Yesterday (May 8, 2013), Jodi Arias was found guilty of murdering her boyfriend. Actually, she more than murdered him, she virtually obliterated him. Stabbing him 29 times, shooting him in the face, and slitting his throat almost from ear to ear. She made damned fucking sure he was dead.
That alone should qualify her as a psychopath. However, she's also a pathological liar. She had several versions of her story, finally admitting that she killed him but in, as she termed it, "self defense." She trotted in battered woman syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, and just about everything but the kitchen sink in an effort to beat the rap.
She may get the death penalty, but should she? The syllable "path" in "psychopath" and "pathological liar" indicates a sickness. She's not a mentally healthy person.
pathology (n.) "science of diseases," 1610s, from French pathologie (16c.), from medical Latin pathologia "study of disease," from Greek pathos "suffering" (source)
As revolting as the murder was, can we separate her guilt from the sickness from which she suffers?
More generally, suppose all crimes could be traced back to some sort of pathology. What would happen to the entire concept of guilt? And suppose that once a pathology was identified, there was a "cure." Could we ethically hold people responsible for their actions before the cure, given their diminished capacity for making proper ethical choices?
Let me ask YOU: what would you do to provide some satisfaction to those the murder has injured, by which I mean those who lost a father, husband, child, or friend? How do you distinguish between justice and revenge?
Unseen, I honestly don't know what should be done to provide satisfaction to those whose loved one has been maimed or killed. Any course of action that leads to payback no matter what we call it is revenge. It is a way to get even. If I advised the family of the affected to forgive the person, it would be easily said am being insensitive. I know, I would almost want to get even but this I think is because as a race we are so poor as to let go of debts we are owed.
So, let's drill down to your problem with establishing some evenness (fairness) in the judicial outcome. What's the problem?
This is not revenge, it is evolutionary right course of action based on preservation of the fitness of the species. The primary objective of us a species is to procreate and keep the species alive and everything else is secondary. Anything that harms that course of action, needs to be removed from the species. You cannot have a functioning species, if members of their own species starts to terminate each other. Now this might be hard to imagine, since we do have an overpopulation, but that one time in our history, our ancestors were hunter gathers. During that time, there was a moment in human history where the population of the humans were about 2,000 and we were as that close as species on the verge of extinction. For the beneficial of the race, we need to remove these malicious variables that do not fit the equation. That is where justice comes in.
Sterilization would also achieve the same effect, hypothetically at a lower cost.
Your scenario also makes the assumption that the root cause is heritable.
It itself it is not a bad solution to certain issues, but it is possible that human cultures are not responsible enough to handle it.
Why would that help?
Why would I tell you? It is neither my link nor my position. I am trying to do you a courtesy here in not automatically launching into the assumption that you are gunning for a sensationalistic straw man.
Attempted fallacy of "guilt by association"?
It seems the natural assumption falls along that line, but I try to give people the chance to explain when I have enough clarity to do so.
I am really not sure how you got ethnic cleansing from death penalty of a murderer. I love how you took parts of my statements out of context and put them together to fit your bias.
Ethnic cleansing is actually non beneficial to the species because you are not only causing a decrease in the population of the species but you are also reducing the genetic variation of stronger genes to be passed down for the survival of a healthy species.
So no I don't mean like ethnic cleansing
Unless you are implying the existence of ethnic superiority or inferiority, it isn't.