Introduction
The idea that criminal and offending behavior stands in the correlation with the genetic features of the offender is not a novelty of our time. Criminologists made many attempts to bring together the data concerning both features of appearance and some inner psychological characteristics to define the genetically inherent patterns causing criminal behavior. However, such investigations took an entirely new turn with the advancements in the neuroscience and genome studies. Today we can explore the brains of people committing criminal offences and analyze the specifics of their genomes. This paper’s objective is to explore different views on what can be done in the scenario when it is possible to define the violent and criminal inclinations in children of the age of four.
Ethics of neuroscience and means of deterrence
The discovery of the genetic components that are responsible for the violence and other criminal tendencies is helpful in many ways. However, it is nonetheless important to explore the ethical side of the problem. Before we find the precise relation between the genetics and criminal behavior, we need to consider and justify the actions we are going to take (Siegel, 2007).
The first evident solution of dealing with the issue is, of course, removing the cause of criminal behavior. There are still some variations to such scenario. The first possibility is that individuals with some brain abnormality are inclined to the violent behavior. If the abnormality is removed, then theoretically the potential criminal in question is ‘cured’ (Palmer, 2013). However, there are some counter arguments to that based on the less optimistic scenarios. One of them is that there still is such thing as the presumption of innocence, and four-year-olds with that abnormality have committed no crime whatsoever. Therefore, it is hard to justify those actions from the ethical standpoint. If we consider the removal of that abnormality as a means of deterrence of crime, then we still need to reflect on all the possible consequences. They include the dangers of the operations of that kind and all the possible abuse of power of those who make decisions about the operations.
Defective genes and isolation from the society
The scenario of the actual defective gene responsible for criminal inclinations is more difficult to imagine. Many studies suggest that such thing is improbable to exist (Palmer, 2013, p. 5). Nevertheless, the idea of isolating people that only potentially represent some threat is quite against most principles of humanity. Another solution that can easy come to mind is special attention and surveillance directed at people bearing such genes. However, this solution has two downsides as well. Firstly, it still interferes with the freedom of those who have the gene, and secondly, it can demand immense resources from the government because we do not know how many people have the gene.
Direction and guidance
The humane solution is, of course, monitoring (but not surveilling) the people with the diagnosed abnormality, even though such way out sounds less impressive. Scientists already know that gene is not a guarantee someone would commit a crime, it is a set of personal characteristics. Those characteristics can be directed in different ways. The personal traits typical for sociopaths can be found among successful businesspersons. Guidance, directing and training take more time and effort, but it does not exclude people from the society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the knowledge about the defected genes influencing behavior should be used not for isolating people but for providing them with guidance and using other their qualities for the good of the society.
References
Palmer, E. J. (2013). Offending behaviour. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Siegel, L. (2007). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.