or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Should criminals with high levels of MAO-A receive reduced sentences?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should criminals with high levels of MAO-A receive reduced sentences?

Poll Results: Should criminals with high levels of MAO-A receive reduced sentences?

Poll expires: Apr 13, 2015 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 100% (1)
    Yes, sometimes.
  • 0% (0)
    No, never.
  • 0% (0)
    This is eugenics and all scientific research into MAO-A and similar areas, should be banned.
1 Total Vote  
post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

If you're not familiar with MAO-A here's some info-

 

 "Recent years have seen huge advancements in DNA research, with researchers now able to identify specific genes that are linked to anti-social or aggressive behaviour, in particular the MAO-A gene (nicknamed “the warrior gene”), which appears to be hereditary.

A study of Danish twins concluded that a Danish man who has an identical twin with a criminal record is about 50 per cent more likely to have been in prison himself than the average Danish male. Non-identical twins are between 15 and 30 per cent more likely to both have criminal records. Similarly, adoption studies around the world have shown that a child of criminal parents is more likely to become a criminal, even if the adoptive parents are law-abiding.

 

Universities, law schools and, increasingly, the judicial system are all reviewing cases where it seems “the brain” rather than “the person” might be culpable. In the US, several killers have been sentenced for manslaughter rather than murder after DNA evidence was produced to show the perpetrator had unusually high levels of MAO-A. In Italy, in 2009, a judge reduced the sentence of an Algerian called Abdelmalek Bayout for the same reason. Bayout had stabbed a man to death in the northern city of Udine after a comment about his appearance."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9968753/Studying-Adam-Lanza-is-evil-in-our-genes.html

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2 of 16
So per your article,anyone making the case for broad gun control is anti-science and harming society at large.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 16

Maybe we should go the other way. Test everyone and those that are positive for MAO-A are put into ... let's call them ... therapy centers until a cure can be found. 

post #4 of 16

Better yet, since they are born that way, we'll just say it's okay and even celebrate it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So per your article,anyone making the case for broad gun control is anti-science and harming society at large.

I think it would be fair to say the complete and total opposite, as per the article.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 

I guess there's too little information in the article for anyone to decide. I'm not sure. I would have thought the link to the crime would have to have been solely linked to the MAO-A, to reduce a sentence. That would be nigh on impossible to prove I would have thought, and probably for good reason.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So per your article,anyone making the case for broad gun control is anti-science and harming society at large.

I think it would be fair to say the complete and total opposite, as per the article.

 

Not at all. Per the article, you aren't judging the person, they are merely acting on their nature. Since the nature of someone who would commit a shooting/murder spree clearly is one in about 100 million, then it makes no sense to deny all the folks who do not have "specific genes that are linked to anti-social or aggressive behaviour" the right to own a gun. They do not have the nature so why deny them?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Not at all. Per the article, you aren't judging the person, they are merely acting on their nature. Since the nature of someone who would commit a shooting/murder spree clearly is one in about 100 million, then it makes no sense to deny all the folks who do not have "specific genes that are linked to anti-social or aggressive behaviour" the right to own a gun. They do not have the nature so why deny them?

But the article made it clear that the links are tentative at best and therefore far from asserting that conclusive diagnosis of a person can be made relating to the MAO-A gene levels. The article also, like weight and obesity, said that personal responsibility DOES play a part in how our genes change over our lifetimes.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Not at all. Per the article, you aren't judging the person, they are merely acting on their nature. Since the nature of someone who would commit a shooting/murder spree clearly is one in about 100 million, then it makes no sense to deny all the folks who do not have "specific genes that are linked to anti-social or aggressive behaviour" the right to own a gun. They do not have the nature so why deny them?

But the article made it clear that the links are tentative at best and therefore far from asserting that conclusive diagnosis of a person can be made relating to the MAO-A gene levels. The article also, like weight and obesity, said that personal responsibility DOES play a part in how our genes change over our lifetimes.

 

 

But you don't believe in personal responsibility. If you did, then you would allow the right. You believe in denying the right believing that your fellow humans are better kept as polite pets rather than afforded individual freedoms.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #10 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

But you don't believe in personal responsibility. If you did, then you would allow the right. You believe in denying the right believing that your fellow humans are better kept as polite pets rather than afforded individual freedoms.

So would you get rid of seat belt laws and all the other similarly liberty intrusive laws to preserve you're notion of personal responsibility? I doubt it, and that would make you a hypocrite. Only mj and jazzguru here, are true followers of personal freedom, no matter the cost.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So would you get rid of seat belt laws and all the other similarly liberty intrusive laws to preserve you're notion of personal responsibility? I doubt it, and that would make you a hypocrite. Only mj and jazzguru here, are true followers of personal freedom, no matter the cost.

yes

 

The nanny state needs several thousand swift kicks in the teeth. 

post #12 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

But you don't believe in personal responsibility. If you did, then you would allow the right. You believe in denying the right believing that your fellow humans are better kept as polite pets rather than afforded individual freedoms.

So would you get rid of seat belt laws and all the other similarly liberty intrusive laws to preserve you're notion of personal responsibility? I doubt it, and that would make you a hypocrite. Only mj and jazzguru here, are true followers of personal freedom, no matter the cost.

 



What nonsense are you muttering about? No one has to buy into your lame reasoning whereby the only logical path to my beliefs is what you claim or else they are a hypocrite.

 

I guess per you we must all become communists and devote our lives to the collective or else you are a hypocrite.

 

As you note, no matter the cost. Why no matter the cost? We have this nice founding document for the United States that details where the costs are worth it and where they are not. It is a little thing called The Bill of Rights and you might want to acquaint yourself with it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

But you don't believe in personal responsibility. If you did, then you would allow the right. You believe in denying the right believing that your fellow humans are better kept as polite pets rather than afforded individual freedoms.

So would you get rid of seat belt laws and all the other similarly liberty intrusive laws to preserve you're notion of personal responsibility? I doubt it, and that would make you a hypocrite. Only mj and jazzguru here, are true followers of personal freedom, no matter the cost.

 



What nonsense are you muttering about? No one has to buy into your lame reasoning whereby the only logical path to my beliefs is what you claim or else they are a hypocrite.

 

I guess per you we must all become communists and devote our lives to the collective or else you are a hypocrite.

 

As you note, no matter the cost. Why no matter the cost? We have this nice founding document for the United States that details where the costs are worth it and where they are not. It is a little thing called The Bill of Rights and you might want to acquaint yourself with it.

Speaking of nonsense. You've shown in another thread  http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156458/science-is-real/80#post_2307701 you can't even support your own arguments and don't read your own links for that same support.1wink.gif The irony here is that you and SDW were trying ( not long ago ) to accuse me of not supplying support for my arguments ( not true of course ). So I guess this is Karma.  The jig is up trumpy. It really has been for some time.  Now you would have us believe that you are the person to define what types of freedoms don't impinge on the difference between personal rights and blind freedoms that would be harmful to other individuals. Even Libertarians draw the line there trumpy.1rolleyes.gif  If you reply please don't answer in one of your long winded nonsense replies. Get to the point.  Those get really tedious and don't really reveal anything.1wink.gif


Edited by jimmac - 4/14/13 at 4:33pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #14 of 16

As far as the original question in this thread there's a really good program on the Science Channel about this. One episode is called " Can we Eliminate Evil ? ".

 

This video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqb8C9PTcoc&list=PL36410D479361326A shows a scientist who found ( to his surprise ) he has the same kind of brain profile of psychopaths and is even a decedent of a psychopath. He might have developed these tendencies however because of his environment during his childhood didn't become a killer. This is why we can't treat everyone the same. Each individual must be considered on a case by case basis. Hence back ground checks for fire arms.

 

By the way for anyone interested in this and other scientific questions " Through The Wormhole "  is a really informative show on the Science Channel and I highly recommend it.


Edited by jimmac - 4/14/13 at 3:31pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

But you don't believe in personal responsibility. If you did, then you would allow the right. You believe in denying the right believing that your fellow humans are better kept as polite pets rather than afforded individual freedoms.

So would you get rid of seat belt laws and all the other similarly liberty intrusive laws to preserve you're notion of personal responsibility? I doubt it, and that would make you a hypocrite. Only mj and jazzguru here, are true followers of personal freedom, no matter the cost.

 



What nonsense are you muttering about? No one has to buy into your lame reasoning whereby the only logical path to my beliefs is what you claim or else they are a hypocrite.

 

I guess per you we must all become communists and devote our lives to the collective or else you are a hypocrite.

 

As you note, no matter the cost. Why no matter the cost? We have this nice founding document for the United States that details where the costs are worth it and where they are not. It is a little thing called The Bill of Rights and you might want to acquaint yourself with it.

Speaking of nonsense. You've shown in another thread  http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156458/science-is-real/80#post_2307701 you can't even support your own arguments and don't read your own links for that same support.1wink.gif The irony here is that you and SDW were trying ( not long ago ) to accuse me of not supplying support for my arguments ( not true of course ). So I guess this is Karma.  The jig is up trumpy. It really has been for some time.  Now you would have us believe that you are the person to define what types of freedoms don't impinge on the difference between personal rights and blind freedoms that would be harmful to other individuals. Even Libertarians draw the line there trumpy.1rolleyes.gif  If you reply please don't answer in one of your long winded nonsense replies. Get to the point.  Those get really tedious and don't really reveal anything.1wink.gif

 

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

 

But you don't believe in personal responsibility. If you did, then you would allow the right. You believe in denying the right believing that your fellow humans are better kept as polite pets rather than afforded individual freedoms.

So would you get rid of seat belt laws and all the other similarly liberty intrusive laws to preserve you're notion of personal responsibility? I doubt it, and that would make you a hypocrite. Only mj and jazzguru here, are true followers of personal freedom, no matter the cost.

 



What nonsense are you muttering about? No one has to buy into your lame reasoning whereby the only logical path to my beliefs is what you claim or else they are a hypocrite.

 

I guess per you we must all become communists and devote our lives to the collective or else you are a hypocrite.

 

As you note, no matter the cost. Why no matter the cost? We have this nice founding document for the United States that details where the costs are worth it and where they are not. It is a little thing called The Bill of Rights and you might want to acquaint yourself with it.

Speaking of nonsense. You've shown in another thread  http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156458/science-is-real/80#post_2307701 you can't even support your own arguments and don't read your own links for that same support.1wink.gif The irony here is that you and SDW were trying ( not long ago ) to accuse me of not supplying support for my arguments ( not true of course ). So I guess this is Karma.  The jig is up trumpy. It really has been for some time.  Now you would have us believe that you are the person to define what types of freedoms don't impinge on the difference between personal rights and blind freedoms that would be harmful to other individuals. Even Libertarians draw the line there trumpy.1rolleyes.gif  If you reply please don't answer in one of your long winded nonsense replies. Get to the point.  Those get really tedious and don't really reveal anything.1wink.gif

 


and for you :

 

 

 

I mean really trumpy you didn't honestly think I'd just let you gloss over the fact that now we know for sure ( for all to see ) the Emperor has no clothes. lol.gif

 

 

 

 


Edited by jimmac - 4/16/13 at 5:38pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Should criminals with high levels of MAO-A receive reduced sentences?