Let’s say tomorrow, the “evil gene” is discovered. The “evil gene”, when present in humans, is correlated in psychiatric tests very highly with psychopathy, sadism, megalomania, ambition, and a desire to enter politics. A person may be checked for the “evil gene” using a simple test (along the lines of a pregnancy test - cheap and simple to use). Also, not all evil people have the gene - there seems to be some other factors at work, here, but carrying the gene does make it more likely that you’ll be evil.
Yes, i’m aware it wouldn’t be as simple as that, but this is a hypothetical, dammit.
Three situations, then:
People with the “evil gene” have a slightly higher than average chance to commit a crime (minor or serious), and to become “evil” as they grow up, than others. What measures should be taken, then? Should a test for the “evil gene” be a routine part of a suspect’s interrogation (as unlike DNA, it would indicate a slight extra chance of being guilty)? Could “evil gene” evidence be used in court? Should (and would) businesses have voluntary testing for the gene (much as some do for drug use), and should they refuse to hire anyone who has the gene? Should mandatory testing by governments come into play? Would “evil gene” carriers become second-class citizens?
People with the “evil gene” have a 50% chance to commit a major (murder, rape, child molestation etc) crime because of their “evil”. Now it’s getting more serious. Same questions as before, plus - should carriers of the gene be mandatorily aborted? Should they be forced to attend psychiatric care to try and stop them from becoming “evil”? Should they be treated as a repeat offender, given that they have the same, and higher, chance to commit a crime than someone who already has?
People with the “evil gene” have a 100% chance of committing a serious crime, because of their “evil”. Same questions as before, plus, should these evil people be segregated from normal society at birth? Should the government institue mandatory testing for the entire population? Should the carriers be immediately sentenced to prison/death, considering that it is 100% likely that, if not stopped, they will be “evil”?
In addition in all these questions, which have outlined ways to curb the evil people, we’ll probably also need the opposite - a way to curb non-evil gene carriers from discriminating against carriers. If this news got out tomorrow, for real, I imagine every racist group under the sun would declare victory (no matter that it’s a gene that shows a similar spread in all humans). I imagine a good many religious groups would see this as a sign of some kind - witch burning, anyone? And, of course, you’re going to have regular folks like you and me, who, no matter how much we try and stop ourselves, if we are robbed or our children are harmed, we will be more mistrustful of the evil gene carriers. How should we protect the carriers from the rest of us?
“Whoops. Turns out that was the gene for goatees, after all. Terribly sorry about all the confusion. I repeat, we have not discovered the gene for evil, but for goatees.”
Notwithstanding that this thread is another of those scenarios that is not properly addressable because of its nature as pure hypothesis…
If the person has 100% chance of committing serious crime; if it is absolutely inevitable that they will do it, then how can they be blamed for it? IMO, it would be treated in a similar way to insanity; lock 'em up maybe, but for our protection, not their punishment. Death penalty is especially inappropriate here, as they are not acting out of their own volition.
hm…interesting question.
um…an evil gene…well…let’s take it niiiice and slow…
i think that showing that a person has the evil gene in court is going to influence the jury before they even make a decision. that’s not going to stop a lawyer from bringing it up and then withdrawing their statement, however. i’d think you’d have to institute a new rule in court promising jail time for a lawyer that would dare bring it up. let’s not even get to the point that having the gene shows that this person has a proclivity towards this behavior, not that this person actually DID this behavior.
yeah, a business would test for this gene, much like they would in a heartbeat if there were a “stealing/fraud” gene. i’d think this would be akin to a company testing an employee before hiring/before health insurance kicks in to see how much they could potentially cost their health care package.
despite some people’s push for it, i would think that no, you cannot treat such evil people as though they’re looking for a crime to commit. that’s like saying that every pit bull hasn’t attacked a child yet. we’ve got no problem making gays or brown people different from us, but watch shit hit the fan if there would be an evil gene, especially if it’s a prerequisite for politics (by the way, i’m dabbling in politics, is my evil gene only half switched on, or am i completely evil and just don’t know it?). legislating against evil people would be like condemming people with the alcoholic gene, which could be more costly because of health care, accidents, family pain and discomfort, etc. additionally, how many alcoholics are in the halls of government? how many liquor lobbyists would raise hell (not to mention a shit ton of money) to ensure such laws don’t get through? would the alcoholic gene and evil gene intermesh? would it make the potential for more evil with alcohol?
additionally, if you say that race x has a higher chance of committing crime, that’s like saying that race x has this evil gene. i’m sure you can see where our bedsheet-wearing folk would take THIS.
if this gene does make it so someone is 100% evil and WILL do something evil in the course of their life, how evil are we talking? would this definition of “certain of committing evil” encapsulate something moderately evil or barely evil like pushing a toddler over on concrete?
finding such a gene would obviously have a HUGE impact. health care would have to change for it, obviously the court system would have to change for it, all sorts of things would have to change for it.
ever see the movie “minority report”? something that’s similar is brought up in the movie. if you’re religious, then how does free will account for this? what about people “being created equal” as (supposedly) ennumerated in many faiths as well as the constitution.
would this revert us to a state of slavery? would the good people just leave and create a society? would the evil people want to mess it up? could they be stopped?
good question. hopefully we don’t have to deal with it.
I’m sure we’d all agree that conditions like autism or empathy spectrum disorders at least have some genetic component. Isolating the precise gene arguably isn’t much of a step beyond current diagnosis of an empathy disorder. And what do we ‘do’ with those kids?
Like any other disorder, physio- or psycho-logical: we do our best. The first time we see them being cruel to an animal as a child, we henceforth subject them to greater vigilance so that they can be as free as possible without violating the freedom of others. We try to teach them by rote what other empathy-‘normal’ kids pick up naturally, just like any other learning difficulty.
And if it tragically fails and someone is killed or maimed, well, just like today, the perpetrator is kept from society for a long period of time in a secure institution (the only difference being the recuperative vs. punitive nature of that institution).
Almost certainly genes code for basic personality types, and not specific higher-level behavior. (No Republican genes for example). If there was a gene that caused people to behave a certain way- any way- then the question has to be asked “why has that gene persisted”? Presumably, because those personality types have survival value at least in some times and some places. There is no one way that all humans should be, and many questions about what human behavior is appropriate are context based. Vikings would consider genes for courage and aggression to be desirable. Rugged American individualism is utterly at odds with the communal societies of Asia. If Nazi Germany had conquered Europe and continued to this day, it would laud values abhorrent to liberal sensibilities. Is a man who steals a loaf of bread because his family is starving a criminal or a loving father? Are Americans a race of traitors because they rebelled against their lawful sovereign? In short, you have to justify defining a particular behavior as “evil” before you can call for it’s abolition.
I’d be hanging around outside the test clinic, waiting for the Best Looking Evil Chick! Her I wanna meet! < Quagmire >Giggity-Giggity-Giggity-Goo!< /Quagmire >
I’m willing to bet than any gene for “evil” (ie stupid or pathological aggression) is going to be strongly correlated and intertwined with the gene for high achievement and leadership (ie intelligent and productive aggressiveness). When you have a scalpel fine enough to divide out one from the the then we’ll talk.
Yep. I’m reminded of the scene in the classic Trek episode where Kirk gets divided into “good” and “evil” halves – at once point the former, overwhelmed, moans for somebody to make the decision.
Because they still make the decision. In the case of a sociopath, they undoubtedly choose the path they go down; it may make them feel better to commit a crime, clear their head a little, but they still know the difference between right and wrong. That’s why killers like Jeffrey Dahmer are not ruled insane; Dahmer had an overbearing compulsion to kill and eat people, but he knew it was wrong. He chose not to fight against it. Studies have shown that up to four percent (as stated in The Sociopath Next Door) of the population is sociopathic, yet not all of those people have chosen to commit crimes. Because they choose not to. I don’t think the evil gene people should be treated any differently from other people, either to treat them more harshly or to grant them leniency because they’re “disabled.”
Actually, there’s kind of a parallel situation in real life: men with XYY genes (“supermales”) are more likely to be troubled than men with XY genes, and are more prone to commit crimes (2% of men in prison have XYY genes as opposed to 0.01% in general population). Do courts give leniency to men with XYY genes because it’s not their fault, or do we chase them down in the street? No. Granted, this karyotype is less common than sociopathy or the evil gene would be, but I think it’s the most sensible way to handle the problem without getting into precrime scenarios. Just treat them like everybody else.
And if people are arguing that these evil gene people don’t have the choice about whether or not to commit crimes, then that’s the same as negating free will for everyone, which makes the entire judicial system arbitrary. Don’t really feel like going down that path.
