Cleaning out the gene pool

[Drealoth]

I thought of this while reading the death penalty thread, and thought that it was worthy of its own thread.

What if, as an addition to punishment of more serious offences, the offenders were rendered sterile, as it has been often proved that mental traits are at least in part genetic. Also, what if we were to render their direct family (children) sterile as well, to stop that thread of the gene pool?

Now I understand that many of you will say that this is inhumane and immoral but what if it worked, and these crime rates dropped? Is it worth doing something that could be seen as inhumane if it could mean an end to rapists and murderers?

[Aravi]

IMO, the sterilization of the children for the sins of the father is out of line. I do not see how you could justify it.

Although as a punishment to the actual criminal - possibly. Many moral issues to be considered first however. Sterilization should only be considered when it was the criminals personality not situation that lead to the crime - and would have to be a punishment for repeat offences for most crimes.

[Drealoth]

To the children, I meant it only to further stop the continuation of the 'faulty' genes.

[Aravi]

I understand that, but the children have committed no crime. Hence such an act against them would be unjust.

[47Ronin]

No one is touchin my cucumber and tomatos.

[Tireces]

Originally posted by Drealoth
Now I understand that many of you will say that this is inhumane and immoral but what if it worked, and these crime rates dropped? Is it worth doing something that could be seen as inhumane if it could mean an end to rapists and murderers?

Maybe a serial rapist should be made to be sterilized (so if the idiot does it again, he doesnt give the poor girl he goes after a baby dilemma), but not every offender. Sure, it'd reduced the crime rate, but mostly because people wouldnt wanna be sterilized, not because criminals are made by genetics. And just because it would lower the crime rate doesnt make it right. Instituting death by meathook impaling as a punishment for every crime would lower it to. Does that make it right?

[YODA]

While we're at it why don't we have selective breeding so that only the best genes combine and survive? That way we could breed a Master Race and take over the world!!!!

Wait - it's been tried - didn't work (Thankfully)

[snake_vs_crane]

yep, its that same old argument, if we embraced totalitarianism we could make everything run nice and smoothly, i believe a guy called lenin tried it in a place called russia...

[Knight_Errant]

A master race that would consider actually creating a master race through morally wrong methods would be highly undesirable

Hint: Eugenics sucks and is based on totally incorrect science ;)

[morphus]

Tidying up the genes? Is it wrong?
Sterilisation? Someone said what about the babies they didn't do anything...What babies?? It's just sperm & eggs.(and i'll some toast aswell)

I think sterilising isn't a bad idea. But maybe castration for sex offenders is better(as long as it's 100% proved) & the death penalty too(again for 100% proved)
I doubt if sterilisation would bring the numbers of crimes down.
Heir & Frau Hitler were supposed to have been pleasent enough, look what happened there.:rolleyes:

[Drealoth]

Originally posted by Tireces
Instituting death by meathook impaling as a punishment for every crime would lower it to. Does that make it right?

Read Cat's Cradle I see:P

It would work. I'm sure the people who aren't criminals would appretiate it.

[DexterTCN]

Originally posted by Drealoth
...What if, as an addition to punishment of more serious offences, the offenders were rendered sterile...

Yeah...like chopping off a guys hand for stealing. Extra punishment is always so much more ....(religious)....desirable.

[Knight_Errant]

Also, allow me to explain how this is bad science.
Some behaviour characteristics MIGHT be controlled by genes.
Does this mean that these characteristics can be reduced by removing 'bad' genes?
No.
You see, it's a little more complicated than that. For example, some characteristics (e.g. Fred West's double Y chromosome) have nothing to do with your mother and father's phenotype or genotype anyway.
besides which, although the behaviour can be an exdpression of a gene, it is not neceessarily true that this gene will be expressed.
I'm surprised I need to tell this to a crowd of Martial artists and bodybuilders. After all, we all know that you can have great genes for muscle building and still be a 4 stone weakling if you don't bother to work out.There is also a gene that can give you cancer. If you smoke- you don't have to.
Also, some genes have a double edge. The same gene that can make you a violent criminal can also make you an excellent stockbroker- this is an actual documented case I saw on the telly.
So, in short, eugenics is not only repugnant but also extremely bad science.

[stump]

Can anyone who supports eugenics point to a scientific studythat makes an active case for it that has not been discredited?

Genes predispose at best...they do not determine. Their effect on behaviours is far from clear. When the effect is clearer we can reopen the debate on whether it's right or not...until then there's little point hypothesising.

Lets reopen the nature/nurture debate again while we're at it.

[LilBunnyRabbit]

Given that we still don't know what genes actually do, and can simply link them to the substances they produce, its kind of irrelevant. When they've actually decoded the entire genetic code of a human, rather than simply mapping the thing, then it might be worth considering screening out certain genetic configurations, not before.

Its like trying to find your way through England with a map that only shows contours.