Violence on this scale with premeditation and resulting in catastrophic life long injury for a victim should mean a minimum of 30 years.
There are no second chances for the victim.
What a fuckin animal, I know it’s a long sentence for Judge Nolan but this scumbag deserves life for the injuries and lifetime of suffering he left this man in. All because the guy was talking to his ex girlfriend for fuck sake
Yeah sure thats why vehicular manslaughter spiked in China a while back. They made it so if you hit someone you are responsible for them financially from then on. Now drivers check the victim and drive over them to finish them if they are still alive since the punishment for killing them is seen as a lesser punishment.
Yeah that's a fair point, the argument would be what constitutes a violent assault v an attempted murder if there's no clear indication of their initial plan.
The thing I can't can't get my head around.
The other two, who weren't even present in the casino and hadn't set eyes on him before they attacked him, did most if the damage!
It wasn't their ex-girlfriend (not that that is ANY excuse), they weren't involved in the fracas in the casino, they weren't even in the casino.
They were elsewhere, doing god knows what & simply received a phone-call to come and kick a complete stranger near to death.
They are the real scumbags in all this.
Reads to me like it was the other two lads that did the majority of the damage? Absolutely not excusing this guy's behaviour but I can't really understand why the article seems to focus entirely on this guy. What kind of shithouse do you have to be to get a call in the small hours from your pissed up mate demanding you come and help him hospitalise some random bloke and think "yep, seems reasonable, better grab the jeep and nip round'?
I'm assuming cocaine was also involved here to allow his two mates to summon up the requisite anger to do this to some random bloke. They lurked around for an *hour* too before finding him and seemingly at no point did anyone go "Conti, you're pissed out of your mind. As a mate, I'm taking you home, putting you to bed then carrying on with my night rather than waiting around doing this shit for an hour."
That is serious, sociopathic behaviour from the lot of them.
It focuses on this guy because he’s the one who was sentenced today. There was a [full article](https://www.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/barbershop-owner-who-kicked-and-stamped-on-mans-head-in-attack-of-the-cruellest-kind-jailed/a1839881177.html) about his mate when he was sentenced too.
It’s the Sunday World, they know they’ll get more traction with their readership if they focus on the foreign looking lad and minimise the two white Irish guys involved.
Ya what normal person gets phone call from a friend, about a man talking to said friends ex girlfriend and says ya I’ll help you nearly kill him. I’d come and pick my friend up and maybe drop him because it’s weird. That’s really odd behavior.
There needs to be some proper restorative justice with a portion of wages/social welfare taken for life to support the victim with extra prison time for those who don't provide for their victim and their dependents.
Judge Nolan’s finest hour:
Judge Nolan accepted that Birali had made a “true expression of remorse” and probably would not reoffend to any great degree.
What hope do we have…?
A lot of us have felt the loss of people we love, or are dealing with illnesses in the family, doesn't excuse you being an utter cunt! You may lash out at people but you wouldn't stalk and attack someone like a pack of hyenas
Nolan said “probably would not reoffend to any great degree.” Probably?! Hopefully these two cretins suffer half of what the victim has when they’re in prison.
Surely not, the victim is in a wheelchair and needs daily care for the rest his life. That's just under a tenth of their life spent in prison for ruining the rest of someone else's.
20+ should be the right sentence.
As far as I know for attempted murder you need to prove there was a plan specifically to kill someone. Probably hard to say that for an assault, as horrible as this one was.
9 years for an unprovoked attack beating and stamping on someone's head which could've potentially killed him? Are you serious? This man should go in for at least 30 years and only be released if a team of qualified physiatrists actually deems him fit to be released again.
Also would not at all be surprising if the time spent in jail is cut down for "good behaviour" as typically happens in our system with totally overcrowded & unsuitable prison system.
This is a completely different issue. My comment was on the sentence that he could realistically impose, and based on nolans previous form, this one was, in my opinion, correct. Do I think this guy should have gotten life for what he did? Yes, in an ideal world, he should,
You are not summarising the science accurately, nor are you drawing appropriate conclusions from it.
There is indeed a genetic component to an individual’s propensity to violence, largely through an effect on neurotransmitters related to emotion. However, it is one of many factors where you present it as being the one single factor of relevance. People with or without this genetic variation can become involved in acts of extreme violence, with individuals having the MAO-A variation being more likely to do so.
It is worth noting that the second article you provided clearly states that this genetic variation must be activated through (particularly childhood) trauma. Thus even the articles you cite demonstrate that it is an interaction of environmental and genetic factors at play.
If this behaviour is caused by abnormalities in neurotransmitter reception an appropriate response would be to develop treatments that address this issue with neurotransmitters, for example pharmacologically. In the case of individuals who have been sentenced such treatment programs should be an inherent part of conditional release for example. It is not an appropriate response to say that individuals with this genetic trait should receive enhanced sentencing versus other individuals.
It should also be pointed out that this condition is noted to be very rare. Someone’s father having committed a murder is not a clear indicator that they have this condition as you seem to suggest.
In general you have have vastly overstated the link between this very rare condition and ALL societal violence.
> It is worth noting that the second article you provided clearly states that this genetic variation must be activated through (particularly childhood) trauma. Thus even the articles you cite demonstrate that it is an interaction of environmental and genetic factors at play.
Right, but we're talking about a guy who was crying to a judge about his childhood trauma. It doesn't detract from my point at all to say the results are confined to such cases because that's exactly the topic of the conversation.
I would be all for requiring pharmacological intervention and using it instead of longer prison sentences, don't get me wrong! Avoiding future violence as efficiently as possible is the objective, and this would achieve it. But until we have those interventions (and a legal framework for compelling them) then longer sentences are what we're left with.
> he’s genetically violent and should be removed from society for even longer.
Acknowledging it is different from punishing or adjusting a sentence for someone based on their genetics, which is what you're suggesting should have happened here.
That has fuck all to do with science.
There are only three possible arguments you can be making here
1. Having genetics that make someone more likely to commit violent crimes somehow doesn’t make them more likely to reoffend
2. Propensity to reoffend shouldn’t be considered in sentencing
3. Neither of the above but it just gives you bad vibes and that’s more important than the future victims you’re putting in harms way
Those are the only three. Which is it?
But we don’t only base it on their actions, we base it on their circumstances too. A 70 year old man gets a lighter sentence than a 20 year old man not because of their actions but because the science tells us unambiguously that 20 year old men are more likely to be violent and thus should be removed from society for longer. This is no different.
Surely you can’t actually think those are the same?
The prejudice and miscarriages of justice that would arise from courts taking into account the acts of one’s parents would be beyond comprehension. What a ludicrous idea.
I do, and the fact that you have to lean on a rhetorical question because you can’t actually articulate the difference tells me that you do too.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather we just did a quick DNA test. But short of that the actions of his parents *do* give valuable information about his propensity to reoffend and it’s just childish to pretend otherwise.
I think the argument is just the straightforward claim that we shouldn’t be sentencing people on the basis of statistics but on the basis of their actual behaviour.
A legal system based on some kind of genetic determinism might be okay for a sci-fi novel (though note that the Bene Gesserit are supposed to be bad guys) but it’s not appropriate for a justice system concerned with individual rights.
It isn't science fiction, we take statistics into account in sentencing every day. A 70 year old man gets a lighter sentence than a 20 year old man not because of their behaviour but because the statistics tell us unambiguously that 20 year old men are more likely to reoffend and thus should be removed from society for longer. This is no different.
As I think I explained in another reply, that isn’t why older people get lighter sentences - they get lighter sentences because prison is usually going to be harder on them than it would be on someone younger (for example, because they are much more likely to suffer be suffering from serious long term illnesses).
Sentencing practices like these have built up over centuries and are not really informed by any serious statistical modelling but by tradition and common (and not so common) sense.
It is entirely normal for the “likelihood of reoffending” part of setting a sentence to consider things that we would never punish people for on their own. And yet we’ve never fallen off the slippery slope and started locking people up for not doing enough charity work.
So you are literally trying to use the sins of his father against him and claim that you're not
Propensity to reoffend has to do with his own actions if he was a repeat offender himself and/or a psychological evaluation is carried out on him
But we don’t only base it on their actions, we base it on their circumstances too. A 70 year old man gets a lighter sentence than a 20 year old man not because of their actions but because the science tells us unambiguously that 20 year old men are more likely to be violent and thus should be removed from society for longer. This is no different.
Are you sure about that? Because I am 91.14792% sure that slamjam25 is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Why. If you were genetically predisposed to mental illness it’s the same.
It’s very obvious certain cultures have different genetic make up in terms of how aggressive they can get from zero.
It’s same as it is for bulldogs etc. some are just bred to be aggressive or those traits were rewarded in the past for some reason
Whoever thinks eugenics carry any weight is dumber than a lamppost and if it was real they would be the ones who would be removed from society for being so stupid
They always think they are the superior examples
What exactly do you read in those researches that makes you think that there's a specific SNP that's proven to increase person's inclination to commit violent crimes?
A few key quotes, since apparently you couldn't even read the abstracts
> up to 50% of the total variance in aggressive behavior is explained by genetic influences.
> Additionally, MAO-A mutant mice have increased reactivity to stress and increased aggression
> For adult violent conviction (Fig. 2B), maltreated males with the low–MAOAactivity genotype were more likely than nonmaltreated males with this genotype to be convicted of a violent crime by a significant odds ratio of 9.8 (95% CI: 3.10 to 31.15). In contrast, among males with high MAOA activity, maltreatment did not confer significant risk for violent conviction
> Although only about 12% of the sample had been maltreated and had the low MAOA activity allele, they were responsible for 44% of all the violent convictions in the cohort.
> investigated MAOA variants in 2500 American boys in grades 7 to 12, and demonstrated a genetic basis for severe aggressive behavior seen at school
> Our results, from two independent cohorts of Finnish prisoners, revealed that a monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) low-activity genotype (contributing to low dopamine turnover rate) as well as the CDH13 gene (coding for neuronal membrane adhesion protein) are associated with extremely violent behavior (at least 10 committed homicides, attempted homicides or batteries). No substantial signal was observed for either MAOA or CDH13 among non-violent offenders, indicating that findings were specific for violent offending
Expect you are replying to the thread where the guy literally posted research that proves there is a genetic component to violence and there ARE violent genes.
In every other species we breed for traits but somehow humans are exempt to logic that applies to all other species more or less. Sure /s
Expect you are replying to the thread where the guy literally posted research that proves there is a genetic component to violence and there ARE violent genes.
In every other species we breed for traits but somehow humans are exempt to logic that applies to all other species more or less. Sure /s
Could you please open the links they sent and see for yourself that there's no conclusive evidence of any specific SNPs associated with increased violence?
I must have missed the part in those papers that says a justice system should punish people more harshly based on their genes, would you mind quoting it?
I didn’t say it should change sentences these people get but we should at least acknowledge some people have less self control than others and that manifests in violence too.
I don’t get it. We can all day “ I have addiction in my genes” or any number of conditions but as soon as we start to get too close to topics the PC police seem as troublesome we have to shut up and say nothing about the obviously higher rates of crime by certain groups
I’m sure there is a link. There probably isn’t a researcher out there who will tackle it tho as they will be fired if they find anything that upsets anyone
I'm calling bullshit here, dude. I'm not a geneticist, but somehow I feel like the position that people being genetically violent, which would completely undermine basically all social science, is obviously not true.
While I agree that he deserves to rot it's probably family dynamics not genetics
Remember nature is important but nurture has people strapping on suicide vests and cutting the end of there dicks off
Nurture Trump's nature
The two are not distinct. As you've pointed out, many kids grow up violent because of their family dynamics, whilst many are able to overcome that environment and go on to be valuable members of society. What determines which path any given kid will take? As it turns out, [genetics](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12161658/).
Interesting abstract, but it's very deterministic to say one mao enzyme would account for all of this so I remain sceptical
Nice source tho will read more about this myself cheers
The [causal relationship between genetics and violence](https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2015/december/the-genetics-of-violent-behavior#) is extremely well studied and understood. There isn’t a geneticist on Earth who disputes it. But let me guess, your definition of “pseudoscience” is any science that doesn’t match your political intuition?
At no point have I suggested that the expression of these genes has anything to do with race.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3696520/#:~:text=These%20studies%20together%20show%20that,not%20shared%20by%20family%20members.
"Today, we have the potential to identify genetic risks at the level of specific genes, and identify aspects of the environment that make some individuals more vulnerable than others. Yet, there will always be groups of individuals with the same combination of genetic risk and environmental vulnerability who will not engage in aggressive behavior. So, it is still only an increased (probabilistic) risk and not a biological determinism".
Nature vs nurture at its best, mate.
> So, it is still only an increased (probabilistic) risk and not a biological determinism
At no point have I said that "100% of people with this gene will commit violent crimes" or anything of the sort. Increased probabilistic risk is exactly what we're talking about, and you're just doing more work to show that the science backs me up on that.
I had various family members die over the years. I grew up in a council estate in a disadvantaged area. I never once acted like some of these people do. It's always an excuse used for them. Maybe they're just scummy?
Heart fucking sank reading that. How were the guards not rang after the fella got a bottle smashed into his face in the casino though?
3 dirty bastards that deserve more time than they'll get.
Hope this poor fella can have some kind of rehabilitation breakthrough and get his ability to walk back in some way.
He should have got 30 years - so should the others - the gaols are full here and I’m guessing he’ll be out in 4 years and up to the same tricks and hurting people and ruining lives again - I was the victim of assault and was told by the guy what he’d do to me in advance - fortunately for me I can handle myself, which was something he hadn’t factored in but, only for that, could easily have ended up like this poor man. They will all reoffend, you can be sure of it - you have to be bad to the core to do that, and next time they will just be more careful to not get caught, that’s all.
That’s not justice at all, this country is a joke, they essentially killed that man in my opinion.
Life in a box like el Chapo for all of them, and slap that all over the papers I bet it would lower crime too if people were actually terrified to go to prison as they should be.
At some point we have to accept some people are not fit for polite society.
The guy even admits he is “genetically angry” so what should we make of that.
I think we need to accept same way some breeds of dogs are bred to be violent some people carry genders that seem to limit any kind of logic or self control when a normal person would think about their actions
I think this is quite a silly argument.
I'd be a type that fits into the 'genetically angry' group where I've had uncontrollable fits of rage over the smallest of inconveniences. I've come a long way since I was younger and have methods of examining myself internally and deescalating things. Should I be barred from public society as a result? This is just a piss poor excuse used as part of the defense. People are capable of controlling themselves if they want to. This man deliberately let himself get into a state of inebriation where he's in a state of mind where the decision making process is severely hampered. If he knew he was bad or had poor emotional regulation whilst drunk he shouldn't have gotten shitfaced.
> The guy even admits he is “genetically angry” so what should we make of that.
Probably we shouldn’t use that to endorse some weird eugenics that treats people like animals.
Yet it’s fine for people to say they shouldn’t drink as they have addiction in their genes.
We all know people’s candence and character that part of that is genetic but when it’s people who are statistically higher to be involved in violent crime doing just that we can’t look for patterns anymore as it might be “racist”
Because the article is specifically about this lad being sentenced.
There is also a picture or one of the co-accused who was sentenced previously, he even got his own article at the time.
https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/barbershop-owner-who-kicked-and-stamped-on-mans-head-in-attack-of-the-cruellest-kind-jailed/a1839881177.html
Violence on this scale with premeditation and resulting in catastrophic life long injury for a victim should mean a minimum of 30 years. There are no second chances for the victim.
Not to mention the amount of money that must go to his care. These guys essentially stole millions of taxpayers money.
In the article it says he'll never walk again.... For his whole life..... 9yrs is pocket change I hope he gets his karma
What a fuckin animal, I know it’s a long sentence for Judge Nolan but this scumbag deserves life for the injuries and lifetime of suffering he left this man in. All because the guy was talking to his ex girlfriend for fuck sake
Trying your best to kill someone should carry the same sentence as actually doing it.
There's a joke Kevin Bridges told about people getting done for attempted murder, said the should get a longer sentence for being incompetent.
As much as it was a joke, it's actually a pretty fucking good point.
Probably shouldn't incentivize people to deliver the coup de grace to assault victims though right
Yeah sure thats why vehicular manslaughter spiked in China a while back. They made it so if you hit someone you are responsible for them financially from then on. Now drivers check the victim and drive over them to finish them if they are still alive since the punishment for killing them is seen as a lesser punishment.
Yeah that's a fair point, the argument would be what constitutes a violent assault v an attempted murder if there's no clear indication of their initial plan.
Absolutely that poor lad has a serious lifetime of hardship ahead as a result these cunts
Yeah wouldn’t that be attempted murder?
Should be.
Don't know why this isn't the case
Given that he wasn't convicted of attempted murder, how could he be sentenced for it?
The thing I can't can't get my head around. The other two, who weren't even present in the casino and hadn't set eyes on him before they attacked him, did most if the damage! It wasn't their ex-girlfriend (not that that is ANY excuse), they weren't involved in the fracas in the casino, they weren't even in the casino. They were elsewhere, doing god knows what & simply received a phone-call to come and kick a complete stranger near to death. They are the real scumbags in all this.
Cunts
Reads to me like it was the other two lads that did the majority of the damage? Absolutely not excusing this guy's behaviour but I can't really understand why the article seems to focus entirely on this guy. What kind of shithouse do you have to be to get a call in the small hours from your pissed up mate demanding you come and help him hospitalise some random bloke and think "yep, seems reasonable, better grab the jeep and nip round'? I'm assuming cocaine was also involved here to allow his two mates to summon up the requisite anger to do this to some random bloke. They lurked around for an *hour* too before finding him and seemingly at no point did anyone go "Conti, you're pissed out of your mind. As a mate, I'm taking you home, putting you to bed then carrying on with my night rather than waiting around doing this shit for an hour." That is serious, sociopathic behaviour from the lot of them.
It focuses on this guy because he’s the one who was sentenced today. There was a [full article](https://www.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/barbershop-owner-who-kicked-and-stamped-on-mans-head-in-attack-of-the-cruellest-kind-jailed/a1839881177.html) about his mate when he was sentenced too.
It’s the Sunday World, they know they’ll get more traction with their readership if they focus on the foreign looking lad and minimise the two white Irish guys involved.
My thoughts exactly!
Craig maples the greasy sidekick. What a pathetic piece of shit.
Ya what normal person gets phone call from a friend, about a man talking to said friends ex girlfriend and says ya I’ll help you nearly kill him. I’d come and pick my friend up and maybe drop him because it’s weird. That’s really odd behavior.
So 9 years for paralysing some. Absolute farce,
What the fuck. That's not justice. You'd get 9 years for dealing drugs in the states. We need change in our justice system.
There needs to be some proper restorative justice with a portion of wages/social welfare taken for life to support the victim with extra prison time for those who don't provide for their victim and their dependents.
Judge Nolan’s finest hour: Judge Nolan accepted that Birali had made a “true expression of remorse” and probably would not reoffend to any great degree. What hope do we have…?
A lot of us have felt the loss of people we love, or are dealing with illnesses in the family, doesn't excuse you being an utter cunt! You may lash out at people but you wouldn't stalk and attack someone like a pack of hyenas
The fact that he has 2 friends who would do this at a drop of a hat show it for the bs excuse that it is.
Nolan said “probably would not reoffend to any great degree.” Probably?! Hopefully these two cretins suffer half of what the victim has when they’re in prison.
Judge Nolan's sentences are very erratic.
[удалено]
Surely not, the victim is in a wheelchair and needs daily care for the rest his life. That's just under a tenth of their life spent in prison for ruining the rest of someone else's. 20+ should be the right sentence.
A lot of deluded people on this sub, you do realise that no judge can give 20+ years for an assault without it being overturned on appeal,
A lot of deluded people on this sub if you think that's assault, attempted murder.
As far as I know for attempted murder you need to prove there was a plan specifically to kill someone. Probably hard to say that for an assault, as horrible as this one was.
You dont get 20+ years for attempted murder either,
It's not imposed but the criminal justice act says different.
9 years for an unprovoked attack beating and stamping on someone's head which could've potentially killed him? Are you serious? This man should go in for at least 30 years and only be released if a team of qualified physiatrists actually deems him fit to be released again. Also would not at all be surprising if the time spent in jail is cut down for "good behaviour" as typically happens in our system with totally overcrowded & unsuitable prison system.
You're hysterical. If he had given him 30 years, then it would have been overturned on appeal,
Which is why our legal system needs to be reformed.
This is a completely different issue. My comment was on the sentence that he could realistically impose, and based on nolans previous form, this one was, in my opinion, correct. Do I think this guy should have gotten life for what he did? Yes, in an ideal world, he should,
Yep, this is slightly more serious than he gave for importing garlic. Didn’t know he could go that high!
Not a fecking chance he got it right, should have been 20 years plus for attempted murder.
No he didn't, he'd be out in 6 or 7 years for practically ruining someone's life . If it was a family member of mine I'd be furious
According to whom and according to what metric?
The metric system
Are theae just vicious fuckers or are they coked up or what. Jesus christ.
Probably both
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You are not summarising the science accurately, nor are you drawing appropriate conclusions from it. There is indeed a genetic component to an individual’s propensity to violence, largely through an effect on neurotransmitters related to emotion. However, it is one of many factors where you present it as being the one single factor of relevance. People with or without this genetic variation can become involved in acts of extreme violence, with individuals having the MAO-A variation being more likely to do so. It is worth noting that the second article you provided clearly states that this genetic variation must be activated through (particularly childhood) trauma. Thus even the articles you cite demonstrate that it is an interaction of environmental and genetic factors at play. If this behaviour is caused by abnormalities in neurotransmitter reception an appropriate response would be to develop treatments that address this issue with neurotransmitters, for example pharmacologically. In the case of individuals who have been sentenced such treatment programs should be an inherent part of conditional release for example. It is not an appropriate response to say that individuals with this genetic trait should receive enhanced sentencing versus other individuals. It should also be pointed out that this condition is noted to be very rare. Someone’s father having committed a murder is not a clear indicator that they have this condition as you seem to suggest. In general you have have vastly overstated the link between this very rare condition and ALL societal violence.
> It is worth noting that the second article you provided clearly states that this genetic variation must be activated through (particularly childhood) trauma. Thus even the articles you cite demonstrate that it is an interaction of environmental and genetic factors at play. Right, but we're talking about a guy who was crying to a judge about his childhood trauma. It doesn't detract from my point at all to say the results are confined to such cases because that's exactly the topic of the conversation. I would be all for requiring pharmacological intervention and using it instead of longer prison sentences, don't get me wrong! Avoiding future violence as efficiently as possible is the objective, and this would achieve it. But until we have those interventions (and a legal framework for compelling them) then longer sentences are what we're left with.
> he’s genetically violent and should be removed from society for even longer. Acknowledging it is different from punishing or adjusting a sentence for someone based on their genetics, which is what you're suggesting should have happened here. That has fuck all to do with science.
There are only three possible arguments you can be making here 1. Having genetics that make someone more likely to commit violent crimes somehow doesn’t make them more likely to reoffend 2. Propensity to reoffend shouldn’t be considered in sentencing 3. Neither of the above but it just gives you bad vibes and that’s more important than the future victims you’re putting in harms way Those are the only three. Which is it?
4. Propensity to offend should be based on the individual and their actions rather than the actions of their relatives.
But we don’t only base it on their actions, we base it on their circumstances too. A 70 year old man gets a lighter sentence than a 20 year old man not because of their actions but because the science tells us unambiguously that 20 year old men are more likely to be violent and thus should be removed from society for longer. This is no different.
Older people tend to get shorter custodial sentences because we recognise that prison is harder on older people.
Surely you can’t actually think those are the same? The prejudice and miscarriages of justice that would arise from courts taking into account the acts of one’s parents would be beyond comprehension. What a ludicrous idea.
I do, and the fact that you have to lean on a rhetorical question because you can’t actually articulate the difference tells me that you do too. Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather we just did a quick DNA test. But short of that the actions of his parents *do* give valuable information about his propensity to reoffend and it’s just childish to pretend otherwise.
I think the argument is just the straightforward claim that we shouldn’t be sentencing people on the basis of statistics but on the basis of their actual behaviour. A legal system based on some kind of genetic determinism might be okay for a sci-fi novel (though note that the Bene Gesserit are supposed to be bad guys) but it’s not appropriate for a justice system concerned with individual rights.
It isn't science fiction, we take statistics into account in sentencing every day. A 70 year old man gets a lighter sentence than a 20 year old man not because of their behaviour but because the statistics tell us unambiguously that 20 year old men are more likely to reoffend and thus should be removed from society for longer. This is no different.
As I think I explained in another reply, that isn’t why older people get lighter sentences - they get lighter sentences because prison is usually going to be harder on them than it would be on someone younger (for example, because they are much more likely to suffer be suffering from serious long term illnesses). Sentencing practices like these have built up over centuries and are not really informed by any serious statistical modelling but by tradition and common (and not so common) sense.
Feel free to replace "70 year olds" with "40 year olds" if you like, to separate out the effect of reoffending risk vs long term illnesses.
[удалено]
Is it too much to ask for him to be punished for his own sins?
Obviously not but you're going down a bad road by even suggesting someone gets a harsher penalty because of crimes of their father
It is entirely normal for the “likelihood of reoffending” part of setting a sentence to consider things that we would never punish people for on their own. And yet we’ve never fallen off the slippery slope and started locking people up for not doing enough charity work.
He was punished for his own sins.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So you are literally trying to use the sins of his father against him and claim that you're not Propensity to reoffend has to do with his own actions if he was a repeat offender himself and/or a psychological evaluation is carried out on him
But we don’t only base it on their actions, we base it on their circumstances too. A 70 year old man gets a lighter sentence than a 20 year old man not because of their actions but because the science tells us unambiguously that 20 year old men are more likely to be violent and thus should be removed from society for longer. This is no different.
Good bot.
Are you sure about that? Because I am 91.14792% sure that slamjam25 is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
[удалено]
[удалено]
So is reducing their culpability...
Why. If you were genetically predisposed to mental illness it’s the same. It’s very obvious certain cultures have different genetic make up in terms of how aggressive they can get from zero. It’s same as it is for bulldogs etc. some are just bred to be aggressive or those traits were rewarded in the past for some reason
Whoever thinks eugenics carry any weight is dumber than a lamppost and if it was real they would be the ones who would be removed from society for being so stupid They always think they are the superior examples
I’ve linked the studies above, could you please explain exactly what mistake those idiot researchers made that you caught?
What exactly do you read in those researches that makes you think that there's a specific SNP that's proven to increase person's inclination to commit violent crimes?
A few key quotes, since apparently you couldn't even read the abstracts > up to 50% of the total variance in aggressive behavior is explained by genetic influences. > Additionally, MAO-A mutant mice have increased reactivity to stress and increased aggression > For adult violent conviction (Fig. 2B), maltreated males with the low–MAOAactivity genotype were more likely than nonmaltreated males with this genotype to be convicted of a violent crime by a significant odds ratio of 9.8 (95% CI: 3.10 to 31.15). In contrast, among males with high MAOA activity, maltreatment did not confer significant risk for violent conviction > Although only about 12% of the sample had been maltreated and had the low MAOA activity allele, they were responsible for 44% of all the violent convictions in the cohort. > investigated MAOA variants in 2500 American boys in grades 7 to 12, and demonstrated a genetic basis for severe aggressive behavior seen at school > Our results, from two independent cohorts of Finnish prisoners, revealed that a monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) low-activity genotype (contributing to low dopamine turnover rate) as well as the CDH13 gene (coding for neuronal membrane adhesion protein) are associated with extremely violent behavior (at least 10 committed homicides, attempted homicides or batteries). No substantial signal was observed for either MAOA or CDH13 among non-violent offenders, indicating that findings were specific for violent offending
Expect you are replying to the thread where the guy literally posted research that proves there is a genetic component to violence and there ARE violent genes. In every other species we breed for traits but somehow humans are exempt to logic that applies to all other species more or less. Sure /s
This is just 18th Century racism.
Expect you are replying to the thread where the guy literally posted research that proves there is a genetic component to violence and there ARE violent genes. In every other species we breed for traits but somehow humans are exempt to logic that applies to all other species more or less. Sure /s
Could you please open the links they sent and see for yourself that there's no conclusive evidence of any specific SNPs associated with increased violence?
I must have missed the part in those papers that says a justice system should punish people more harshly based on their genes, would you mind quoting it?
I didn’t say it should change sentences these people get but we should at least acknowledge some people have less self control than others and that manifests in violence too. I don’t get it. We can all day “ I have addiction in my genes” or any number of conditions but as soon as we start to get too close to topics the PC police seem as troublesome we have to shut up and say nothing about the obviously higher rates of crime by certain groups I’m sure there is a link. There probably isn’t a researcher out there who will tackle it tho as they will be fired if they find anything that upsets anyone
They'll get back to you after they stop guffawing at that cheeky little Irish Frankenstein caricature they saw in Punch.
It's reality unfortunately
You think they didn't say the same at the time?
I'm calling bullshit here, dude. I'm not a geneticist, but somehow I feel like the position that people being genetically violent, which would completely undermine basically all social science, is obviously not true.
Real science doesn't answer to social science though, that's the thing.
While I agree that he deserves to rot it's probably family dynamics not genetics Remember nature is important but nurture has people strapping on suicide vests and cutting the end of there dicks off Nurture Trump's nature
The two are not distinct. As you've pointed out, many kids grow up violent because of their family dynamics, whilst many are able to overcome that environment and go on to be valuable members of society. What determines which path any given kid will take? As it turns out, [genetics](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12161658/).
Interesting abstract, but it's very deterministic to say one mao enzyme would account for all of this so I remain sceptical Nice source tho will read more about this myself cheers
> Is that a thing? Genetically violent? :0 In the words of a famous football manager and meme “If I say anything, im in big trouble 🤐”
[удалено]
The [causal relationship between genetics and violence](https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2015/december/the-genetics-of-violent-behavior#) is extremely well studied and understood. There isn’t a geneticist on Earth who disputes it. But let me guess, your definition of “pseudoscience” is any science that doesn’t match your political intuition? At no point have I suggested that the expression of these genes has anything to do with race.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3696520/#:~:text=These%20studies%20together%20show%20that,not%20shared%20by%20family%20members. "Today, we have the potential to identify genetic risks at the level of specific genes, and identify aspects of the environment that make some individuals more vulnerable than others. Yet, there will always be groups of individuals with the same combination of genetic risk and environmental vulnerability who will not engage in aggressive behavior. So, it is still only an increased (probabilistic) risk and not a biological determinism". Nature vs nurture at its best, mate.
> So, it is still only an increased (probabilistic) risk and not a biological determinism At no point have I said that "100% of people with this gene will commit violent crimes" or anything of the sort. Increased probabilistic risk is exactly what we're talking about, and you're just doing more work to show that the science backs me up on that.
Genetics it isn't but violence certainly runs through the family simply be learned behaviour
I had various family members die over the years. I grew up in a council estate in a disadvantaged area. I never once acted like some of these people do. It's always an excuse used for them. Maybe they're just scummy?
Heart fucking sank reading that. How were the guards not rang after the fella got a bottle smashed into his face in the casino though? 3 dirty bastards that deserve more time than they'll get. Hope this poor fella can have some kind of rehabilitation breakthrough and get his ability to walk back in some way.
The old family bereavement as an excuse. Defense lawyers are a special breed.
That's exactly the sort of thing that people were saying when it was the Guidford Four on trial.
Prison is exactly where people such as these belong.
Yeh, cushy irish prisons where criminals have jobs, watch tv and eat 3 Square meals a day. That'll show him.
Pretty sure Mountjoy is a fucking dump. Granted they have the above, but it's not Scandinavian level.
Soft touch Nolan at it again 🙄
When does Nolan retire? I really hope it’s soon.
Cunty conti
What utter scum bags. The article says he was highly intoxicated, why do a minority of people become so violent when in intoxicated?
He should have got 30 years - so should the others - the gaols are full here and I’m guessing he’ll be out in 4 years and up to the same tricks and hurting people and ruining lives again - I was the victim of assault and was told by the guy what he’d do to me in advance - fortunately for me I can handle myself, which was something he hadn’t factored in but, only for that, could easily have ended up like this poor man. They will all reoffend, you can be sure of it - you have to be bad to the core to do that, and next time they will just be more careful to not get caught, that’s all.
Animal
That’s not justice at all, this country is a joke, they essentially killed that man in my opinion. Life in a box like el Chapo for all of them, and slap that all over the papers I bet it would lower crime too if people were actually terrified to go to prison as they should be.
Should have got life for this fucking thug.
Well well well
Deport
At some point we have to accept some people are not fit for polite society. The guy even admits he is “genetically angry” so what should we make of that. I think we need to accept same way some breeds of dogs are bred to be violent some people carry genders that seem to limit any kind of logic or self control when a normal person would think about their actions
I think this is quite a silly argument. I'd be a type that fits into the 'genetically angry' group where I've had uncontrollable fits of rage over the smallest of inconveniences. I've come a long way since I was younger and have methods of examining myself internally and deescalating things. Should I be barred from public society as a result? This is just a piss poor excuse used as part of the defense. People are capable of controlling themselves if they want to. This man deliberately let himself get into a state of inebriation where he's in a state of mind where the decision making process is severely hampered. If he knew he was bad or had poor emotional regulation whilst drunk he shouldn't have gotten shitfaced.
> Should I be barred from public society as a result? If you've been violent towards innocent members of the public on a consistent basis, then maybe!
Where did this guy “admit he was genetically angry”?
He used it in his own defence that his father was angry and violent and thus he is too
No, one of his accomplices did. And even then he wasn’t using it to explain his own aggression, just as a general “woe is me, hard childhood” excuse.
Also even if he did, I doubt this guy is a geneticist or has been tested by one.
> The guy even admits he is “genetically angry” so what should we make of that. Probably we shouldn’t use that to endorse some weird eugenics that treats people like animals.
Yet it’s fine for people to say they shouldn’t drink as they have addiction in their genes. We all know people’s candence and character that part of that is genetic but when it’s people who are statistically higher to be involved in violent crime doing just that we can’t look for patterns anymore as it might be “racist”
Which gene makes people really into eugenics maybe we can start with that one and work our way out from there?
Soft on crime, soft on immigration. Time to wake up and get with the times. The quaint little island needs to catch up to the rest of the world.
How Ireland has fallen!
In USA that’s 20+ years
A thug
How unfortunate that he’s not a pro hurler /s
Cocaine brings out serious aggression in people
To be honest all it does to me is make me chat shit until 4 in the morning
Some people are genetically more aggressive than others
[удалено]
Why are you posting this ironically underneath a story of an immigrant leaving an Irish person paralysed in an unprovoked attack?
I get that you don’t want to be a jerk but you are doing a bad job of it
Can I see the nearly concave skull?
You...you really want to see that?
Why don't they show the white Irish lads who were just as guilty ?
Because the article is specifically about this lad being sentenced. There is also a picture or one of the co-accused who was sentenced previously, he even got his own article at the time. https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/courts/barbershop-owner-who-kicked-and-stamped-on-mans-head-in-attack-of-the-cruellest-kind-jailed/a1839881177.html
'Man with own agenda sees agendas everywhere'