If a criminal claims genetic predisposition he should receive a more severe penalty than usual, since he will clearly require a greater disincentive to crime than someone who lacks that predisposition.
"Disincentives" can prevent crime when the potential criminal is rational. All humans are assumed to be rational. The death penalty is supposed to be a counter-motive or disincentive. But, it only works when its application is swift and sure. Otherwise, its effectiveness as a counter-motive or disincentive is weakened. Those people who oppose the death penalty know this and therefore try to maximize the time between sentencing and execution. The more time passes, the less effective the penalty as a counter-motive or disincentive.
My behaviour is most certainly genetically induced, so I'm predisposed to think.
One of the ultimate personal challenges (and joys) is to set oneself aside from the miserable melee of 'socialisation' for a while in perfect isolation(or at least perfectly voluntary association) and try and introspectively detect and possibly correct ones' own very most basic emotional proclivities.There comes a point when I am stripping away with the razor of intellect at the apparent irreducibles of my own mental firmament and discovering joys and ambitions long forgotten; whether any of these are nurture or nature is part of the challenge, but ultimately it doesn't matter.If we want to be happy we have to bring the madness of self-censorship to an end and jolly well get out there and do what we want to do.
Oh, and by the way PJ, 'disincentive' is a straw man created by abolitionists in their campaign to destroy justice.
Post a Comment