This paper will discuss the different positions and perspective of today’s society with regards to the novel bioengineering practice of examining, modifying and using human genes to alter or to find out irregular behaviors like criminality. This paper will argue that people must have limits and boundaries in unlocking the mysteries of the human genome. It will also content that a defendant’s genes do not excuse criminal behavior.
With regards to the second argument I believe that a composition of genes of a defendant does not excuse him/her for a crime. Although various studies and researches have showed that genes and genetics have a direct relationship with criminal behavior, crimes and illegal behaviors are not only pushed by what kind of genes a person has (2004). The composition of our genes makes up who we are. Genes govern the color of our skin, hair and other physical attributes. Genes therefore has a direct hand in our physical appearance. But this fact cannot be directly tied to criminal or illegal behaviors. Other factors must be considered when studying the behaviors of criminals.
One important factor that defines and influences why an individual commit a criminal behavior is his environment. His surroundings have a big impact on issue of developing criminal traits and personality ( 2004). A boy can have no “criminal genes” in his makeup but if he is brought up on a family or a society that advocates and promotes violence and lawlessness, it is possible that this boy will grow up shouldering the influences of his environment. An individual can have criminalistic tendencies if he lived in a neighborhood where violence, fear, intimidation and frequent law breaking are exhibited (2001). Childhood experiences, past behaviors and family problems are frequent reasons why individuals commit crime. Serial killers and other famous criminals usually do not have criminal genes in them. The case of the Unabomber illustrates this point. was a brilliant mathematician and a university professor who in the age of 10 has an I.Q. of 170 and whose family has no serious violation of the law (2004). Then he grew dissatisfied and disillusioned against society’s dependence to computers and started to produce bombs that were sent via mail to his victims.
If the genes of an individuals will be the standard or basis of classifying and labeling criminals from non criminals, this practice would be unfair, prejudicial and would entail massive administrational problems ( 1998). It would label and brand people with “criminal genes” criminal while disregarding other factors like nature and environment as part of becoming a criminal.
On the subject of the first issue that is in this paper, I believe that there are limits and boundaries to the means on which scientist probe the intricacies and knowledge regarding human genes. First of all, studies with regards to human genes must have limitations since scientist and biotechnologist are in a thin line that separates morality from immorality, sanity from insanity and ethical from unethical. Human experiments on genes and DNAs disrupt the natural flow of life (1998). Biotechnology that seeks to lengthen the life of an individual in the short run can in fact hurt the society and other cultures in the long run. Longer living individuals will presents problems like the growing source of food supplies, larger budget for health care and greater improvement in the health sector. This scenario will also disrupt the natural ecological balance of the world since the world cannot support the larger population due to increase of life span ( 1998). Human being should abide by the laws of nature and must not create laws that will only benefit them but will inflict damage to its surroundings.
With regards to identity chips that would contain all history and DNA information about an individual, I am equally opposed to it. This practice would violate the constitutional rights of an individual since his personal information can be viewed through legitimate or illegitimate means. This concept would also violate the privacy of an individual since information and other important facts about the individual can be obtained. I am also opposed to the proposed practice of using genetics to screen future employees and applicants for insurance policies since this concept will entail massive negative labeling and prejudice to the people who were found to have genes that makes them highly susceptible to certain disease ( 2002). The probability of contracting a disease based on the genes that is in the individual does not directly translate that the individual mentioned will certainly develop the disease ( 2002). This practice would also be unfair since companies will be denying benefits to individuals due to their perceived vulnerability to the disease just to cut expenses and avoid paying insurance benefits.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment