17 year old girls murder friend to find out what it is like

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's absurd. It takes far more resources to find something that happens frequently than one that happens infrequently.

Of course it takes more resources to address more problems, but that has nothing to do with picking the flashing light out in a dark room. Try to stay in the same hemisphere when going on a tangent. I was talking about the ease of being able to identify deviant factors increasing as the deviance increases in any given case.

And hey, if we execute her you'll get to try to convert her before she goes to hell where she belongs

Convert her to what? Ashes? Dust? A skin suit? You'll have to be more specific here.

Your belief in the hereafter is kinda silly Kuci, give it up and join the enlightenment. We die, that's it.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course it takes more resources to address more problems, but that has nothing to do with picking the flashing light out in a dark room. I was talking about the ease of being able to identify deviant factors increasing as the deviance increases in any given case.

We don't prevent crime by examining individual people for their risk to commit it. Your analogy is inane.

Try to stay in the same hemisphere when going on a tangent.

It's not my fault you have to be led by the hand.

[Skanky Burns]

We may be able to prevent a crime by examining people with psychological defects, and finding similar psychological defects in others. There were warning signs before the recent Virginia killing spree (disturbing poetry for instance). Things like that tend to get noticed.

[Kuciwalker]

1) You'll either have a lot of false positives or a lot of false negatives. You can't really construct a test that will get most people like this, yet somehow not get a ton of people who would never kill someone.

2) It's infeasible to psychologically evaluate every individual to the degree necessary to reduce that risk to usable levels.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
We don't prevent crime by examining individual people for their risk to commit it.

Not true.

We prevent psychotic acts (many of which would be criminal) by examining certain people for their risk and treating them for their illness...

(HINT: I was talking about psychological disorders. You know, which is what I mean when I say, "psychological disorders".)

Your analogy is inane.

"picking the flashing light out in a dark room"
"identify deviant factors"

See the correlation between a flashing light in a dark room... and a deviant factor?

It's not my fault you have to be led by the hand.

Wherever you're headed, I'm not interested.

[Patroklos]

So I ask why a mugger has the right to be rehabbed.

Muggers aren't rehabed, they are punished for a length of timee/method society deems proportional to their crime, and the let go.

Not the same thing.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
1) You'll either have a lot of false positives or a lot of false negatives. You can't really construct a test that will get most people like this, yet somehow not get a ton of people who would never kill someone.

Eventually we will be able to eliminate many of the risk factors before birth.

2) It's infeasible to psychologically evaluate every individual to the degree necessary to reduce that risk to usable levels.

Which brings us back to the point you called "absurd". That it's more likely that we can prevent the truely outrageous ("deviant") acts than the more common ones where the contributing factors blend in easier.

[DinoDoc]

I thought eugenics went out of fashion awhile ago.

[Aeson]

There are good and bad methods to implementation of just about everything. If you knew for sure your (future) child would have down syndrome, and that there was a GM treatment to allow it to instead be born without down... which would you choose?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Aeson
Not true.

We prevent psychotic acts (many of which would be criminal) by examining certain people for their risk and treating them for their illness...

And you have to somehow select the people you're going to study intensively. You have to psychologically evaluate (to some degree) every single member of the population.

(HINT: I was talking about psychological disorders. You know, which is what I mean when I say, "psychological disorders".)

Hint: you were comparing this to common crime, and the ease of preventing it.

See the correlation between a flashing light in a dark room... and a deviant factor?

Do you understand why it's a terrible analogy? The brightest flash is when they flip out and kill someone.

Eventually we will be able to eliminate many of the risk factors before birth.

Which brings us back to the point you called "absurd". That it's more likely that we can prevent the truely outrageous ("deviant") acts than the more common ones where the contributing factors blend in easier.

It is absurd.

We know when and where a lot of common crime occurs (e.g. the back alley at night). To prevent these crimes (as much as is economical) we just have to have a reasonable number of policemen on the streets. To prevent a completely random murder by a psychologically disturbed individual we have to identify these individuals and put them under constant surveillance. The first step is nearly impossible with any reliability, and the second is uneconomical. (The alternative, "curing" them, is of dubious possibility.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And you have to somehow select the people you're going to study intensively. You have to psychologically evaluate (to some degree) every single member of the population.

As the understanding of what leads to this behavior increases, so will the ability to spot it and treat it. Sometimes they really aren't that hard to spot.

Plus, once GM becomes mainstream, it would almost be criminal for parents not to have some sort of analysis to catch the really crappy stuff before it gets through.

Hint: you were comparing this to common crime, and the ease of preventing it.

No, I was comparing it to less deviant crime. "Common crime" generally means lesser offenses, which may or may not be the case.

Someone who steals once in a while to fit in, or for a thrill, is harder to spot beforehand (psychologically, or genetically) than someone who steals because the voices in their head tell them to.

Someone who finds their wife in bed with another man and starts shooting is harder to spot beforehand (psychologically, or genetically) than someone who rituallistically sacrifices and eats their victims.

Do you understand why it's a terrible analogy? The brightest flash is when they flip out and kill someone.

You still miss the entire context of the analogy. It was dealing with what I said, which was about psychological disorders. The brightest flash is when the person is most abnormal.

(Do you think I said the opposite of what I said? Because you really seem to.)

...

(The alternative, "curing" them, is of dubious possibility.)

Just wondering if you think no psychological disorders are genetic, or if you think our technology will never advance that far?

We haven't been talking about "curing" anyone really, though eventually even that may be possible. I'm talking about true prevention, keeping the problem from forming, rather than trying to treat or contain it once it has taken shape.

To prevent a completely random murder by a psychologically disturbed individual we have to identify these individuals and put them under constant surveillance.

That is unfeasible of course. You just can't see any crime prevention behind "cops on the street". Look deeper. What we have to do is identify the factors which lead to the formation of such a psyche, and eliminate them.

[Kuciwalker]

You're descending into the realm of sci-fi fanboy without a clue and/or cryptofascist.

[Aeson]

Answer the questions for prosperity Kuci... do you think GM to eliminate hereditary disorders will ever be feasible? Would you allow GM treatment for your offspring if it would eliminate an otherwise disabling birth defect?

[Kuciwalker]

I think GM can never eliminate a disorder like this - which we haven't even established is hereditary. And I think possible scientific advances in the distant future are not germane to a discussion of the DP today.

[Aeson]

I never said this case was hereditary. From what the article said, the girls seem to be sociopaths, but they could just be playing the part hoping for an insanity plea and in-fact the murder had a more "normal" jealousy or retribution motive. (Just a guess on the insanity plea, I have no idea how Australian law looks on that.)

Without psychological analysis there's no way to tell for sure what the case is. (I suggest study remember.)

Let me remind you that you responded to me when I was making a generalized statement, not addressing this case specifically. That's the context, don't try to twist it.

But stop dodging the questions. Are you afraid to admit that you'd GM your baby so it could lead a happy, healthy, life if such treatment were possible? Closet-cryptofascist?