Is There Any Crime That Justifies Execution?

Which crimes do you then consider major crimes then?? [Crimes to which your recomendation for punishment would then be appropriate...]

I was of the distinct impression that in most places, for someone to commit murder, or other crimes of a most henious nature, that that would constitute the kind of crime that capital punishments like execution or life imprisonment would be prescribed... And to me, these are the kind of crimes which worry Joe Public.. If he's so scared that he can't walk on the street home at night, or live in his house without being scared, then it would be of most relevance to him.. We here of numerous muggings on the street.. People having their homes broken into and then having female members of the house-hold being raped while men are made to watch.. these are not crimes committed by people with anti-social personality disorders, but by the everyday people, most likely high on cheap drugs (sometimes not...)

If such people, who come across during trials as sane and reasonable, are made to understand that similar punishments await them on conviction, then they'd be less inclined to commit such..

well, actually, we could have a nice argument about hitler, though not in the way its been originally brought up.

Even if I would accept your argument that genetics provides some bounds for behavior, I'm sure you know that a lot of the characteristics of a mass murderer - I'm trying to guess what kind of heinous crime you mean - are some of the same characteristics of other powerful (and non lethal) people in our society.  Screening by genetics would then remove both sets of people.

- This is assuming I agreed with the premise of genetics setting bounds for behavior.
- Look at the mob justice in Nigeria - is that a heinous crime deserving of capital punishment or chemical castration - it would seem many Nigerians possess such a "gene".

Even if I accepted that part of your argument, I still don' t feel castration is an adequate solution.  I don't feel capital punishment is a solution - it isn't, - it's supposed to be a deterrant.  Its been shown that in most cases, people who commit - higher "degree" crimes tend to have started from smaller ones.  The solution would be to attempt to find a way to rehabilitate or remove problems which may cause entry into crime.  Of course there will still be people who commit them.  But this solution is better for a couple reasons.

1) Chemical castration only reduces any possibility of FUTURE offspring DIRECTLY from that person.  Technology is moving to the point where you don't need sperm or egg to form a human being
2) The problem with the person still exists - and still needs a solution

to what end??

@ CimonJorr

OK, now I know what you mean with scaring you public. It's about the feeling of insecurity, not about preventing Joe Public from committing crimes. I misunderstood your point.

Concerning Hitler, I think you may watch too much of The History Channel 
Anyway, his politics on racial purity and the preservation of the Arian race is based on a complete misunderstanding of genetics. It's not because the Nazi's claimed that their science was based on genetics that it was more than anything even remotely resembling real science. Mentioning Hitler and the Nazi's in the context of genetics or evolution theory is mixing up things that really have nothing in common. In the same token, it's not because God is used to justify almost all actions of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide that religion as such is to blame for those crimes.

No offense taken, just be careful when bringing in Hitler into a debate, it's usually irrelevant and only brings up bad emotions;

ok, so this is what i need to provide:

1) Sources showing environment determines behavior more than genetics

2) Sources showing psycopaths possess qualities we would admire in others

But, while I may agree with your argument about genetics setting limits for behavior, I disagree with your conclusion that in some cases, chemical castration should be employed.  I don't think I can bring up sources for this because this probably hasn't been studied by many scientists recently.  (In the past, chemical castration was used on a wide variety of ppl, mainly minorities, and I would not want to quote from those studies).

So, taking your statement - genetics sets limits on behavior - I say, its still not enough justification for castration in any case.  If my gene's don't limit my behavior, then it is up to ME to do so.  People who commit the crimes that would meet your standard for castration still chose to do it.  Just because their genes allowed them to push themselves past a certain point does not mean that if everyone or someone else had similar "limits or nonlimits" they will turn out the same way.

almost - though i will agree to disagree 

Not only do I think there is too weak a link between genetics and behavior, but based on what you said, genetics only sets limits on behavior.

So, if we imaging limits as speed limits, then we have:

1) Drivers who will obey the speed limit
2) Drivers who will seriously under drive the limit
3) Drivers who will exceed the speed limit
4) Drivers who will push themselves to the limit and stay there.

Your suggestion is that for drivers in category 3) we don't allow them to reproduce.

I don't know if this explains the second part of my disagreement with you any better.  But I felt I had to say it for completion. .