But I really don't understand the need to make up a bunch of strange commentary (nature/nurture, temporary insanity, equality not equal, genetics, euthanasia, etc.) that either doesn't really have a point, or beats around the bush so much with vague language it's not even possible to tell what the point is. I suppose English isn't your first language, and that's fine, but I'm sure you realize even talking about genetics is a mine-field.
I also specifically want to consider your casually-mentioned phrase: "laws are complex for the purpose of gaming them". To my thinking mind, this is a throw-away accusation that really has no standing in actual fact. Yes, laws can be complex. Yes, regulatory capture exists. Yes, people game "the system" all the time. But all three together implies some highly unlikely turn of events, given that it is contradictory (why would a self-serving law be so complex that it can only be taken advantage of with added difficulty). Even if this unlikely convergence has happened, it cannot be a pattern because it is rare--and the unspoken conclusion would be "conspiracy." Your first 2 paragraphs contain a lot of illogical and unfounded assertions like this, with vague conclusions that are outside of normal discourse, and I find it hard to take any of it seriously.