I don’t claim to be a genetic scientist, albeit I dare say Andy has that on his CV.
After all he is a former war hero, one of the kindest people you will ever meet, a fully qualified tattoo artist, and he works with the disabled and elderly. Therefore it is highly likely he has a degree in genetic science as well. Such a talented and kindly young man.
Although I’m not a genetic scientist I do read and I take an interest in many things. Until fairly recently the pathology of people like those brothers would have been put down to environment almost exclusively. The general idea being that if you are raised bad you will grow up bad and if you are raised well then you will grow up good.
There is clearly still truth to that on some level, but not as much as once believed. It would seem that for the most part genetics and not environment is the true driving force. From some research I read it is thought that as much as 70% of your personality is down to genetics. There is a good chance that if you traced the family line of the brothers then you will find varying degrees of psychopathy and degeneracy going way back. I’m also sorry to tell you that if either ever reproduced then there is a fair chance they could pass those traits on.
You can see the ethical dilemma that would entail. Logic would dictate that if a strong enough genetic link exists and if there is a good chance those traits could be passed on then the most practical thing to do would be for those with such traits not to breed.
By not breeding there would be zero chance of them passing their bad blood on.
There would also be zero chance of them ever having a child to later abuse. This would be the most sensible course of action given that such traits are only a blight and never a gift to society.
However, even were this path logical and just, you would face a huge battle against those who thought it would infringe on the human rights of such people to seek to remove their right to reproduce. Those who would argue against it on some confused ethical grounds should consider that baby-killing bitch, Tracey Connelly, has said the following/done the following in the past year or two:
(Mirror and various)
While behind bars Connelly wrote in a letter to a pal: “I don’t plan to get attached to anyone for a very long time. Im just going to s*** about for a bit and have loads of fun.”
In another she wrote: ”I have never been the best mum in the world but Im not the worst and I’m not the sort of mum who would hurt her children”. Should she be freely allowed to reproduce and perhaps abuse and neglect another life? Is that really “ethical”?
Should the Frankish brothers really be allowed to reproduce in their life? If you have a daughter their age, how would you feel if she was pregnant to one of them?
Of course you will never get sterilisation over the line. Probably too ambitious. What I think would be fair and reasonable is that if someone is convicted of animal torture they should be legally banned from having or being around animals.. AND children. If someone is convicted of child abuse the they should be legally banned from having and keeping children… but ALSO animals.
I think that would be a reasonable compromise to flat out sterilisation (which is my most favoured option). And until all of that? Let’s get them sent down for all and every little secret they have. As well as for what they did.