Poll: Would you imprison individuals with a disorder that pre-disposed them to commiting serious crime?

[JoJo]

Here's a theoretical situation. Say that there is a mental disorder which can be easily tested for which we will call "Z Syndrome". In this situation a much higher percentage of people with Z Syndrome commit a serious crime (such as murder, rape, child abuse, serious assault etc) than ordinary people do over their lifetime. My question for you is this: what percentage of Z Syndromers would have to commit a crime over their lifetime before you would pre-emptively imprison those diagnosed with the disorder before they commit the crime? Would any other factors, such as number of sufferers, affect your decision? Would you test the population and then make a database of them, or would require or encourage psycological sessions?

So how does this apply to the real world? Well there are several disorders which increase the chances of the sufferer committing a crime, such as psychopathy which affects 1% of the general population and 25% of the prison population. In the future it may well be possible to use cheap gene tests to identify such traits and so dilemmas such as the above could well become real.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Mental institute and parole maybe, at 5 or 10% for specifically violent crimes (or higher? I have no idea what the base rate is here). Certainly not conventional prisons for people who haven't committed crimes.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

Isn't this treading into Minority Report territory? You can't really imprison someone unless they have committed a crime or have been shown to have the full intent to. So unless having 'Z Syndrome' ensures that sufferers have both the will and intent to commit a crime then I'd say pre-emptively imprisoning everyone with it would be very unethical.

 

[Red Stray]

No. Because the idea is insane.
Would you arrest someone with Tourettes for breach of the peace when he hasn't said a word yet?
Would you arrest a guy buying a six-pack for drunk and disorderly?

Cause THEN Effect

 

[DarkRyter]

No crime, no imprisonment.

Simple as that.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Categorizing possible criminal elements through genetic history?

Sounds familiar.

 

[Zerazar]

Given the premise that this gene severely affects persons to make them almost guaranteed to commit a very serious crime, then yes, I'd "imprison them". But not in a regular prison. It'd have to be a pleasent stay.

However, that original premise seems absurd to me.

Also, some of the arguments put forth against this I don't really agree with. I don't like punishment for the sake of punishment. The cause is that we now know that a certain individual is endangering many other individuals, and the effect is that we're protecting everyone from the dangerous individual. I believe punishment should have nothing to do with "deserving it" or something like that.

(excuse my poor english skills. I blame psychomotor retardation and the squirrels)

Also: By science the captcha is hard to read. Why can't it just be real words.

 

[Ace of Spades]

You can't preemptively imprison someone under suspicion that they will commit a crime. That will become a self-fulfilling prophecy by sowing desperation and panic among the syndromers, ultimately making the government look like even more of an asshole than usual.

 

[FalloutJack]

Disorders don't MAKE crimes. Only the individual.

 

[JoJo]

No. Because the idea is insane.
Would you arrest someone with Tourettes for breach of the peace when he hasn't said a word yet?
Would you arrest a guy buying a six-pack for drunk and disorderly?

Cause THEN Effect

It would probably be best to note here that I myself wouldn't advocate such imprisonment unless possibly the offending rate was practically 100%, and I probably wouldn't anyway as that would undermine the principles of a modern justice system. I'm simply want to know what other people's opinions are, I didn't include my own in the OP as I didn't want to prejudice the poll.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I said 95% but I didn't mean imprisonment, I mean to be kept under observation, maybe at a medical institution, until their state of mind can be assessed.

 

[JoJo]

I said 95% but I didn't mean imprisonment, I mean to be kept under observation, maybe at a medical institution, until their state of mind can be assessed.

Fair enough, the polls only meant to be a rough opinion-check anyway since there isn't room for everything. Incidently I'd love to hear from the user who voted for "5%", it's annoying when someone votes for an opinion no-one else has and then doesn't explain why!

 

[Valdus]

I'd be tempted to. Not out of punishment for them, but more out of saftey of others. If you had a condition that say...made you mindlessly attack people, I'd lock you up before it puts someone in danger. Having said that I would only do it if you could gaurantee the danger.

 

[Alumit]

I said 95% but I didn't mean imprisonment, I mean to be kept under observation, maybe at a medical institution, until their state of mind can be assessed.

I had voted and meant pretty much the same thing. Imprisonment in prison systems and instituting the affected is too harsh. I would pretty much have affected individuals instituted for X amount of time (no longer than six months to one year depending on how the testing goes) to observe the affected individual's chances to commit violent crimes. If it seems like they will be well enough to function with some psychiatric outpatient assistance, by all means let them free. If it is proven that they are a possible threat, potentially more observation is needed until it is a proven fact beyond reasonable doubt that they are a threat.

You can't lock someone up for something they haven't done or that is beyond their control (now I know this sounds hypocritical considering what I had just said about observation and institutions, but when I say "lock them up" I mean in prison or institutions indefinitely in the name of safety). Unless Mens Rea and Actus Reus is proven (at least here in Canada) the individual is innocent. If only one of the reas are present, then the person is innocent. You have to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in Canada to be imprisoned.

 

[Ham_authority95]

Why not research a cure for the disorder instead of just imprisoning them?

If there wasn't any cure or treatment, we should at least keep them in a separate place from people without the disorder so tons of people won't get killed.

 

[Alumit]

If there wasn't any cure or treatment, we should at least keep them in a separate place from people without the disorder so tons of people won't get killed.

Isn't this the same as imprisonment or instituting only without putting them in prisons? You're still isolating and segregating them from the general public.

 

[The Last Gaijin]

It would be discrimination, therefore, no.

This, if we allow certain exceptions to our fundamental laws then who knows what might happen next? The law should be blind, if you commit a crime then you do the time, until then you're a free man or woman however "predisposed" you are to criminality.

 

[Simalacrum]

That would be pre-crime, which is illegal (even though it frequently happens...).So I wouldn't arrest them beforehand under any circumstance; innocent until proven guilty is a basic human right.

What I would do instead is do my best to make sure that people diagnosed with this theoretical syndrome get therapy and whatnot to reduce the likelihood of them committing a crime.

 

[Total LOLige]

I've got some bad news Zsyndromers, you're going to jail!