life or death.

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

Working...