Posted on 05/29/2005 9:56:59 AM PDT by voletti
RESEARCHERS at the Institute of Psychiatry, in London, are not shy about tackling controversial topics. One of them, Terrie Moffitt, was responsible for studies that showed how different versions of the gene for one of the brain's enzymes resulted in different predispositions to criminal activity. Another, Robert Plomin, found the first plausible candidate for a gene that boosts intelligence. Now, Dr Moffitt and Dr Plomin have been helping two other researchers, Essi Viding and James Blair, with an equally high-profile study—one which asks whether psychopaths are born that way, or are made so by their upbringings.
That, of course, is rather a crude way of putting it. After decades of debate, biologists have come to understand what was blindingly obvious to most laymen—which is that rather than being shaped by nature or nurture, most behavioural traits are the result of an interaction between the two. Nevertheless, one or the other can still be the dominant factor. And the study in question, to be published in June's edition of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, suggests that in the case of psychopathy, the genetic side is very important indeed.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
No, but I am in favor of offering people a good government pension to be sterilized before they have had kids, with a sliding scale of payments for those who have already had a litter or two.
It would be cheaper than arresting and imprisoning all their children in the future.
So9
ping
Yikes.
I really didn't think people like you still existed.
This is a truly laughable conclusion for these scientists to reach. They should have saved themselves a hundred years and looked at the conclusions reached by animal breeders. (And yes, even when the mother doesn't raise the offspring, it makes little difference in the personality traits present.)
I agree with you. In fact, I have had a personal experience with a relative who, over the years, I came to believe was seriously psychopathic and had no conscience, yet there was absolutely no evidence of childhood mistreatment, or other evidence of a seriously dysfunctional family. The behavior of this individual was so devious, cunning and destructive that I concluded this individual needed either very serious psychological treatment, or an exorcism, and I am not kidding. This is very serious stuff.
I wonder if they would have achieved the same conclusion if they studied the parties of divorce court.
There is no temptation too great than that which may be overcome. Only though faith in Christ is there salvation.
If psychopathic criminality is inborn then preventive detention for the individual's lifetime is in order. If the individual can control his actions, however, then he is responsible for his actions, and need not be permanently incarcerated.
I personally don't believe any personal subjective reasons exist that reduce criminal responsibility. "I didn't mean to", "I was insane for a moment", "I am insane", etc. should mean less than nothing in assessing guilt. The whole idea of "criminal intent" is bogus. "There is only do, and not do."
Such thinking will not stop at adjusting the soul via physical methods in order to improve environment and government by cosmic or worldly criterion. Such a cosmic thinking will continue to seek methods to prevent the spirit from being regenerated or sanctified by influencing soulish behavior.
There seems to be a converging strategy of promoting a biological chip, with rewriting neurological functioning, with identifying criminal behavior with biological genetics. Strikingly, those who advocate this convergence are also quick to worship rationalism, science, and environment before they are willing to devote their thinking to God through faith in Christ.
The later has already provided the solution, while the former seeks to counterfeit the solution while advancing authority to any person other than God. If one were to name this philosophy, 'anti-christian' would be very apropo.
Conservative or liberal - call it what you will. I trust my sarcasm comes through. Man is not basically good, he is soulfully needy of regeneration. "There is none righteous, no not one...."
We also have God's law written in our hearts and were created in the image of, and blessed by our Creator.
We certainly cannot become perfect "good" in this world; however, we are not perfectly evil either.
Thanks for your reply..
"You completely misunderstood the article. Natural Selection isn't "chance." And it's not endorsing ID."
No, I didn'. I didn't say they were endorsing that.
Natrual Selection is a farce. They ADMIT that th ecomplexity is NOT by chance and it isn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.