The Genetic Basis Of Crime,
Lawfulness Through Chemistry

All laws and crimes are the product of the people who invent them. The laws and crimes reflect the legislators. To at least some extent, the laws and crimes reflect the genetics of the legislators. From my observations, it appears to me that most of the characteristics of any set of laws and crimes is genetically based, but some appear to be cultural, experiential and traditional.

My view is that each of our genes has the innate drive to preserve itself. The "genetic imperative" is that any particular gene battles to survive even at the expense of other genes. Where genes have clustered together into collectives for their mutual benefit, the collective exhibits the same imperative: survive even at the expense of other genes or gene complexes.

Humans are vastly complex creatures, but we are still just collections of collections of genes. As an individual animal, each of us has a drive to survive even at the expense of other individuals. Generally speaking, the more similar one individual is with another, the more genes the two share and the more tolerant and accommodating the individuals are of each other. Conversely, the more differences there are between individual collections of genes, the less tolerant and accommodating the individuals are of one another.

Human genetic hostility is seen in several forms of human conflict. Racial hostility is an unfortunate genetic hostility.

Another way that humans express their individual genetic survival instincts is to be hostile to the sexual activity of other individuals. The phenomena is especially apparent in genetically weak individuals. The sexual activity others risks reproduction and, so, it infers the production of more genetic material. If it's not one's own genetic material, one may tend to be hostile not just to the material but also to the sexual activity.

Another way that humans express their survival instinct is through legislation. The genetic logic is that any particular gene has a better chance of surviving in an orderly, predictable environment. However, the rules that a particular group of genes devise, reflect what is common in the several gene pools. In effect, the genes are trying to survive at the expense of non-conforming genes. All law and crime can be seen as the effort of one gene pool to triumph at the expense of non-conformist individual or "free" gene pools.

These biological premises open obvious opportunities, but they also indicate the existence of what may be characterized as virulent and renegade genes. Some genes are much better equipped to survive than others. Some genes are simply peculiar; genus or weak.

First, the biology and the hope. For a clever microscopic gene to convince a complex organism such as, say, Pennsylvania Congressman George Gekas, to enact some crazy new law, the gene must produce some chemical, some protein. The protein floats off in the blood and convinces other cells to do certain things. There are
a lot of these chemicals.

The converse is also true. The "criminal" who defies Gekas's genetic imperative produces some other protein, or fails to produce the Gekas-Venom-Number-One protein. The "criminal's" protein is what convinces other cells in the "criminal" body to undertake certain actions (or omissions) and to defy Gekas's rules. A "criminal" is a kind of chemical/biological non-conformist, or, in some cases, perhaps, the individual has little or no real choice about carrying out his "criminal" conduct. It's just how he sees things.

Find the chemical which makes Gekas behave the way that he does, and you might be able to cure Gekas. In the same way, find the protein (or shortage of protein) which causes "criminal" to refuse to conform, to insist on acting freely, and you might "cure the "criminality."

This pill might absorb the "criminal" protein, or that pill might supplement the Gekas deficiency. It may be that society may actually be able to easily induce non-conformists to forego their individuality and to act like Gekas. It's a terrifying prospect!

In order times, the concept of genetic manipulation was visualized as "eugenics," or noncontrolled reproduction. The Nazis loved the idea. In eugenics, only "good" people reproduce. Over time, they become the only people or the only gene pool. Everyone is genetically similar and they all conform.

That kind of close inbreeding has many drawbacks. Not the least of which is, who are the "good" people? Which gene pool decides which other gene pools to eradicate? How "good" must an individual be and good in what way? Would you want me to decide for you, or say have Jerry Falwell to decide for both of us?

Another problem is disease. Different gene pools are susceptible to different diseases and susceptible in different degrees. One might breed a race of 100% "good" human beings which is also 100% susceptible to some new AIDS. The whole race would vanish!

Genetic diversity is biologically essential. It may also be true that social and cultural conformity is desirable proportional to the density of the society. It may be that social conformity, that is, legal obedience, may be available through chemistry if we don't try to fine tune the individual too closely.

Most proteins are made from other proteins. Genes mostly convert one protein into another. Therefore, it maybe that babies and children must be provided with enough proteins of enough different kinds for their genes to be able to properly express themselves. Some "criminality" may not be so much a matter of the genes as of the diet. Soda and chips may not give the kid what he needs to be law-abiding.

There are other biological factors which we must consider, too. The really strong, virulent genes, the ancient hunter-gatherer successes, survive through their own abilities and at the expense of weak genes. They have no need for clever manipulation of legislation. In one sense, legislation and law must be seen as the effort of the otherwise weak and fragile genes to overcome the strong, ancient hunter-gatherer genes.

We must also remember that our species hasn't finished evolving. Some gene pools (let's hope it's the Gekas branch) may be dead ends. Other gene pools (perhaps the most "criminal") are the ideal path for the advancement of the species.

If we make a social survey of the planet, we see that some conducts (and, presumably, therefore also some genes) are generally considered renegade. Consider the powerful and virulent gene which likes to kill foreign genes, that is, genes other than itself. That gal produces the protein for war, the death penalty, genocide, murder and so forth. It must be very widely spread.

The point is that care must be exercised in defining "good" and "bad." We know that prison and/or punishment doesn't stop crime. They are cruel and damaging to the whole society. They just satisfy the revenge gene which is so strong in some persons. Chemicals may be a useful alternative and one that really works if they are used wisely.

"Daddy, who decided what's wisely?"