You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

[–] 8663400? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

From a very general viewpoint, the answer is very simple. NO. This is because "crime" is a human construct defined by the government and/or society. What is legal in one location is illegal in another. Unless one wants to make the claim that one's location at any point in time is determined solely by genetics, then it's safe to say that crime is not genetic.

If one were to ask a related, more nuanced question, like "Are there genetics that make criminality more probable under common legal systems", then the answer is almost certainly "yes", and it becomes a matter more of specific genetics or specific legal codes.

0
1

[–] optionalfrank 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Forcing a population that is genetically predisposed to conflict with the construct of another different population is cruel. We need seperation, preferably geographic :)

0
3

[–] 8664138? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Ideally, people would go somewhere where the social and legal codes are most appropriate for them. Different codes in different places are a good thing, so people can find the one that most suits them. In practice, there are all sorts of perverse incentives that cause people to either go to, or stay in, places that are wildly inappropriate(Incidentally, that's one of the problems with the current globalism being pushed. Making everywhere have the same legal codes and making everywhere have the same population are effectively two sides of the same coin).

This is getting off on a tangent now, but there should be some balance where people can be somewhere that works for them, but don't end up floating around to wherever looks easiest in the short term.

0
0

[–] irregularverb ago 

See "Malum in Se" and "Malum Prohibitum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se