This is also why gene therapy could significantly change things in regards to this. If we are actually able to successfully alter criminals' biology to make them less violent and also less capable of deriving pleasure from evil and forbidden/illegal acts, then there could indeed be legitimate arguments for reducing their sentences--possibly even significantly. Of course, they might also need to go into a witness protection program or something after getting released because otherwise they could simply get lynched or something by a "vigilante justice" mob which is still going to be angry at them for what they did before in spite of their genes and/or biology already being changed since then.

And Yes, I do think that if gene editing/gene therapy of human adults will ever actually become possible to such an extent, then theoretically, *maybe* it could eventually be possible to alter the genes and/or biology of mentally and psychologically healthy, decent, and well-behaved people in order to turn them into brutal, sadistic, sociopathic criminals and even serial killers. So, Yes, I do stand by what I said that who we are is probably to a very large extent a factor of our genes and/or our biology.

I'm not entirely sure if it would be viewed as being completely comparable to an insanity defense, since these people would have been sane and fully mentally aware of what they are actually doing, but the reason that these people would have had the urges and temptations to murder in the first place would have likely been due to their genes and/or biology. So, it's not an insanity defense, but there is an element of "Nature made me this way! It's not my fault that I derive pleasure from murdering people!"

Yeah, that's probably prudent, all else considered.

For what it's worth, I think that pronouns are necessary because they symbolize social sex (as in, gender) as opposed to biological sex. One's biological sex and social sex (gender) don't actually have to match. And while there are only two biological sexes, there can be much more than two social sexes.

FWIW, in addition to the risk of innocent people getting executed, I think that the strongest argument in favor of the death penalty is that people are literally hostages of their genes and biology to a certain--indeed, possibly even large--extent. In a very real sense, genuinely deep free will doesn't really exist; rather, a lot of our choices are indeed shaped by either our genes or our biology (which could involve either genes or other factors). If people can't help but be murderers, then executing them is cruel, but they certainly do need to be kept behind bars--maybe even in solitary confinement in extreme cases--in order to prevent them from ever actually harming other people if they've already harmed someone and been convicted of this.

That's not necessarily wise, though, since these released serial killers could end up murdering WAY more than just one innocent person!

"This isn't "some prosecutors do it," the plea system is an integral part of how the US justice system works at a basic level."

Does it operate significantly differently in other developed countries?

"Although people generally won't say it, when they are presented with evidence of an unfair society in terms of ratios, they will internally fall back on the conventionally unspeakable explanations of "superior" culture and genetics. Causal mechanisms take more time to explain, but will work better at changing minds. African Americans performing worse economically being the result of "cultural deficits," is an essential Republican talking point now, and "biological explanations," have been allowed to make a comeback, I'd argue, because discussing what we actually know about them has become fraught even in the academy."

For what it's worth, I think that a left-wing "race realist" who supports a generous social safety net and opposes racial discrimination has a more compassionate position on this issue than a colorblind conservative who believes that certain groups underperform as a result of their own moral defects *that they are personally capable of changing* as opposed to as a result of factors that are truly out of their own control.

Honestly, I don't think that Communism was that much of an IQ shredder--at least not in regards to average IQ:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Intelligence_and_Human_Progress/lqvT06pDU1MC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22How+much+did+Pol+Pot+do+to+lower+the+mean+IQ+of+the+Cambodian+people%3F%22&pg=PA40&printsec=frontcover

Aren't black neighborhoods also the ones with the most crime, though? If so, then it sort of makes sense for cops to be there. It's not like cops are Nazi Stormtroopers or whatever in Jewish ghettos for no reason other than to harm Jews.

Now of course it's VERY possible (and indeed probably even very likely) that some pedophiles will NOT be satisfied with harm-free outlets to express their sex drive and still be hungry for the real thing (possibly in part because they will be sociopaths and lack empathy), but it's also possible that some other pedophiles might indeed be permanently satisfied with harm-free outlets for their sex drives (such as, again, child sex dolls--especially if they're extremely realistic). MUCH more research needs to be done on this, frankly--assuming that such research is actually possible to ever conduct safely, of course.

@Bitter Crank: Technically speaking, even pedophiles have harm-free outlets to express their sex drives--such as child sex dolls--at least if the governments of their countries would not prohibit such things.

Apologies for bumping this thread, but I have a few thoughts to share:

@andrewk: "What we say about paedophiles and homicidal maniacs (not psychopaths, because psychopathy is about the absence of a constraint, not the presence of an urge) is that, because expression of those urges causes harm, people who are inflicted with those urges will be incarcerated if they are unable to suppress it. This is purely a matter of harm minimisation."

OK; I'll bite: What if *some* people with such inclinations could be *permanently* satisfied *exclusively* through harm-free outlets for their desires such as *cartoon/animated* child porn, child sex dolls, child sex robots, and virtual murder in things such as video games (possibly in extremely realistic and lifelike video games)? If someone (not everyone, but a specific person) with such inclinations is indeed capable of being *permanently* satisfied with things such as child sex dolls, should they actually be given the opportunity to own/possess and have sex with child sex dolls (and I also obviously mean pushing to change the relevant laws in regards to this beforehand) or should they still be compelled to get castrated?