Crime and Punishment
So just what does the societal majority do about the societal minority of homosexuals like Julio and Mauricio should their behavior proved to have a genetic basis that can be easily determined at, or even before, birth? Well, Leviticus 18:22 isn't going to change because of a scientific discovery. (Indeed, Genesis has survived Darwin intact.) And, in Muslim theocracies like Iran, they will continue to execute you in public by beheading if you are caught messing around, even if you do tear the page bearing Leviticus 18:22 from Gideon bibles. In democracies, however, you are likely to be spared from a beheading. There you can still be imprisoned or fined for your behavior. And, in some democracies where homosexual behavior is viewed as non-criminal so long as it is between consenting adults, you might even be protected from persecution. Indeed, with a genetic basis on the books, a greater societal understanding might develop along the same lines as for Lesh-Nyhan Syndrome. "It's genetic, and poor Julio and Mauricio just can't help it." No victim, no crime ... excepting, of course, that nagging problem with Leviticus 18:22 which might occasionally lead someone to tie you to a fence post and shoot you.
We are now living in what has been described by some as the "Age of Genetics" and it is likely that a genetic basis will be found for the complete spectrum of human behaviors. So, what happens when some researcher not unlike Dr. Sanders finds a genetic basis for cold-blooded serial murder? "It's genetic, and poor Dennis Radner (the BTK killer) just couldn't help it." Many victims, no crime?
The moral basis with regards to killing another human being in the Western World derives from the same source as the moral basis for homosexuality, namely the biblical Ten Commandments and subsequent refinements. Moses, needing some "do and do nots" for the folks to live by upon their return to Israel after 430 years of slavery in Egypt, went onto the mountain and came back with the famous set of Ten Commandments. Now recorded in Exodus 1-17, the sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill."
Unlike the admonition against homosexual behavior, exceptions are made for moral killings. Take, for example Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him ..." Or, perhaps Numbers 35:19: "The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him." Maybe even Second Kings 13:17: "... for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed [them]." Killing for blaspheme, revenge and genocide are OK but -- sorry, Mr. Radner -- killing for the fun of it isn't.
So what are we to do about Mr. Radner? The moral basis is clearly stated in Exodus 21:12: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
But, you say, "It's genetic, and he just couldn't help it."
Well, to deal with such matters on the secular side of the law, we have develop a legal concept called insanity whereby we do not hold him accountable for his behavior and just put him out to pasture on the funny farm for life ... or until he is judged to be no longer legally insane.
And, just what is legal insanity? Well, in most criminal jurisdictions, it's "a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed."
But, you might say, Mr. Radner wasn't suffering a mental malfunction at all when he bound, tortured and killed all those folks. For him there was no moral issue -- no right or wrong, no good or evil -- at stake. He was acting naturally in the way he was genetically programmed to behave, just like Julio and Mauricio and just like a person afflicted with Lesh-Nyhan Syndrome. How then do the rest of us, the unafflicted majority, behave in regards to Mr. Radner? Well, on a moral basis, we are still bound by Exodus 21:12 to ensure that he "shall be surely put to death." An eye for an eye, a homocide for a homocide. The word "surely" would seem to exclude the possibility of serving time on the funny farm and a genetic proclivity toward cold-blooded murder might exclude his return from the farm to society where he would surely continue his behavior ... short of a gene transplant.
Now comes the toughest question of all. If we were to perform a genetic check on a fetus and find the genetic pattern producing the behavior that results in cold-blooded murder, do we as a society allow the baby with the pattern to be born? If the baby be born, do we prevent the individual from committing murder by confinement before the fact? Or, do we continue as we now do and wait for the individual to unlawfully and/or immorally kill another before taking action against the murderer established then by fact?
Or, do we develop a "greater societal understanding" of serial killers, letting the individual continue in his genetically endowed behavior while we simply look the other way?
We are now living in what has been described by some as the "Age of Genetics" and it is likely that a genetic basis will be found for the complete spectrum of human behaviors. So, what happens when some researcher not unlike Dr. Sanders finds a genetic basis for cold-blooded serial murder? "It's genetic, and poor Dennis Radner (the BTK killer) just couldn't help it." Many victims, no crime?
The moral basis with regards to killing another human being in the Western World derives from the same source as the moral basis for homosexuality, namely the biblical Ten Commandments and subsequent refinements. Moses, needing some "do and do nots" for the folks to live by upon their return to Israel after 430 years of slavery in Egypt, went onto the mountain and came back with the famous set of Ten Commandments. Now recorded in Exodus 1-17, the sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill."
Unlike the admonition against homosexual behavior, exceptions are made for moral killings. Take, for example Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him ..." Or, perhaps Numbers 35:19: "The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him." Maybe even Second Kings 13:17: "... for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed [them]." Killing for blaspheme, revenge and genocide are OK but -- sorry, Mr. Radner -- killing for the fun of it isn't.
So what are we to do about Mr. Radner? The moral basis is clearly stated in Exodus 21:12: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
But, you say, "It's genetic, and he just couldn't help it."
Well, to deal with such matters on the secular side of the law, we have develop a legal concept called insanity whereby we do not hold him accountable for his behavior and just put him out to pasture on the funny farm for life ... or until he is judged to be no longer legally insane.
And, just what is legal insanity? Well, in most criminal jurisdictions, it's "a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed."
But, you might say, Mr. Radner wasn't suffering a mental malfunction at all when he bound, tortured and killed all those folks. For him there was no moral issue -- no right or wrong, no good or evil -- at stake. He was acting naturally in the way he was genetically programmed to behave, just like Julio and Mauricio and just like a person afflicted with Lesh-Nyhan Syndrome. How then do the rest of us, the unafflicted majority, behave in regards to Mr. Radner? Well, on a moral basis, we are still bound by Exodus 21:12 to ensure that he "shall be surely put to death." An eye for an eye, a homocide for a homocide. The word "surely" would seem to exclude the possibility of serving time on the funny farm and a genetic proclivity toward cold-blooded murder might exclude his return from the farm to society where he would surely continue his behavior ... short of a gene transplant.
Now comes the toughest question of all. If we were to perform a genetic check on a fetus and find the genetic pattern producing the behavior that results in cold-blooded murder, do we as a society allow the baby with the pattern to be born? If the baby be born, do we prevent the individual from committing murder by confinement before the fact? Or, do we continue as we now do and wait for the individual to unlawfully and/or immorally kill another before taking action against the murderer established then by fact?
Or, do we develop a "greater societal understanding" of serial killers, letting the individual continue in his genetically endowed behavior while we simply look the other way?
Comments
Post a Comment