True. They often don't work well with non-living objects either:P I was just making sure YOU weren't confusing .5 with an absolute guarantee.

I think I was also under the (apparently mistaken) assumption that you were talking about a mandatory sentence. Assuming that, and a lack of genetic testing directly for violence-provoking genes:
a) Mandatory castration for violent crimes risks neutering people with other reasons for their crimes besides genetic predispositions to violent behavior.
b) Limiting it to serial offenders would still risk neutering people who's only crime was being brain damaged, suffering from PTSD or being raised in grossly abusive or neglectful homes.
c) Under the program I've described above, anyone requesting reversal of sterilization and getting it would be no longer showing the pathological behavior that led them to be offered the initial procedure. In the case of violent criminals, they would have to have spent years successfully avoiding violent behavior.
d) Such an individual would either not possess genetic inclinations towards violence or have developed means of controlling their own inclinations that could then be passed on to offspring (who hopefully won't be had with violent members of the opposite sex).
e) Those individuals who are unable to avoid violating parole or probation wouldn't be offered the free reversal. They would either have to somehow pay for it some other way (in which case they may be able to overcome chemical castration as well), or they would not be able to reproduce. In the latter (more probable) case, violence-inclining genes would not be passed on to a next generation.
f) The only non-genetic offenders sterilized in this manner, other than those who couldn't control themselves, would be those who chose not to have children.

Come to think about it, reduced false-positive isn't that great a term for this. Better to say that the only false-positives that would happen would be those that didn't really matter– the repeat offender who's likely in prison anyway or the person who doesn't want to reproduce for whatever reason. As the program's participants would effectively become their own judge, jury and executioner vis a vis their reproductive abilities, greater accuracy would be achievable than with a mandatory program.

“A benefit of eugenics is that it does not rely on fear at all — many of the the violent anti-social personalities that might have to be deterred by fear would simply not exist in the first place.”

I am well aware of that, I was just giving off other deterrent options in general.

Sorry for coming off as a insolent asshole.

Don't swet it. Deterrence is an important part of the solution!

The second part of my comment was (mistakenly?) anticipating an argument on your part that the sterilization would not be punitive. Legally speaking, this is an important distinction. Buck v Bell (1927) upheld forced sterilization for eugenic purposes, while Skinner v Oklahoma (1942) forbade forced sterilization for punitive purposes.

Michael –

I'm unsure as to exactly how many people would sign up for this voluntary, taxpayer-funded program.

If that does work, let's bring back Roman stile crucifixion so we can further scare other potential offenders shitless into submission.

I see the irony in your words, but you're words aren't even ironic to my post. You sarcastically write:

“crucifixion so we can further scare other potential offenders”

A benefit of eugenics is that it does not rely on fear at all — many of the the violent anti-social personalities that might have to be deterred by fear would simply not exist in the first place.

Time for my own irony and sarcasm. What if I assault someone not because I have violent genes, but because they made the mistake of insulting my mother at her funeral? Then on top of a prison sentence, I receive an additional punishment of castration not because of my crime, and not even because of my own genes, but because of the genes of other people.

Or, if the castration problem is not supposed to be punishment, then why not screen innocent people for antisocial genes and castrate them?

“To illustrate, studies of murderers reveal that approximately half have lengthy histories of repeated assaults, rapes, robberies and other offence types, but the other half have committed a single extreme act after a lifetime free from crime.”

If you castrate someone (chemically or otherwise) for a violent crime, are you keeping a person with violent genes from passing them on? Or are you preventing the passing of healthy genes that just happened to be associated with a bad upbringing?

One alternative: voluntary reversible sterilization. The government offers free reversible sterilization to everyone in certain rough circumstances of life (bankruptcy proceedings, on welfare, in prison for a violent crime). Everyone who undertakes the procedure can ask for a free reversal later IF they've shown themselves conclusively past the rough points (stable job and finances, parole and probation completed without incident). Anyone who reaches that point but who's sterilization is no longer reversible gets breaks from all but the most essential adoption requirements.

It wouldn't prevent all people with violence genes from breeding, but it would prevent some of them and it would probably be much more easily passed. It also (the reversibility portion) offers people with bad upbringings the chance to have kids once they've turned themselves around.

As a rough genetics test, in short, it would have a lower rate of false-positives than castration of all offenders.

Good comment, but it could be better. I expect constructive feedback from you, even on touchy subjects.

“Time for my own irony and sarcasm. What if I assault someone not because I have violent genes, but because they made the mistake of insulting my mother at her funeral? Then on top of a prison sentence, I receive an additional punishment of castration not because of my crime, and not even because of my own genes, but because of the genes of other people.”

On one level, this raises an interesting point about justice: should someone who acts violently because of a temporary lack of emotional control be judged less harshly than someone who acts violently because of a lack of emotional control that is equiavlent in degree but longer-lasting in duration. I think our society's answer is “Yes.”

On another level, this emphasizes that mandatory sentences of any sort are probably troublesome.

“Or, if the castration problem is not supposed to be punishment, then why not screen innocent people for antisocial genes and castrate them?”

Your argument collapses to absurdity… by the same token, the justice system should be imprisoning innocent people to preemptively rehabilitate them.

Michael,

“.5 is a pretty strong correlation, but it isn't absolute. “

Agreed. This is a vital point. When you get into genetics — or really any of the human sciences — you are dealing in probabilities. Absolute standards of evidence simply are not appropriate in social decision making.

“As a rough genetics test, in short, it would have a lower rate of false-positives than castration of all offenders.”

Why do you conclude this?

What's a better way to stop the spread of violent genes being passed on from sex offenders? Allowing the person who was raped to get an abortion.