|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 11, 2016 6:01:19 GMT
In the show Dexter, Dexter is a psychopath who has trained himself to satisfy his urges to kill by murdering other criminals. As a kid, his adopted father who was a police officer realized his psychopathic and homicidal tendencies while Dexter was a young child. Instead of trying to suppress his inevitable desire to kill, he taught him to channel his passion for killing and use it for "good".
Obviously, this is a fictional show, but as we read in Clara Moskowitz's article, criminals have different brain makeups than your average joe, meaning that it is a possibility to be born with the
"psychopathic" gene. As we also read, this is not a fixed trait, and if the trait is caught early on enough there may be ways to fix it. However there is always the chance that whatever psychologists are trying to do to get rid of these criminal tendencies may not work on a child.
If children, who have psychopathic tendencies, are not progressing in their treatment, what should be done? Surgery, full-time treatment centers, and nothing are all options (along with allowing your child to unleash their desire to kill by letting them kill other law breakers), but of course all have their own cons. Please either defend one of these options or make one up of your own, I'd love to hear what you guys come up with!
|
|
|
|
Post by vannahyazon on May 11, 2016 6:35:31 GMT
If we were able to pinpoint this psychopath gene, then I would think of using it for the benefit of the gene like in Dexter. The only thing is personalities and then the children may not want to voluntary go in that direction. I don't know if I would go in the direction to fully eradicate the gene through some sort of surgery if possible. But this manipulation and destruction of a possible psychopath gene reminds me of GATTACA. It's a 1997 movie where one brother is the runt and is predispositioned to be unable to do anything truly remarkable with his life because they live in a Dystopia where once a child is born they can see all future chances of heart disease etc. it seems stupid to say that I wouldn't want to do anything with the information of children having a psychopath gene, but my option is probably one that sides with Ethics and having a constant debate about what to do with this information and what is not ethical to do with the information. I obviously want to lower the amount of crime, rape, and murder, but are we allowed to change anything bad? How much bad can we change at first sight? Can we change or prevent everything?
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by rkipp on May 11, 2016 23:25:55 GMT
I think it really depends on the children/family you are dealing with. As vannahyazon said, not all children will want to go in the direction of Dexter. I am personally a fan of using the gene for good (i.e. Dexter), but I think that method is only successful if you have a support system guiding you and if you are committed to such a path. In terms of surgery, I think it would be hard to define what exactly characterizes an "at-risk" child, considering surgery is a risky and invasive choice. Just because a child's amygdala is smaller than usual may not even mean they will be a killer when they are older, so I do not think surgery is worth the risk. Lastly, I am against full-time treatment centers, considering what we learned happens in mental institutions. I think the children will be neglected, not receive proper care, and areas will become overly populated, factors which may end up hurting the children more in the long run. So, what should be done? I don't think there is one correct choice, however I lean towards social interventions in hope that neurogenesis would occur to lessen the chance of them being criminals in the future. As the article said, some children do not respond well to traditional time-outs, so instead of punishing those children for bad behavior, reward them for good behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on May 12, 2016 2:28:44 GMT
I think a good option is to try to treat the child cognitively if he/she shows signs of this psychopathic gene. The earlier you address the issue, the less likely it is to get too out of hand in the long run. For me, surgery seems pretty extreme, because just because a person has a certain genetic makeup does not mean they will exhibit that trait. So why would we put someone through a risky procedure like surgery for something that might not even ever happen?
|
|
dalia
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by dalia on May 12, 2016 4:14:16 GMT
I think we need to treat them behaviorally. I.e the main problem is that they lack fear conditioning, so traditional parenting methods with punishments aren't so effective. Instead, we can enforce a system of rewards.
|
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 12, 2016 4:21:34 GMT
If we were able to pinpoint this psychopath gene, then I would think of using it for the benefit of the gene like in Dexter. The only thing is personalities and then the children may not want to voluntary go in that direction. I don't know if I would go in the direction to fully eradicate the gene through some sort of surgery if possible. But this manipulation and destruction of a possible psychopath gene reminds me of GATTACA. It's a 1997 movie where one brother is the runt and is predispositioned to be unable to do anything truly remarkable with his life because they live in a Dystopia where once a child is born they can see all future chances of heart disease etc. it seems stupid to say that I wouldn't want to do anything with the information of children having a psychopath gene, but my option is probably one that sides with Ethics and having a constant debate about what to do with this information and what is not ethical to do with the information. I obviously want to lower the amount of crime, rape, and murder, but are we allowed to change anything bad? How much bad can we change at first sight? Can we change or prevent everything? I actually had to watch GATTACA for my biology class freshman year! I completely forgot about it to be honest, but you bring up a great point! Ethics makes this subject tricky because who knows if the surgery will even be successful or if this child is going to end up actually becoming a criminal. |
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 12, 2016 4:27:21 GMT
I think a good option is to try to treat the child cognitively if he/she shows signs of this psychopathic gene. The earlier you address the issue, the less likely it is to get too out of hand in the long run. For me, surgery seems pretty extreme, because just because a person has a certain genetic makeup does not mean they will exhibit that trait. So why would we put someone through a risky procedure like surgery for something that might not even ever happen? Very true! Surgery at a young age for a child is obviously extremely invasive (and risky just as you said), plus this child will have a hard time understanding why he / she has to go through this. This could lead to resentment and ultimately just screw up the child more than just leaving them be. Although there is always the chance that this child could end up becoming a serial killer or something of the like, hopefully cognitive therapy is effective! |
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 12, 2016 4:30:24 GMT
I think it really depends on the children/family you are dealing with. As vannahyazon said, not all children will want to go in the direction of Dexter. I am personally a fan of using the gene for good (i.e. Dexter), but I think that method is only successful if you have a support system guiding you and if you are committed to such a path. In terms of surgery, I think it would be hard to define what exactly characterizes an "at-risk" child, considering surgery is a risky and invasive choice. Just because a child's amygdala is smaller than usual may not even mean they will be a killer when they are older, so I do not think surgery is worth the risk. Lastly, I am against full-time treatment centers, considering what we learned happens in mental institutions. I think the children will be neglected, not receive proper care, and areas will become overly populated, factors which may end up hurting the children more in the long run. So, what should be done? I don't think there is one correct choice, however I lean towards social interventions in hope that neurogenesis would occur to lessen the chance of them being criminals in the future. As the article said, some children do not respond well to traditional time-outs, so instead of punishing those children for bad behavior, reward them for good behavior. Yeah I agree with you as well. Not all children are lucky like Dexter to have such an understanding father to lead them in the right direction. And I definitely agree that there is no right choice, which is why I definitely wanted to see if anyone would come up with alternatives that we don't necessarily see as common place. I really like your idea of rewarding good behavior and hopefully neurologists can do more in the future to incorporate this idea into their practice rather than everything having negative consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by hrhunter on May 12, 2016 4:31:38 GMT
I think we need to treat them behaviorally. I.e the main problem is that they lack fear conditioning, so traditional parenting methods with punishments aren't so effective. Instead, we can enforce a system of rewards. I definitely agree with you! Just as I was saying to rkipp, it would be great to see how effective a reward system would be in the treatment of these children. |
|
|
|
Post by vannahyazon on May 16, 2016 0:59:55 GMT
If we were able to pinpoint this psychopath gene, then I would think of using it for the benefit of the gene like in Dexter. The only thing is personalities and then the children may not want to voluntary go in that direction. I don't know if I would go in the direction to fully eradicate the gene through some sort of surgery if possible. But this manipulation and destruction of a possible psychopath gene reminds me of GATTACA. It's a 1997 movie where one brother is the runt and is predispositioned to be unable to do anything truly remarkable with his life because they live in a Dystopia where once a child is born they can see all future chances of heart disease etc. it seems stupid to say that I wouldn't want to do anything with the information of children having a psychopath gene, but my option is probably one that sides with Ethics and having a constant debate about what to do with this information and what is not ethical to do with the information. I obviously want to lower the amount of crime, rape, and murder, but are we allowed to change anything bad? How much bad can we change at first sight? Can we change or prevent everything? I actually had to watch GATTACA for my biology class freshman year! I completely forgot about it to be honest, but you bring up a great point! Ethics makes this subject tricky because who knows if the surgery will even be successful or if this child is going to end up actually becoming a criminal. LOL. tbh i had to watch GATTACA for my biology class freshmen year. wow is that like lowkey curriculum? xD |
|
Oliver Micklewright
Guest
|
Post by Oliver Micklewright on Jun 11, 2016 5:03:34 GMT
I would be interested to find out more about how these psychopath tendencies are identified - I guess its because they are cruel to animals or something along that nature. Allot of people develop these tendencies as they get older, it would also be interesting to consider if these tendencies have always been there but they just have never been identified. At the same time, if it possible for these tendencies to develop with age I don't see why its possible for kids, who have had these tendencies identified, to be cured over time too.
This reminds me of the film Minority Report with Tom Cruise. The film is set in the future and there is a technology able to predict crimes before they occur. Hereby, people are arrested before they commit the crime. This definitely brings up some morally interesting arguments but in my opinion, if the technology's predictions are 100% correct, then I don't see what is wrong with this system. What do you think?
|
|
