Associate law professor Nita A. Farahany describes her blog as “a daily digest of legal opinions featuring cognitive neuroscience and behavioral genetics”.
Sometimes, even judges suffer from the “CSI” effect. The district court judge in the case today may have missed a few important days of his genetics class in high school or in college. Perhaps they didn’t teach genetics in the late 1960′s?
This may make for good sarcasm, but it’s a stupid criticism. Much of what the average student learned about genetics in high school as recently as 20 years ago, (let alone the 60’s) has been modified or even overturned by recent discoveries in genetics – the field of epigenetics among them. Nita Farahany ought to know this. Unless of course, she doesn’t know this.
The Defendant in this case, convicted of possession of child pornography, was given an “unreasonable” sentence based on the judge’s invented genetic theory that the defendant’s incorrigible genes made him act the way he did, and that there was nothing he could do about it.
Am I the only one mystified by the legal and societal contradiction that while sexual attraction to persons of the same sex is “not a choice”, sexual attraction to pre-adolescents is?
Well, good luck with that. I predict that a “my genes made me do it” defense for pedophilia will eventually be legitimized by the courts – blog snark notwithstanding, and Judge Sharpe noted as “ahead of his time”. The societal ground work is already in place.
Via.
What about a “genetic pre-disposition” to beat and hang pedophiles?
Blogger Mark Shea has been predicting this for years as well. That one day, Tony-winning plays will be produced about those poor misunderstood Catholic priests/pedophiles — plays made by the same transgressive, progressive artists who make a good living bashing the Church today.
This is going to take me awhile to get my head around, I’ll just tune into the CBC for next years offerings so they can explain it all to me.
… and no, the writer isn’t the only one mystified as to the societal contradictions…
I think it’s a combination of bipolar disorder and restless leg syndrome…Yeah! That’s the ticket!
Paging big pharma for the next ‘relief’ pill…”Side effects may include running wild in both directions at the same time which may be risk for a hernia…”
And it (defence) will happen in Canada. After all, this is the country that gave the world “sleep-driving” as a defence to murder and drunkeness as a defence to rape charges.
And polygamy will soon become a (legal) release from monotony…
This is the argument that “no one is really responsible for their actions, for free will is an illusion.”
Which — for all I know — might be true in some broad philosophical sense. However the purpose of the justice system is not to weigh one’s soul but to allow civilization to flourish. And putting pedophiles behind bars for a very long time is necessary for that.
The standards of proof in a criminal court are higher than in most other social arenas. While there’s more latitude in the sentencing phase, basing it on an (empirically) unsupported (i.e., unproven) theory of genetics (or anything else) is a legal no-no. There were many legitimate considerations that the court could have based its sentence on, and no doubt the new judge will rely on these in issuing the new sentence.
As for the “not a choice” link, here’s what Obama actually said: “I don’t think it’s a choice. I think people are born with a certain make-up.” In other words, he’s saying it’s his belief that homosexuality isn’t a choice, not that it’s a scientifically proven fact.
” the purpose of the justice system is not to weigh one’s soul but to allow civilization to flourish. And putting pedophiles behind bars for a very long time is necessary for that.”
Posted by: rabbit at March 24, 2011 1:47 PM
But not in Canada, rabbit – not in Canada. Here, Rousseau reigns supreme.
Society has generally already established that prejudices based on differences we can see are wrong, but differences in brain chemistry are things you can’t spot at a glance but probably shouldn’t be targets for prejudice either. You wouldn’t call a dog that bit someone “evil”; there will be reasons that led to it happening.
Certainly a scientific understanding of why folks do the things they do isn’t complete, but a better understanding is worth having. And I’d definitely argue that society needs to keep acting to stop people from harming each other, even as our understanding of the best means to accomplish that end may improve over time.
Tommy Douglas’s eugenics ghost . . . still not dead enough.
“In 2010, Professor Farahany was appointed by President Obama to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. In the spring of 2011 she will be a visiting associate professor at Stanford Law School.”
Before joining Vanderbilt, Professor Farahany clerked for the Honorable Judith W. Rogers on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She graduated from Dartmouth College with a degree in genetics and cellular biology, and from Harvard University with a master’s degree in biology, where her thesis, Prescribing Culpability, critiqued the use of scientific criteria to define normative legal concepts. She earned her J.D., M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy of biology and jurisprudence at Duke University, where her doctoral dissertation, Rediscovering Criminal Responsibility through Behavioral Genetics, established the scientific and philosophical limitations to informing individual responsibility with behavioral genetics.
“established” she did.
And since we’re talking about pathologies, deviency and the like, it might be the time and place to question things like supporting socialism and large L liberalism.
I mean, is it really their fault? Should we say, “I don’t think it’s a choice – they were born that way”, or is it a perversion that the bearer consciously and willingly developed? 🙂
One wonders if law school and higher learning is worth the time and money. On a military “conduct after capture” course the instructor told us that individuals with higher education tended to be the ones who got turned or made to do bad things to the other captives by the bad guys.
The Plea Agreement reserved his right to appeal any sentence greater than fifty-seven months. The district court sentenced Petitioner to seventy-eight months’ imprisonment (i.e. 6.5 years), a life term of supervised release, and a mandatory assessment of one hundred dollars. …..the court relied on an idea that he would re-offend, based on a notion that Petitioner is genetically predisposed to view child pornography.
I agree with judge on sentencing. I don’t agree with some of the reasons (= the genetic theory).
If the judge put different spin on the sentencing and did not mention genetic theory his sentencing would not have been questioned………much.
“higher education tended to be the ones who got turned”
Oh, yeah, I’ve noticed I’ve been an incipient traitor ever since my degree(s). Seriously, did your instructor’s crap make you feel better about yourself?
So glad I wasn’t born with that vile genetic predisposition. Lots of judges, lawyers, prosecutors, politicians and bureaucrats apparently were thouigh. And lots of other rich influencial people as well. Why else would legal penalties be so lax for destroying the life of a child. I firmly believe that paedophiles are holding the levers of power in many cases. Anyone remember Cornwall?
Sometimes, when I take my tinfoil hat off, Makow almost makes sense.
I blame the jeans too. They were probably around his ankles. A let down in support as it were.
‘philosophy of biology and jurisprudence’ self descriptive for a barrista.
I am not calling Davenport a punctillious shill, and I want to make that crystal clear. I am saying that it is my belief that Davenport acts like a punctillious shill. I think she nit-picks at meaningless details whenever she has no argument. I am not claiming that this has been proven scientifically, and a determinative genetic componant to this behaviour has yet to be either established or ruled out.
Society establishes arbitrary age of majority based on religious, philosophical or scientific views. All those views are volatile and debatable. Traditional age of majority in Europe and North America is around 18 and is based on the age when parents most likely don’t have to sacrifice their finances and time to care about grandchildren. In plain English age of majority is based on greed and laziness. So to answer the original question, attraction to the underage children can be legitimized on the same basis as homosexuality, drug use and alcoholism.
Just like people carried weapons for self defense for over million years, they also had sexual intercourse as soon as they reached puberty, which depending on nutrition happened around 11 yo for girls and 13 for the boys. Criminalizing child sex is same thing as criminalizing self defense with a weapon.
How you approach that depends on whether you are a hypocrite or a person of integrity.
I have genetic pre-dispositions for illnesses, except I take preventative drugs.
“Am I the only one mystified by the legal and societal contradiction that while sexual attraction to persons of the same sex is “not a choice”, sexual attraction to pre-adolescents is?”
Remember as well that “gender” (we don’t use the S-word) differences in taste, behaviour, instinct… these are largely or entirely conditioned by (unjust, patriarchal, capitalist) social pressures; who you want to bonk, though, that’s hardwired.
And yes, what Kathy said @1:23, in spades. Only bible-bashing prudes want there to be rules about what you can do to whom.
Black Mamba: “I think she nit-picks at meaningless details whenever she has no argument.”
You spelled “punctilious” wrong. Twice. =)
‘You spelled “punctilious” wrong. Twice. =)’
Shakespeare didn’t have to put up with this kind of thing.
“Criminalizing child sex is same thing as criminalizing self defense with a weapon.”
Do you mean crimializing adolescents (I’ll assume you typed “child” accidentally) having sex with each other, Aaron, or do you mean grown men hitting on kids? Inquiring minds…
This talk (combined with a post a few days ago by Ms. Shaidle about homosexual as a “disorder”) takes me back to my post-secondary education. We had to take a certain number of elective “Gen-Ed” courses and one of the ones I took was Sociology.
I’ll never forget one section of the textbook that talked about how, from a strictly scientific point-of-view, homosexuality and pedophilia are the same. It was especially amazing to me to be reading this in a textbook of the oh-so-politically-correct 1990’s.
Basically, the very sound scientific argument was…
1) All life forms have an urge to make sure their genes carry on.
2) Nearly everything humans do – from wanting to be and look healthy to wanting to have financial stability – is done to be as attractive as possible to the opposite sex with the goal of finding the best (i.e. most healthy) possible match with which to spread your genes.
3) Any sexual compulsion that, even if completely satisfied, has zero chance of reproduction is therefore a defect…since it violates the premise that all life forms should have biological imperative to reproduce.
The conclusion was that, from a biological perspective, the two “conditions” are identical. The moral issue is one for sociology. As I recall, the text made no moral statement…simply stated that, from a biological stand-point, one would expect that we should either declare homosexuality a defect or pedophilia completely normal.
The fact that society can’t square that circle is a different issue.
Didn’t England accept the defense that some violent people are born with a “Warrior gene” thus aren’t capable of mens rea?? Normalizing abnormal behavior whilst using false gene science as the basis is something the progressives will embrace with gusto.
Then of course there’s the biggest monkey wrench in the claim that it’s all genetically-determined, never mentioned by the activists: BI-SEXUALITY.
So what happens with bi-sexuals — they wake up one day sexually attracted to their own sex due to genetic pre-determination, and the next day attracted to the opposite sex and “thwart nature” as it were?
The problem with genetic arguments is always the same — it ignores both culture and individual choice, and has been used throughout history to justify all kinds of stupid thinking, including Nazi “super-race” Aryanism (eugenics).
I studied a bit of genetics in U. and know enough to know that science do not go so far as to claim that human behaviour is genetically predetermined. At the very most geneticists will allow that behaviour can be “pre-disposed” because of one’s genes, but not pre-determined. Individual choice and cultural decisions can never be absolutely over-ridden by genes where behaviour is concerned.
“The devil made me do it” doesn’t hold water unless you are actually “possessed by a demon” as it were, insane or something along that line.
Well said, Kate.
This is why UK homosexuals are lobbying for boys aged 14 and up to be legally available to them. And why they will succeed.
1.6 billion Muslims neeeed to know!
Actually they don’t give a rats @ss what any of us think, it’s only child molestation if they say so, and no one’s saying Jack.
Child molestation only applies to white heterosexual or overtly Christian gay males, didn’t you know?
Is anyone really surprised? We know the lefts agenda. One that hates the family & all it stand for. Children are for the abortion room floor.
Mass murders , hero’s in the extermination of in the lefts mind, to many human beings.
Rights are collective & genetics run your life so any abomination done is your genetic makeup. An inverted Planet.
JMO
A very funny, but very sick, joke I heard recently:
“Hey, why all the disrespect of pedophiles; they always drive slowly near schools”
I have a PhD in molecular genetics but never heard of “incorrigible genes”. So I Binged it and found seven hits, all refering to that story. Therefore, this is the first utterance of ” incorrigible genes” since internet.
Can one sue a judge for incompetence?
whit seven said: “higher education tended to be the ones who got turned”
Oh, yeah, I’ve noticed I’ve been an incipient traitor ever since my degree(s). Seriously, did your instructor’s crap make you feel better about yourself?”
The point the instructor was making was that we as officers(including a JAG* officer who was part of the group)should be cognizant of that fact–since we would probably bear the brunt of the psychological mind games and physical abuse our captors would use on the group.
Interesting how you immediately concluded that I did not have a degree. Just to inform you, all the officers in the Canadian military have (as a minimum) a bachelor’s degree, many have an MBA or a masters degree in their particular field and a few have doctorates.
*JAG – Judge Advocated General (these are military lawyers)
Manny, the question is rather, can he patent “Incorrigible Jeans”?
It is my understanding from people who lived or traveled in the middle-east that male homosexuality is rampant mainly because the loss of virginity in a girl can be costly ($) but that few care about young boys.
larben >
I would say partially correct. The main reason homosexuality is rampant in the Middle East is access to women for certain, and a underlying cultural acceptance shadowed from the prying all seeing eye of Islam. The women are reserved for money and status males before they are released to the lower classes.
This is the main reason for the urban myth that all the public male hand holding is between best friends and simply a non-sexual culture thing. Not really true although the prevalence of it has indeed spread to young male acceptance of the myth. For anyone who has spent allot of time in the Middle East, you are bound to encounter real homosexuality eventually. If they hung every gay they actually caught, there would be deserts void of Arabs. That is why all these gay hangings in some places are usually political or corruption based.
Kate: “Am I the only one mystified by the legal and societal contradiction that while sexual attraction to persons of the same sex is ‘not a choice’, sexual attraction to pre-adolescents is?”
That is definitely a contradiction, but it may be just another example of left-wing hypocrisy, of which there are probably hundreds — beginning with the differential treatment of communism and fascism, which have the same philosophical root and are virtually identical in practice. The left revels in its hypocrisy, and the intention is to sow as much confusion as possible in western society by rejecting principles.
bryceman (quoting a textbook): “Any sexual compulsion that, even if completely satisfied, has zero chance of reproduction is therefore a defect…since it violates the premise that all life forms should have biological imperative to reproduce.”
That sounds logical to me, but as far as the justice system is concerned the “consenting adults” rule applies.
Kate’s contradiction is easy to solve: Homozexuality is without a doubt not a choice. That is a fact beyond debate. The same may be true of pedophilia. But the two are not morally equivalent. There is no violation of rights when adults enter into a relationship voluntarily. Children are not governed by the same rules. Pedophiles simply must restrain themselves.
“Homozexuality is without a doubt not a choice. That is a fact beyond debate.”
Explain British Public (i.e. Private) School boys, then.
Smarter>
“The same may be true of pedophilia. But the two are not morally equivalent”
By who’s moral standards?
Yours, the left, gays, pedophiles or Islam?
The western judicial systems once based theirs on Christianity (both immorally equivalent), until the left felt that it didn’t meet their moral standards in many countries.
“Explain British Public (i.e. Private) School boys, then.
Posted by: Black Mamba at March 25, 2011 2:53 AM”
Carrying on the family tradition(?)…
nv53:
but as far as the justice system is concerned the “consenting adults” rule applies
Yes, and that’s where the sociological question of how and why society started to accept it as morally/legally OK begins. The point that was being made is that, even if society chooses to find the behavior acceptable, that doesn’t change the fact that, biologically-speaking, both are either defects or completely “normal”.
Society shouldn’t be able to have it both ways. Yet we try.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Pedophilia may or may not be I don’t know. I’m sure psychopathy is also not a choice.
2 of those things are simply not acceptable in society.
As for the “textbook equivalency” of Bryceman, Homosexuals go out and have children all the time. And nothing you quoted from the book makes homosexuality and pedophilia the same or identical scientifically at all. It says they are both defects with respect to reproduction. You still can’t equate them. Homosexuality is homosexuality, pedophilia is pedophilia and from a strictly scientific point of view they are completely different. What is this climate science?
I mean seriously, using that line of thinking anyone can say people born with defects that prevent them from having children are scientifically equivalent to pedophiles.
How about people who choose surgery to prevent pregnancy? Do they become equivalent to pedophiles because their genes made them want to have a vasectomy? What about condoms? My brain told me to use a condom, does that make me a pedophile?
People talk about nature vs nurture. I suspect pedophilia is nurture not nature. Homosexuality being nature not nurture.
“Explain British Public (i.e. Private) School boys, then.”
That’s just people having sex. That has nothing to do with being gay or straight. Yeesh. Being gay means wanting and yearning for and loving and wanting to spend your life with someone of the same gender. You can still choose to go out and have sex with a woman.
Being straight means wanting and loving someone of the opposite gender. You can still choose to go out and force yourself to have gay sex. You just probably wouldn’t because you don’t like that.
And teenage boys are horny and gross (if I remember correctly) and therefore not overly choosy.
“That’s just people having sex. That has nothing to do with being gay or straight. Yeesh.” – Yeesh indeed.
Good Lord, are you for real? Do you know what “s*x” actually is? (I use the asterix for filter voodoo.)
“Being gay means wanting and yearning for and loving and wanting to spend your life with someone of the same gender. You can still choose to go out and have sex with a woman.”
Oh. So what if a man spends his life as a veritable Lothario, a Casanova, a Don Juan, some Latin p*ssy-hound anyway, but never marries…. is he not “straight”? Daft.
And, to follow what said, teenage boys are in fact pretty bloody choosy in this matter. Suggest to one that he get it on with his best bud and see whether he answers: “hey, an orifice is an orifice, man!” – or not so much.
Although I would relish an open discussion of this freewheeling and endlessly complex question, (but not, I suppose, on Kate’s bandwidth), I know it’s impossible because, inevitably, really, no subject is more hemmed in with taboos than s*xual attraction is; and we live in the age of PC. I guess read some Camille Paglia is all I can suggest.
p.s. noone would seriously suggest a “moral equivalency” between homos*xuality and pedophilia.”
Oh, and – “You can still choose to go out and force yourself to have gay s*x…” – you kinky bugger.
Steven Burton – BTW, re. “wanting and yearning…to spend your life” etc. – what if a man was happily married, but had many affairs on the side, with women or with men, and often with the wife’s consent? And women have done that too, although it’s much rarer. It’s not something I really can make sense of at the gut level, but it’s not extremely uncommon, I think.
What if he had a wife whom he loved, but spent every weekend getting it on at a gay bar? Would you insist the man was totally straight? Obviously not.
As for this stuff about sex being reproductive in purpose, well, you know, that’s the position of the Catholic Church. Any s*xual act, according to them (I’m not a member) must be open to reproduction. That’s why they’re a no-no on condoms, oral s*x and homosexuality. The Church’s position is at least coherent.
Lesbian – a woman who is sexually attracted to women, one or both of whom try to dress or act like men. Gender stereotypes are the product of oppressive socialization, but lesbian women who wear buzz cuts, flannel shirts, and ride Harley Davidsons were born to do those things.
Gay – a man who is sexually attracted to men, one or both of whom try to dress or act like women. Gender stereotypes are the product of oppressive socialization, but gay men who like pastel colors, carry Prada purses, and work in pink-collar professions were born to do those things.
Bisexual – a man or woman who is sexually attracted to either men or women. These people exist somewhere on the continuum between gay/lesbian and straight. To most gays/lesbians, though, they’re are “Bi now, gay later.” So whatever they are, they are not being their genuine selves. They’ll just give them more time to figure it out.
Transgender – a man or a woman who has had or is in the process or receiving surgery to change the physical appearance of their gender to the opposite sex. They are a man/woman trapped in a woman’s/man’s body. Although the surgery does not alter their chromosomes, they can still apply for a drivers license for the opposite sex. Upon completion of the surgery, they instantly become heterosexual and convert to Ally (see below).
Questioning – people are born either gay or straight (or somewhere in between). Questioning people just haven’t figured out they’re gay yet. So they must experiment with various sexual partners until they get their head straight…I mean, gay.
Ally – a heterosexual who supports gay rights. Despite the fact that allies are known to be heterosexual, it won’t stop gays or lesbians from trying to awaken their true gayness. It’s not “conversion.” They’ve always been gay, but just don’t know it yet. Any experimentation is just proof of gayness, or drunkenness, which is also gayness.
Straight – someone who is not gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, or questioning, but there’s no harm in trying to straighten them out…I mean, gay them out.
Experimenting: homosexual, but just hasn’t figured it out yet.
Conversion to homosexuality: delayed acceptance of one’s homosexuality.
Reversion to heterosexuality: denial of one’s homosexuality.
So I Binged it and found seven hits
Binge. Binged.
Seven hits of what?