Prisons and natural selection
A person who has committed serious crime may be subject to incarceration “for life” - usually a period of 20 years. They may even be charged with multiple counts of a grave offence and end up serving several “life sentences” that will see them locked away until the end of their days.
Naturally, because prisons are unisex institutions, one begs the question, are we then as a society negatively selecting those physical (biochemical) or psychologically traits that led this person to behave as a criminal?
If the “worst criminals” are prevented from producing offspring by separation and if such criminality is even partially genetic in basis then we could conclude that these genes would be eradicated or greatly reduced in the gene pool.
Secondly ex convicts may have a harder time financially, on a career level and socially which may lead to less likelihood of reproducing so perhaps the same applies to those with past convictions which are now free once again.
But we cannot reduced it to such simplicity. For one thing, if a convict is also more likely to be prototypical of their Gender in appearance or even hyper typical - that is to say more masculine or feminine, along with cultural influences in the nature of sexual appeal and danger, perhaps they are more attractive and have more offspring in less time therefore this would counteract the fact that they have been incarcerated for a long period of life.
unfortunately, we cannot ignore the fact that some criminal offences are also sexual in nature and therefore may lead to offspring regardless of later conviction.
Finally, if prisons are in fact slowly reducing the pool of “aggressive” “impulsive” or “Psychopathic” or “violent” genes in the general population what is to be said for social selective pressures within the prison.
If survival of the fittest is the case and these are all prisoners then one would imagine increased aggression and violence is likely to ensure you survive and intimidate the other inmates not to off you. This would generate a persistent culture of testing each other and threatening new prisoners to establish who is the most bat shit and propagating an alpha dominant hierarchy.
This is solely a sociological/ biological question based on the act of separating a species from itself based in dominant behaviours.
Thoughts?
Naturally, because prisons are unisex institutions, one begs the question, are we then as a society negatively selecting those physical (biochemical) or psychologically traits that led this person to behave as a criminal?
If the “worst criminals” are prevented from producing offspring by separation and if such criminality is even partially genetic in basis then we could conclude that these genes would be eradicated or greatly reduced in the gene pool.
Secondly ex convicts may have a harder time financially, on a career level and socially which may lead to less likelihood of reproducing so perhaps the same applies to those with past convictions which are now free once again.
But we cannot reduced it to such simplicity. For one thing, if a convict is also more likely to be prototypical of their Gender in appearance or even hyper typical - that is to say more masculine or feminine, along with cultural influences in the nature of sexual appeal and danger, perhaps they are more attractive and have more offspring in less time therefore this would counteract the fact that they have been incarcerated for a long period of life.
unfortunately, we cannot ignore the fact that some criminal offences are also sexual in nature and therefore may lead to offspring regardless of later conviction.
Finally, if prisons are in fact slowly reducing the pool of “aggressive” “impulsive” or “Psychopathic” or “violent” genes in the general population what is to be said for social selective pressures within the prison.
If survival of the fittest is the case and these are all prisoners then one would imagine increased aggression and violence is likely to ensure you survive and intimidate the other inmates not to off you. This would generate a persistent culture of testing each other and threatening new prisoners to establish who is the most bat shit and propagating an alpha dominant hierarchy.
This is solely a sociological/ biological question based on the act of separating a species from itself based in dominant behaviours.
Thoughts?
Comments (5)
What is the question? You seem to answer your first question or raise a slightly different issue later in the post. I am wondering because I find this post, and topic, extremely interesting and want to discuss.
Legal philosophy holds individuals responsible for their actions; one can't simply reduce it to pure genetics; such thought also hints at scientific racism. (Even if a murderer such as Charles Manson is believed to have co-morbid mental or psychological problems, they aren't able to simply write off of their crimes and avoid being held personally or characterly responsible for their actions under the law).
(e.x. Such as suggesting that if black people have higher rates of crime, then discriminating against black people as a whole should be targeted, regardless of whether or not they have actually committed a crime, or the fact that there exist innocent black people as well as guilty white people).
Likewise, reducing criminal behavior to sub-rational factors, which as far as psychology on the subject is concerned (e.x. Steven Pinker), is an inherent, survivalistic trait in all of us would be absurd as well. Since legal philosophy is based on both "sub-rational" as well as rational motives in crime.
For example, the difference between 2nd degree murder and 1st degree murder is based on the degree which reason rather than emotion or "instinct" plays in the act - 2nd degree murder is done "in the heat of the moment" when a person is not thinking clearly, while 1st degree murder is done pre-meditatively or rationally, and would include rational motives (such as murder for money, murder in the name of a religion or ideology, etc) - not merely reducible to feelings of anger, aggression, and so on.
Why on earth would a convict be proto- or hyper-typical of their sex?
Quoting Benj96
I was just reading a book, 1877: Our Year of Living Violently (2010) by Michael Bellesiles in which the author references the thinking of some late 19th century prison enthusiasts EXACTLY along the lines you mention -- life imprisonment of 'hereditary paupers and criminals' would over time result in fewer paupers, fewer criminals, and fewer crimes.
Even in those "unenlightened ages" others suggested that it might be the case that upbringing and the environment had more to do with pauperism and criminal behavior than heredity. Moreover, the 1870s saw the US in a severe multi-year depression with national railroad strikes and minimal resources available to charitable organizations. If there was more crime (there seemed to be) perhaps it was because of Very Hard Times.
Another reason there was a lot of crime was that the southern states allowed concealed carrying of firearms, and many people carried guns with them. Minor disputes could escalate into a fatal shooting. Even school children sometimes carried concealed guns and sometimes used them to settle disagreements on the playground, Sound familiar?
Another factor was that southern courts refused to recognize murder as anything more than self-defense (unless it was a black-on-white killing) and would not convict. One of the reasons the southern courts behaved this way was that violence was a central piece of punishing black people for their mere existence. It was a harsh regime, and poor whites too were expected to toe the line. So, a lot of people got shot for bad, very bad, and absolutely atrocious reasons.
Well, indirectly, yes. But largely as a side effect.
There are lots of other roles and responsibilities e.g. being drafted for war which have considerable impact too.
Quoting Benj96
Even if these traits are strongly genetic (there's no doubt that there's a genetic element, but things like being born into poverty and/or a difficult childhood seem to be better predictors), and even if the effect of prison is that violent offenders have fewer children (we'd also have to factor in how many children the average life sentence criminal already has), evolution is sloooow.
Talking about human evolution is largely a waste of in my opinion, because we're changing our environment so much quicker. The goalposts are moving much more quickly than evolution can keep up with.
Very true. Cultural evolution is probably by now a much more dominant and faster pace influential phenomenon.