Condeming Children For Birth Defects

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Use eugenics to solve the problem before it manifests.

Kopikatsu:

Esotera:

- "Legitimately insane" is not a thing.
- A world exists outside of the US, and various countries focus on rehabilitation for prisoners.
- You don't have to define revenge for us...this forum might be stupid at times but we're not that bad.
- Please research what causes mental illnesses and how they are treated from a mental health charity and something other than the DSM-IV/wikipedia, then come back to the debate. There's a lot of mixed terminology that's confusing, maybe I'm just not used to American psychiatry but it seems like you think there's no possible way to treat some illnesses.

As for the MAO-A, I'm a biochemistry undergraduate. It's a protein that breaks down various chemicals in the brain - low levels of this protein can lead to agression and lack of empathy. The wikipedia page (and various other sites like pubmed & ncbi) shows that we already have an inhibitor drug that binds the protein to reduce its activity when an individual has too much present. When a protein can be inhibited, as a rule it can also be activated to produce greater activity; this is how most drugs work. Alternatively if this wasn't promising it would always be possible to target a regulator of the MAO-A protein or a different protein entirely, in order to increase empathy (along with CBT or some other psychotherapy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAOA

I explained what I meant by 'legitimately insane'. Psychosis, hallucinations, intense paranoia, etc.

What's wrong with using DSM-IV-TR for information on various disorders? I mean, it's full name is 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'. That is what it is there for. The revised version doesn't come out till March 2013-ish, if I'm remember correctly, which just leaves us with IV-TR.

There are also several other diagnostic manuals out there that are more up to date. I think the NHS uses the British equivalent of the manual, but for some reason DSM is seen as the authority. The book is nearly 20 years old and no longer reflects the evidence behind illnesses that has advanced in that time. The next edition will also get hopelessly watered down into a hideous mess, as everyone has some form of interest in how it is worded, including the pharmaceutical companies. The only good thing to come out of DSM-V is they'll be adopting a 'working' version so it will remain relatively up to date.

Kopikatsu:

Worth mentioning: Remember how I said the shooter very likely had a personality disorder? Turns out, he had Aspergers (Not important) in addition to a currently unnamed personality disorder, but it's likely sociopathy. His family was very wealthy and he was very intelligent. The only notable 'traumatic' experience that he suffered was his parent's divorce.

So given this new information, would you be willing to condemn children with probable autism?

Esotera:

So given this new information, would you be willing to condemn children with probable autism?

Kopikatsu:

he had Aspergers (Not important) in addition to a currently unnamed personality disorder

I specified that the Aspergers is unimportant. Pervasive personality disorders (Autism, Aspergers, Rett Syndrome) have not ever been linked to violence.

The post above yours does give a solution that I honestly hadn't thought about, though. Eugenics would likely solve the problem nicely.

Kopikatsu:

I specified that the Aspergers is unimportant. Pervasive personality disorders (Autism, Aspergers, Rett Syndrome) have not ever been linked to violence.

The post above yours does give a solution that I honestly hadn't thought about, though. Eugenics would likely solve the problem nicely.

Eugenics is fine, especially if you're just doing genetic screens on embryos used in IVF, as there isn't really a victim at that stage of development. Would you at least agree that in the meantime careful monitoring & treatment is a reasonable approach given the risk of an individual actually causing harm?

Esotera:

Kopikatsu:

I specified that the Aspergers is unimportant. Pervasive personality disorders (Autism, Aspergers, Rett Syndrome) have not ever been linked to violence.

The post above yours does give a solution that I honestly hadn't thought about, though. Eugenics would likely solve the problem nicely.

Eugenics is fine, especially if you're just doing genetic screens on embryos used in IVF, as there isn't really a victim at that stage of development. Would you at least agree that in the meantime careful monitoring & treatment is a reasonable approach given the risk of an individual actually causing harm?

I would not. I might consider it if criminal records were never sealed, 'conduct disorder' is removed as a diagnosis, and euthanization is considered as an option should treatment fail.

The problem lies within the very nature of sociopathy. It's not as though you can just stick a heartbeat monitor on a sociopath and go 'His heart rate just jumped up to 140! Send in SWAT!'. They feel nothing. Their brain patterns and heart rate would be almost exactly the same whether they were making a turkey sandwich or stabbing a child to death. (I say 'almost' because stabbing takes more effort than making a sandwich, so the heart rate would be slightly higher due to the exercise).

The only way to properly monitor them would basically be with either a tail or hidden camera, but at that point, you may as well just throw them in a cell if you're going to be monitoring them 24/7. As far as I know, we have no feasible method of keeping tabs on ~3% of the population 24/7. (Note: That's just the rate of anti-social personality disorder, I believe. But as I've mentioned repeatably, I have no idea what the numbers are on how many people are on a clear path to mass/excessively brutal violence because those records are never made public. So the actual number would likely be 0.3% or something. But I don't know.)

Edit: Forgot to mention; I did mention an alternative in the first sentence. Preventing criminal records from being sealed so that progress can be tracked at a macro-level as opposed to just stalking the target all the time for information. That might not still be enough, though. I knew a child who would stick firecrackers in animal's mouths and hold the mouth shut until it exploded. He was never charged with anything, so it never went on his criminal record. Which is a damn shame.

Kopikatsu:
-snip-

I just want this to be specifically pointed out for the record; you are here making the argument that society should institute a programme of industrial lobotomisation and imprisonment of people who have committed no crime, indeed no offense of any kind other than being born, because according to your own flawed understanding of mental health disorders, it's potentially possible that some of them may at some point commit a violent crime.

If anyone needs to be lobotomised to ensure the safety of others, it's you mate.

Why don't we just go ahead and start practically applying thought crime and pre-crime punishments as well? Think of how many crimes could be stopped if you just killed off:

-the homeless
-the minorities
-the impoverished
-the immigrants

And of course, get rid of the pesky rule of law. There shall be only ONE punishment for all crimes, and that is death. Because 70% of all convicts re-offend, we will remove their ability to re-offend.

And to ANYONE that would call this hyperbole, just how far off is this from what the OP suggested, where people are killed simply for not being perfect and normal.

People with bad childhoods are more likely to be criminals.
We should murder all people with bad childhoods.

Magichead:

Kopikatsu:
-snip-

I just want this to be specifically pointed out for the record; you are here making the argument that society should institute a programme of industrial lobotomisation and imprisonment of people who have committed no crime, indeed no offense of any kind other than being born, because according to your own flawed understanding of mental health disorders, it's potentially possible that some of them may at some point commit a violent crime.

If anyone needs to be lobotomised to ensure the safety of others, it's you mate.

Read through the thread again, slowly this time.

ShadowKatt:
Why don't we just go ahead and start practically applying thought crime and pre-crime punishments as well? Think of how many crimes could be stopped if you just killed off:

-the homeless
-the minorities
-the impoverished
-the immigrants

And of course, get rid of the pesky rule of law. There shall be only ONE punishment for all crimes, and that is death. Because 70% of all convicts re-offend, we will remove their ability to re-offend.

And to ANYONE that would call this hyperbole, just how far off is this from what the OP suggested, where people are killed simply for not being perfect and normal.

Hyperbole and false equivalence. There is no inherent factor that would cause the homeless, minorities, the impoverished, or immigrants to act so brutally nor cause them to commit mass murder on more or less a whim.

For the record, I do support lex talionis (Although that isn't quite the same as 'death for everyone'). It was the basis of the very first set of laws ever written, and they worked just fine then.

Moderated:
People with bad childhoods are more likely to be criminals.
We should murder all people with bad childhoods.

Incorrect. Check the source posted on page 1 somewhere, only ~14% of criminals have had a traumatic childhood. Also, hyperbole.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked