By Amanda Shepherd and Alex Scheman
The argument whether genes are an excuse for preforming acts of violence came up in a case in 2007 with Abdelmalek Bayout. In Italy, this man admitted to stabbing and killing another man and was given a sentence of 9 years and two months. Bayout had mutated genes that were related to aggression so his judge cut his sentence by one year. This decision was extremely controversial because scientist Nita Farahany, a legal scholar at Vanderbilt University, says that genes could potentially influence someones behavior but genes will never explain why a person committed that crime. The court is there not to blame genetics but to decipher why this person committed the crime and genes are not capable of explaining why.
This case leads to the big question, should genes be considered a reasonable defense in court? The judge, Pier Valerio Reinotti,claimed that Bayout's genetic aggressions lessened the severity of the crime, which is why he reduced his sentence. Farahany on theother hand has noted that US courts more then before are using genes as evidence to make their decisions. Although she also says,"It's just as likely to be used against a criminal defendant as for," meaning when a defendant states they have a genetic disorder itcould be used for as well as against them. "People don't recognize the double-edged potential of this evidence." -Farahany.
Researchers with more advanced technology have found a way to better explain how genes and the environment lead to violent behavior. Terrie Moffitt, a geneticist at King's College and Duke University, has earlier work that helped make the Italian court's decision on Bayout. She claimed that family histories of a defendant are helpful but she also stated that "Everything we know about family history still doesn't diminish our own responsibility for how we make choices." It is similar to peer pressure, if someone told you to jump off a bridge and you had a kind of gene in you that loved heights you still most likely would not jump of the bridge. If you had a motive to kill someone and you have aggression genes, yes the genes will kick in a little bit but it will not at all completely influence your decision.
Acknowledgements:
-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18098-murderer-with-aggression-genes-gets-sentence-cut.html for using their article on the subject.
-http://www.lifespan.org/adam/graphics/images/en/9344.jpg for using their picture of a gene.
Posts
Personally, I don't think that genes should be taken into account in criminal cases. Even though he may have been more likely to kill someone, he still chose to himself and should be held responsible for his actions.
ReplyDeleteTaking genes into account when trying a criminal is not only unethical but also unconstitutional as it is a form of discriminating and denies equal justice to some
ReplyDelete-Graham
I agree with what others are saying, but there is also the idea that if someone is genetically inclined to have blind rage they might be less responsible for their actions than others. Granted other people most likely have these genes and aren't assaulting everyone in sight.
ReplyDelete-Cyrus