Jason, from Sixth Circuit Law, passed on some comments about the genetic predisposition defense which I mentioned here. I quote, in toto, because I think he is pretty much dead on:
If Landon May prevails in his attempt to get the court to recognize that he was predisposed to engage in violent activity, shouldn't the court keep him locked up because, if released, he cannot help but to engage in violent activity in the future? Also, isn't it in the best interest of the state to incarcerate every relative of his that is sufficiently close to his father's bloodline? Now I understand that a crime is made up of both mens rea and actus reus, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting its citizens against violent activity.The scary thing is that we've dabbled with this before (remember "Three generations of imbeciles are enough?") and we're dabbling with this right now (civil commitments).
Take, for example, the hypothetical of an innocent little girl. This little girl has never done anything even remotely criminal in her entire life. However, she was born with a unique "gift." When this innocent little girl comes within 100 yards of a person, that person dies in 1 week. When she comes within 10 yards of a person, that person dies within 1 day. When she touches a person, that person dies immediately. Now, this little girl has done nothing criminal. She hasn't the intent necessary to be locked up for the commission of a crime. However, would any sane person argue that this girl has to be removed from society for the protection of the community? Would anyone argue that if taking the life of the girl were the only way to protect the people that the state would not have an obligation to do so?
If one subscribes to the genetic predisposition to commit violent crime, then the same could be said about Mr. May's family as was said about the innocent little girl.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment