Thanks OTB, I was waiting for that.

From the article:

" Prof John Stein, Emeritus Professor of Physiology, University of Oxford, said "This is a very interesting study with plausible aspects.

“But please do not accept the claims that these alleles are 'responsible for 5-10 per cent of violent offences in Finland'. All they show is that they may contribute 5-10 per cent to the chance of an individual being very violent.

“These alleles are quite common and so environmental factors are probably much more important. For instance simply improving prisoners diets can reduce their violent offending by 37 per cent."

Prof Jan Schnupp, Professor of Neuroscience, University of Oxford, added: "Half the people in your office will carry these genes. Odds are 50/50 that you do. How violent has your day been? To call these alleles "genes for violence" would therefore be a massive exaggeration.

“In combination with many other factors these genes may make it a little harder for you to control violent urges, but they most emphatically do not predetermine you for a life of crime.”"

So what value should be placed on your assertion that, "There is no association between genetics and commission of serious crime"?

It's sound, although slightly over-strong.

What should we make of your selective quoting of your own reference to make a misleading point?

Some more from that link:

" Dr Malcolm von Schantz, Reader in Molecular Neuroscience, University of Surrey, said: “Behavioral genetics is a very interesting area of research, but also one that is full of controversies.

“There is both the issue of whether a genetic association can be replicated, and the issue of how to interpret it – the public will be asking themselves if the scientists suggesting that violent offenders should not be fully accountable for their actions.

“So does this paper bring us closer to a situation where violent criminals can claim diminished responsibility because of the genes that they were born with?

“I think we have to remember that it becoming increasingly clear that there is not one single genetic variant that has a large effect on this, or indeed any complex behaviour.

“The pattern that is emerging is one of many genetic factors where each one has a small predisposing effect.” "

LEGO,

You’ve stuffed up the numbering system Craig started. Probably to throw myself and others off. You’ve added a 3 when I never responded to a 3; you’ve responded to my final remarks in 5; my 5 remarks in 4; you added a 7; and 6 drags up the 3 that I skipped.

1. Nope never suggested anything of the sort. That’s just slander. And I DID provide evidence for my claims, the whole reason you’re getting defensive is to avoid responding to it; you then ASSUME that “[a]fter the Indos shoot Chan and Sukhamaran, it will be a long, long time before any Australian is stupid enough to try and use Indonesia to import heroin into Australia.”

You stated emphatically that capital punishment was a deterrent and then tried to prove it by talking about incapacitation. Own it.

2. That lots of people on death row have been found innocent is a fact, not a “premise” or a “furphy”. Unsafe convictions? What about all those cleared of any wrong-doing at all through DNA testing? Much of it comes from dubious eye witness testimony in which racial bias played a role (so much for the “virtues” of racism). Hardly a “furphy”.

3. By itself, yes. But not in conjunction with this http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/46540/1/661596729.pdf. I only provided one piece of evidence for the sake of brevity. You make the mistake of thinking that my arguments are based on assumptions as naive as yours.

4. How is South Africa evidence of what will eventually happen to countries that don't have the death penalty? What about all their other social problems? Do you think capital punishment will make an effective difference despite all these? Not every criminal is put to death too, you know. You want a comparison of countries with and without the death penalty? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country. Hardly supports your argument that countries without it are more likely to be dysfunctional.

Continued…

...Continued

5. Whether or not your emotive arguments were effective is entirely subjective. The fact remains that if you had a good case, then you wouldn’t need them.

6. Craig Minns has answered this well. All I’ll add for now is that pacifists (the complete opposite to you) would also equate capital punishment with the casualties of war the way you have. It just goes to show how the black and white perspectives of extremists always lead them to faulty conclusions. By the way, I don’t think anyone argues that the death penalty “solves nothing”. It’s certainly a good method of incapacitation and you knew this only too well when you used incapacitation to argue for a deterrent effect.

7. Not just cultural conditioning. I said "environment" for a reason. Culture is just one aspect of environment.

And no, genetically eradicating the worst examples of violent criminals would not improve the human race because, as I said, behaviour is the result of the interplay between the two. Many combinations of genes can be criminogenic in one set of environmental circumstances and productive in another. A genetic disposition for aggressive behaviour, for example, can help one to become a good soldier, a good rugby league player or a good wife beater. How the genetic disposition to aggression manifests in reality, however, depends on one’s current environment and their environment throughout the various stages of their development.

There goes your black and white thinking again.

OntheBeach, ,the majority of crime is committed by anti social behaviour,, I presume you are happy for the social behaviour of war mongering Governments , please include all in your assumption of anti social behaviour and not just selected people you feel are anti social, we can all become anti social if it suits, even on OLO.