What if there was a chemical that could cure habitual criminals, including serial killers? Would it be worth the cost to society to cure criminals rather than punish them? What if the sentence for every crime was to be treated for life with doses of oxytocin, the so-called “love potion”?

Sentenced to a Life of Empathy

Paul J. Zak of Claremont Graduate University has conducted extensive research into oxytocin, a chemical that occurs naturally in all mammals, including people, proving it is what enables a normal person to feel empathy for others. He has even administered it as a drug in double-blind trials and shown that when “under the influence” of high doses of oxytocin people are more generous than otherwise.

Prof. Zak – a “neuroeconomist” (I have no idea what that means) – said recently in a radio interview that about 2% of the population has absolutely no naturally occurring oxytocin in their systems. As a result they have no feelings of empathy toward others. Of course, these people are sociopaths, the people who commit especially cruel crimes (one wonders about Madoff’s level of oxytocin). Zak has also shown that one can influence the behavior of such people by dosing them with oxytocin.

• Prof. Zak (in his interview) did not explain why 2% of the population has absolutely no oxytocin in them. He didn’t say whether this is a congenital condition or induced by childhood trauma (which we know contributes to psychopathy). However, apparently men and women have equal amounts of oxytocin. The difference is that estrogen enhances its effects and testosterone diminishes it.

No Compulsory Medical Treatment

Of course, as it stands now, no one can be forced to undergo medical treatment, not even violent paranoid schizophrenics, like Alvaro Castillo (now on trial for murder and mayhem in North Carolina. (I know, his lawyer claims he was turned away from a clinic when he wanted treatment. As always, I’m sure there’s at least one other side to the story.)

Despite civil rights concerns, though, occasionally forced medical treatment, such as  forced sterilization , has been used as a punishment even in the U.S. In the early part of this century, too, the misguided “eugenics” movement advocated forced sterilization of socially “undesirable” people (and if they had known about oxytocin-deprivation they would have considered it an undesirable characteristic, I’m sure).

• Sidebar: I’m researching the possibility that famed lawyer Clarence Darrow was a eugenicist. His law partner, poet Edgar Lee Masters, certainly was; and it would make sense that Darrow might be a Social Darwinist.

So, what do you think? If a judge could sentence a criminal to a lifetime of oxytocin treatment, would that be a good idea?

The Love Punishment

First, of course, we would have to test all convicted criminals to determine the level of oxytocin in their blood. Then, based on this research, someone would have to set a standard, acceptable level of oxytocin (parts per million).

I suppose, then, if a convict’s oxytocin level exceeded the standard minimum, he would not be eligible for the oxytocin punishment. Only convicts with low levels of the chemical would be eligible for “the cure.”

Imagine this scenario: A man is wrongfully convicted of killing his wife. Before he’s sentenced to capital punishment, the judge orders he be tested. The test results indicate that the man has exceptionally high levels of oxytocin, which indicates he is already a very empathetic, compassionate, generous man. So -- “off with his head.” He wouldn’t be eligible for the cure.

Alternatively, there could be a mandatory, nationwide “cure” punishment for all convicts. Sociopaths and normal prisoners alike would be dosed. Presumably the sociopaths would thereafter develop empathy and would lead normal, productive lives (if they didn’t also have a mental disorder as well as low levels of oxytocin). Normal people who have committed crimes, presumably, would become highly empathetic and generous, thus turning them into caregivers, I suppose.

Everybody, Take Your Pill Now!

Then we would need to test all babies at birth for abnormally low levels of oxytocin and begin treating them immediately, as a crime-prevention measure.

The next question is: what is the minimum acceptable level of the chemical in the entire population? Once that is determined, the dosing would begin. Utopia: No one would ever again feel an ungenerous or violent impulse.

• Sidebar: Today TruTV’s question of the day is: What can be done to stop gun violence? Why not ask, what can be done to stop violence? It’s all equally horrible.

A properly dosed society would be a peaceful, crime-free society. But not so fast: wouldn’t every country have to adopt the policy if we really want to end violence?

Let’s assume that the United States – already the most generous society in the world based on the percentage of our GDP devoted to foreign aid – becomes the first nation to adopt a policy of minimum generosity. You can be absolutely sure that most other nations will not follow our lead in this. Can you imagine Russia, for example, wanting to prevent their military from feeling any hostility towards others?

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution

There is a way to prevent the oxytocin-low citizens from purchasing guns:

• Proposed Oxytocin Amendment: Every citizen of the United States shall maintain a ratio of oxytocin-to-sex-hormones in his or her blood consistent with norms established by Congress; and unless he or she maintains said ratio he or she shall not enjoy any of the rights afforded to other citizens by the Constitution. (I’m joking, folks. And remember, I am not a lawyer.)

Brave New World of Soma

Science and technology have incredible potential to solve many of our social problems. However, it seems to me that science and technology also would be misapplied were we to seek to eliminate all crime and all conflict. The only reason we need laws is so that citizens have the freedom to behave as they wish so long as they do not harm others. Law gives us freedom.

Even a person without empathy can choose to behave in a law-abiding manner. Even a person without oxytocin can be taught right from wrong.

But can a mentally ill person do the same? The mentally ill, by definition, have no free will. They are compelled to behave in inappropriate and often violent ways.

That’s why if asked in voir dire how I feel about the insanity defense I would say: Sometimes it’s reasonable to doubt whether a mentally ill person could form the intent to commit a crime, but a mentally ill criminal is still a criminal who should not be released into society.