While reading the youngest serial killer thread, I came up with a question. Would it be in the human race's best interest to not allow people like this to reproduce? If we look at it from an omniscient (kind of) point of view where we are not considering the answer by human emotions, but as a race trying to guarnatee a healthy future for itself, is it logical to bring those genes into the future generations? "Bad Blood" used to be widely believed and if there were criminals in a family, it was because of the blood that carried those tendancies. [This is not a new concept, in Canada in the 1940's-50's the government sterilized mentally handicapped and some foster children (females) so that they could not reproduce.] If you could prevent suffering to others by preventing these lines from continuing, would you? Maybe it's not humane, but with the rise (or the supposed rise) in these violent crimes would it not be a possibility that may be looked at? At the very least, would it be possible to locate the marker in the DNA of a fetus and abort? Quite a harsh outlook, but so are the needless killings that are happening every day for no other reason than the enjoyment of the killers. Your opinion?

How can you judge the crimes of the father (or mother) on someone who is yet to be born. Nature vs. nurture? My opinion? I believe that mankind is inherently good.

I think sterilization should be done to certain offenders. But, then again, I think women who spit out child after child but can only raise them by using our tax dollars should too.

I disagree with mankind being inherently good. I know a lot of great people, yet I have met others that were very scary. They were raised in good homes by great parents and they still went out and did horrendous things. Is there a trigger? Possibly. But to kill just for the sake of killing is scary for every person on this planet. And I was asking a question based on definite knowledge that there is a gene that carries this tendency. I do not mean a crime of passion or manslaughter, I mean serial killers, people who look on other people as prey-those that there is no hope of rehabilitation. IF there was such a marker, would you still agree? What if it was a scientific fact? Could we make that decision, and would it not be the right one?

Although I disagree that humanity is inherently good, I believe that people are ultimately responsible for deciding what they will or won't do. Yes, nature and nurture have impact, but the individual is still ultimately responsible for his/her actions.

I agree.

Yes, the spectrum should cover alot more than killers. Gang members, drug addicts, etc.

Exactly, the individual is still ultimately responsible for his/her actions. The question of this thread is whether or not to allow serial killers and by extention anybody whom society finds distasteful, to reproduce.

I do believe that mankind is inherently good and that the sins of the parent should not be visited apon the children.

I guess that you aren't getting the idea behind this. If there was a way to prevent a serial killer from being born, should we? If this is an inherited trait, why bring these people into the world? If in fact you were preventing numerous innocents from dying, would that not be the greater good?

I think that's the question that needs to be answered before it's even considered. IF it's an inherited trait. Is it? Has it ever been proven to be? Seems like it would be a difficult thing to prove. *shrugs*

Now, for child molesters, that's something I might consider, but for different reasons of course.

That's the whole idea-hypothetically, if it was proven that it was an inherited trait, which would be the right decision?

Well in that case, I'd agree to it. But not the abortion route, only sterilization. If it's too late and a child was conceived, that child should be allowed to come to term. Especially considering the father could be the killer, and the mother might be forced into a potentially risky medical procedure she may be religiously against.

I am getting the point and I am not trying to be disagreeable, however I do want to give you an idea why I disagree with this
statement that you made in your opening post "At the very least, would it be possible to locate the marker in the DNA of a fetus and abort?"

My younger brother and I inherited a genetic blood disorder from our mother, it bypassed my older brother and when my son was born, I had him tested and the doctors said although he has the genetic marker he does not have this disorder. Had he been tested in utero, the genetic marker would have been identified.

Now substitute genetic blood disorder for serial killer gene.

To be honest should science ever be able to correctly identify such a gene (should it exist), I think that I would oppose it on principal alone.

eu·gen·ics (yÅ«-jÄ•n'Ä­ks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)

The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.


Isn't this what the Nazi's tried to do?

Of course not, even if the individual in question is more likely to produce children with violent tendencies, that child still has free will and can choose their actions accordingly. Clearly not every child from a murderer commits murder themselves.

No one has any right over someone else's reproductive rights .... only in special circumstances sterilization is administered, such as in cases of mental retardation/illness or if the person volunteers for that procedure.

As has been pointed out, criminal behaviour has not been shown conclusively to be genetic/inherited so sterilisation cannot be introduced as a 'cure' for this.

In the case of sexual predators; rapists, paedophiles, etc, would sterilisation really effect a cure for the behaviour of these people. Sterilisation (tubular ligation or vasectomy), to the best of my knowledge, does not reduce the sexual urge. Are you suggesting castration/hysterectomy (with removal of ovaries) of the individual? Like the death penalty - how is the individual recompensed in the event of an incorrect verdict leading to the surgery?

It would have to be an absolute. That's why I said serial killers. Peopel say that each person has free will, yes, they do, yet we have these predators out there. There are families where just one child out of three or four has these tendancies. Their childhoods are not always horrific, some are, obviously from research. If we could prevent future serial killers, would that not be the greater good? At the very least to be able to identify the potential future perpetrators would be a great help, rather than see the signs after the killings had occured. That is what my main question, if not sterilization, how could we prevent them from following their instincts and killing others?

Nativechick, I see your point, but the courts can take away someone's rights to freedom, money, voting, speech and even the prusuit of happiness through imprisonment, so I don't really see that reproductive rights, which are not even protected by the constitution or the bill of rights, would be any more protected.
I'm not saying I agree with it mind you, but it's really not much of a stretch imo.

I think the point that some are missing is the poster is not wondering if the traits are genetically passed on, but rather if it were a proven fact that they were, would sterilization be appropriate. Although I could definately see the point to this, I would definately have to vote no, if only because that would be moving into a dangerous area entirely too close to genetic or ethnic cleansing.

How does one identify 'future serial killers'? The perpetrators of these crimes can be shown to fit a profile (generally), but that doesn't mean that all people fitting that profile will become serial killers. So what is the trigger? Is it genetic? We don't know so we cannot legislate for that until we have that knowledge.

Going down this route of possible crime prediction, rather than reducing the chances of people becoming victims and crime prevention through social improvements, carries with it the possibility of a 'Minority Report' style scenario. Not in that such a system as 'genetic crime-typing' might be abused intentionally, although that is a possibility given human nature, but that no such system could be proven accurate. I suppose it would be possible to have those identified as a risk being monitored for the rest of their lives, but you are then creating a sub-class of citizen when not all of those included may have perpetrated a crime. I see huge difficulties with civil liberties in such a system.

Hmm you can't really kill an already conceived child as this would make you as bad as the serial killer. On the other hand if we could for certain verify that the child has the 'gene' then surely (just as with medical conditions) the child can be watched and helped if ever they became symtomatic.? Just a thought.

All killers start small so surely if they are caught while they are still young and taught differently then they would turn out differently? This is just my optimism for the human race speaking. Everything you do, you do willing by yourself, so each decision is a choice; therefore you should be able to make a different choice if you really wanted to...

Serial killers born or raised is going to be a question that is debated for a long time. Trying to find a gene that is responsible for the trait is just not feasible at this time perhaps ever. However there are some things that are currently recognized as signs or potential indicators of serial killer personality types. If a child shows not one but a series of those traits they should be provided with counseling but then people forget that inattentive attitudes allow such traits to flourish. People want to look the other way if they see/know of a child hurting another child or animal, if it isn't their child, or animal being hurt why involve themselves potentially have a run in with the child's parent who may be worse than the child itself.


Leonardo feel this way too and you beat me in saying it.
There are a couple of things that I would like to add to you sterilization list thought. It amazes me when I see people thinking that sterilization is a good idea for convicted sex offenders but they are offended by other cultures that still stone to death, what in their culture is a sex offender, someone who has sex before marriage or outside of the bonds of marriage. Mutilation in the name of 'science' as a prevention for possible sex offenders is no less barbaric then circumcision of a female in extreme religious sects whose reason is to root out the cause of promiscuity.

Mabon.

I don't think this works at all.

First of all, most heinous killers that we know about are in jail. They aren't doing a whole lot of reproducing there.

The recitivism rate for killers that are released from jail is low--they may commit other crimes, but murder generally isn't one of them. In the rare cases when they do kill again, how many actually produce children that grow up to be killers? I'm guessing very very few.

Yes, in the 1940's, some folks who were mentally disabled were sterilized. In fact, my own family talked my sister in law into being sterilized because she has FAS and kept getting pregnant and finally we bribed her with $500 to have her tubes tied. She went for it. My sister-in-law was adopted by my in-laws as an infant, they had no idea that her problems were associated with FAS until they had her adoption records opned. We could NOT force her to be sterilized and I don't believe to this day that we should have been allowed to force her. All her children were given up for adoption to a fantastic family and none of them have ANY problems like their bio mother did. They are all in their teens happy, healthy and painfully normal (open adoptions ROCK imho .

No, I think there are WAY WAY too many variables to this scenario to make it even possible to consider.

The next question would be... do you castrate rapists and pedofiles... unfortunately, that program was available in my state (still is I think) and saddly, the end result was that those that chose castration as a condition of their release from prison, re-offended.

I have a predisposition for hemophilia (I'm a gene carrier) should I have been sterilized? No, that would have been unwise. The risk wasn't that I have a bleeder son, but that I'd have a carrier daughter. Turned out my one and only child, a daughter, isn't a carrier. I probably also have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and probably to obesity too... but I'm not an alcoholic nor am I an ounce overweight... hmmmm.