Can the Source of Aggression be found in the Brain?

Irma Iskandar

In Holland, male members of a certain family were found to be prone to violent outbursts; one male, criticized by his employer, attempted to run him over with a car - another raped his sister and was sent to a mental hospital - a third coerced his sister into undressing by threatening her with a knife. Such men display retarded motor development, difficulties in task planning, and awkward sexual behavior. (1). Recently, researchers claimed to have found the basis of such aggressive behavior to genetic sources - specifically, a deficiency in the MAOA gene of these males (2).

serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Iskander.html

It;s interesting that most of the research into aggressive behaviour was sponsored by the CIA during the 50's and 60's. There is a ton of literature on the subject - go read.

Levenax wrote:

Jailed for killing somebody in 2004, let off with culpable homicide and back on the streets with a gun in 2007...?

Again because it was culpable homicide.

Martin wrote:
Clare and Levenax agreeing and united against these thugs!! God help them, their tea's definitely oot now!!!!

Seriously though, I have said it before on other subjects, we have far too many people in prisons who pose no physical danger to society, ie fraudsters etc. We should find ways to clear these types out of prisons and vastly increase sentence for dangerous lowlives like these.

Exactly. Get all the petty criminals out of jail and into hi vis jackets so we know who they are. Then set them to work doing all the stuff councils claim they don't have the money to do. Like in our area some people don't have separate recycling bins because there's nowhere to store them so all their rubbish goes into one bin. CSO types should be set to go through all the stuff in these bins and sort out the cans, cardboard, glass and vegetable waste so it can be recycled. There are lots of jobs like that so why aren't criminals doing them instead of wasting our money keeping them in comfort in jail?
Once we've got that sorted we could lock up the real baddies until they die.

TLJ wrote:
Levenax wrote:

Jailed for killing somebody in 2004, let off with culpable homicide and back on the streets with a gun in 2007...?

Again because it was culpable homicide.

He must have been provoked a great deal and become very angry indeed if he only spent three years in jail for killing somebody.

Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
Levenax wrote:

Jailed for killing somebody in 2004, let off with culpable homicide and back on the streets with a gun in 2007...?

Again because it was culpable homicide.

He must have been provoked a great deal and become very angry indeed if he only spent three years in jail for killing somebody.

It was culpable homicide in the first incident because the death resulted from a single punch.

TLJ wrote:
It was culpable homicide in the first incident because the death resulted from a single punch.

Oh, that's OK then. At least it was quick.

Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
It was culpable homicide in the first incident because the death resulted from a single punch.

Oh, that's OK then. At least it was quick.

No, it's not OK. The death of anyone is not "OK". But the charge of culpable homicide was the correct one on that occasion.

TLJ wrote:
Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
It was culpable homicide in the first incident because the death resulted from a single punch.

Oh, that's OK then. At least it was quick.

No, it's not OK. The death of anyone is not "OK". But the charge of culpable homicide was the correct one on that occasion.

Did I suggest that the victim's death was OK?

Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
It was culpable homicide in the first incident because the death resulted from a single punch.

Oh, that's OK then. At least it was quick.

No, it's not OK. The death of anyone is not "OK". But the charge of culpable homicide was the correct one on that occasion.

Did I suggest that the victim's death was OK?

No. I took it as a sarcastic response to my pointing out the justification for the earlier charge being for culpable homicide rather than for murder.

In any case, I reckon that 3 years for culpably (is that a word?) taking someone's life is ridiculous. This wasn't an accident.

Martin wrote:
In any case, I reckon that 3 years for culpably (is that a word?) taking someone's life is ridiculous. This wasn't an accident.

I agree Martin. I think leniancy is THE reason why violent crime rises with no thought for the consequences in terms of the penalty that will be imposed by a Criminal Justice system which increasingly appears to view the taking of a life with such indifference. Three years in reality means half of that. So it isn't even three years. In the case I quoted earlier the deceased person had committed the terrible sin of simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, when someone else was "angry". He is now dead and his murderer, for that is what he is, got four years.

I am against capital punishment but I am all for re-drawing the whole plan because it just isn't acceptable any more. We need a new system to deal with serious crime and an acceptable system which addresses more minor crimes which, although minor, must carry penalties of some sort. We need this urgently.

It is true that some wander into criminal life styles as a result of their environment. Even so, it should not prevent us from calling the shots. Their environment might say their behaviour is acceptable but out there, in schools, and everywhere else, it should be made quite clear that it most definitely is not acceptable. Yes fisticuffs have been with us always but once there was some sort of code involved whereby five against one wasn't acceptable nor were knives! There are no rules now and when the end result is someone's death the penalties must be heavy ones.

I think you can have a damn good try at educating children regarding the consequences of violence and keep repeating the message. I think schools should respond to violent pupils by, I'm sorry, throwing them out! I am SICK of special treatment being provided for thugs to show them that kicking hell out of other pupils isn't the way to go. Why should they get special treatment when the ones who deserve that privilege are those who want to be in class to learn, not to intimidate others? They should get ONE chance to play by the rules and if they choose to opt out it isn't our problem.

On sentencing, whether it is termed culpable homicide, manslaughter or whatever if you kill someone anything under ten years just doesn't send out a serious message. Allowing people to serve only half of a sentence doesn't either for you are saying the true value of ending someone's life doesn't matter that much. It so should.

I realise there can be extenuating circumstances however when the end result is the taking of someone's life I feel strongly that the underlying message has to take precedence over everything else. The existence of a clear sentencing policy when it comes to the loss of a life or serious violence will send out that message and no smart lawyer will be able to get around it and allow the scum who now litter society to go on doing what they do.

So yes, sort out those in prisons for minor offences and get cracking on a new system to deal with them. It may be some still need to be imprisoned but they could be held in places other than prisons. But get a new sentencing policy in place for killing and serious violent crimes. Minimum sentence ten years, all of it to be served, no matter what the circumstances. That's for the complicated ones. For the straightforward murder cases, minimum twenty years. (Let a judge sentence for longer if he sees fit but minimum twenty years.) No access to computers or mobile phones. Yes, give them their own cell and a television and a toilet but give them a job too so that they can start repaying their debt to society in exchange for their keep. Its called justice. Let them learn while they're inside if they want but let them do it using books, not computers. If we have to give them computers then let their use of such things be supervised at all times.

Life is not cheap and to take that very thing from someone is a terrible thing to do. If we have in place a system which says "If you do this you are going away for at least twenty years." then you are saying something very different from what we currently say to murderers. For right now we are saying to them, "It isn't a big deal. You could be out on the street again in eighteen months." That is an insult to the law abiding majority and it cannot go on. I am not certain that we haven't already lost control out there in the real world. I'm optimistic tho that if we take control back we could stop in its tracks the increasing death toll on our streets and the message that a person's life being taken isn't a terrible thing.

Martin wrote:
In any case, I reckon that 3 years for culpably (is that a word?) taking someone's life is ridiculous. This wasn't an accident.

The punch wasn't; the death from that punch was.

TLJ wrote:
Martin wrote:
In any case, I reckon that 3 years for culpably (is that a word?) taking someone's life is ridiculous. This wasn't an accident.

The punch wasn't; the death from that punch was.

T, I understand the point you're making about how these incidents are judged and dealt with under the present law. The point I'm making is that if people are fully aware of the heavy automatic penalties attached to being associated with the ending of a life, no matter how accidental that is, then they will re-think the whole strategy of taking a violent approach in the first place. They just won't go that route if they face a minimum of ten years in jail no matter what. They won't risk it. And for those who deliberately murder and use violence as a way of life, well they're away for at least twenty, no frills, no halving of sentences, they will do the time and work right through it to pay their way for their keep. If we make the penalties clear they can have no complaint.

Clare wrote:


T, I understand the point you're making about how these incidents are judged and dealt with under the present law. The point I'm making is that if people are fully aware of the heavy automatic penalties attached to being associated with the ending of a life, no matter how accidental that is, then they will re-think the whole strategy of taking a violent approach in the first place. They just won't go that route if they face a minimum of ten years in jail no matter what. They won't risk it. And for those who deliberately murder and use violence as a way of life, well they're away for at least twenty, no frills, no halving of sentences, they will do the time and work right through it to pay their way for their keep. If we make the penalties clear they can have no complaint.

I understand your point too but I think it's too simplistic. The vast majority of killings are relatively spontaneous - pre-planned executions are relatively few and far between - and the potential tariff is the last thing that's on the mind of a violent person fuelled with alcohol.

TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:


T, I understand the point you're making about how these incidents are judged and dealt with under the present law. The point I'm making is that if people are fully aware of the heavy automatic penalties attached to being associated with the ending of a life, no matter how accidental that is, then they will re-think the whole strategy of taking a violent approach in the first place. They just won't go that route if they face a minimum of ten years in jail no matter what. They won't risk it. And for those who deliberately murder and use violence as a way of life, well they're away for at least twenty, no frills, no halving of sentences, they will do the time and work right through it to pay their way for their keep. If we make the penalties clear they can have no complaint.

I understand your point too but I think it's too simplistic. The vast majority of killings are relatively spontaneous - pre-planned executions are relatively few and far between - and the potential tariff is the last thing that's on the mind of a violent person fuelled with alcohol.

Spontaneous or not a simplistic approach to the taking of a life will leave no one in any doubt about the penalties. Everyone will know the deal and I think we have catered for those who punch now and think later for far too long as it is. People have been kicked to death "spontaneously" on many occasions, particularly by groups. It is still cold blooded murder. I also forgot to say that in murders like that where a group have participated they should ALL go down. To hell with this "I didn't deliver the fatal blow." crap. If there were five of them involved in kicking someone to death then they're all away for twenty.

I also have ideas to reform the Prison Service by the way because I think that body is responsible for turning a blind eye to much of what goes on in our prisons. I would install CCTV all over prisons to make sure they're doing their jobs. Protection rackets, drugs and the rest can only operate in prisons with the approval of the Prison Staff. That's a fact. The whole system needs cleaned up and cleaned out. Ooops there's the phone, bet its Kenny MacAskill