Born Evil

Last night, I attended a University of Southern California event where author Jeff Mudgett of Bloodstains, discussed human nature and the idea that some people are born evil.

When asked at the discussion, Mudgett responded strongly that some men were born evil and there was no hope for people like his ancestor, H. H. Holmes, when they are looked in prison forever, the important part is to have them separated from the population. In this discussion, I could not help but think of Foucault's structure of "madness" and what it truly means for someone to be considered psychotic, a menace to society, and unfit for a normal life. As far as Mudgett and scholars can tell, Holmes was a normal, functioning member of society who may have had the highest IQ score ever recorded. Not only was he intelligent, charming, and charismatic, he had a flair for hypnotism and had a fascination with the human body and the ageing process. These obsessions and talents led him to be on record for killing 27 people, with the possibility (and estimated amounts from researchers) to be up to 1,000 people. He might have been the most prolific serial killer of all times, and Mudgett, his great-great grandson, believes he was born that way. He was born to kill, born to be evil, and that there was no hope or retribution that society could offer to this man. What are the implications for people being capable of these atrocities, simply because of their genetic code? Is there a "serial killer" gene that lays dormant in Holmes' bloodline and may live in other seemingly functioning members of society? Perhaps, once isolated, women may be able to test for the gene in their unborn children, just as many diseases and genetic disorders (such as Down's syndrome or other chromosome deficiencies) are detected and chose to abort them. Can there be a genetic predisposition that we can code for, eliminating all serial killers those born to be evil before they have a chance to manifest? Should genetic predispositions guide our choices to presume those guilty before proven so? This brings to mind the current news story I saw about a 15-year old girl (now 18 at the sentencing) who was given life in person with the possibility for parole after torturing and killing her 9-year old neighbor.
http://antonia-monacelli.hubpages.com/hub/Murderous-Children-Alyssa-Bustamante
The most damning evidence of all was her diary that revealed her calculated plan to kill the neighbor just to see what it felt like to kill another person. Could this child's predispositions to murder been tested and controlled before this incident? How many lives would/could be at risk if such a risk were isolated? It makes one think of the idea that we are all masters of our own destiny, but are we really if our genetic make-ups have decided for us? Did Holmes truly have a chance to correct or downplay the "devil inside" him, or was his future and the bodies in his wake predestined from the moment that he was born?

These types of questions make me ponder how society constructs madness and how one defines "evil", "madness", and "unfit for society" in modern terms. People can be deemed sex offenders and remain on a list for the rest of their lives, whether they were convicted of rape to peeing in a public location. The wide variety of ways that indiscretions and transgressions of the law are defined as one penalty draws to mind sentencing laws that degree minimum penalties for crimes, no matter the mitigating circumstances. Is our definition of evil/madness incorrect, or merely how we punish/attempt to correct it misguided?

How many of us are born with evil inside us? How many of us cannot change our stars, our paths in lives, the lot that we were dealt because of something far beyond our control? Can humans who are truly capable of the most heinous crimes, still be considered human?