If criminal behaviour was proven to be genetic...

[KingOfAquitaine]

There seems to be an amount of evidence that certain genes predispose us to violent/aggressive behaviour, either by directly effecting neural development or changing the way chemicals and neural trasmitters are produced.

The effects of one (MAO) include low-impulse control, low IQ, and high aggressive behaviour which, one may argue, could become -ve aspects leading to criminal activity or +ve aspects for things such as sport with the effects being channeled to something productive. Anyway. If biological data became admissible evidence (currently it is not), what would your reaction be

At the moment I believe it would lead to either
lower sentences as genetic differences causes diminished responsibility
or
higher sentences, as a person as demonstrated they are unable to contrl their genetic influences so are a clear and present danger to the public.

Furthermore should it ever be? there have been attempts made in the past (Mobley v State, 1995), and given other factors such as mental disability, both cognitive and pyschpathalogical, are often taken into sentencing, should - assuming it is conclusivly proven - genetic predisposition be another factor?

 

[Amleto]

Just because you ar emore or less likely to do it, doesn't change how 'bad' the crime is.

Sure, there is diminished responsibilty for some things, but I don't think genetic predisposition should be one.

 

[Arcade Fire]

Hah, I thought that you were going to ask whether we should use it as a justification for eugenics!

I don't thin kthat we'd ever see genetic predisposition as a mitigating factor in a trial - we already know that coming from a poor background or a lower social class makes it statistically more likely that someone will commit a crime, but we don't see lower sentences being handed out to poor people. In fact it's often the other way around!

My instinct is that we shouldn't give people lower sentences even if we could prove that they were genetically disposed to committing crimes, because ultimately the choice over whether you are going to commit a crime or not is still yours - genetic predisposition is not necessity. It would take me a while to work this up into a credible argument, though.

 

[Greenlizard0]

I think it's a hugely debatable topic tbh. Off hand I'd say experts don't really know. Your genes (genotype) can be expressed in the external environment (phenotype) if the right combination of alleles are present.

Whether the Genotype from "violent gene" leads to a Phenotype expression in the environment could be entirely down factors in the environment itself. E.g. you can possess the genes for being really tall, but if you're mal-nourished, then that's a factor which is going to hinder phenotype. Conversely there are genes that don't require any factors for expression and express themselves anyway, e.g. eye-colour. If they find the latter then lol all hell will break loose!

 

[Amleto]

...

Whether the Genotype from "violent gene" leads to a Phenotype expression in the environment could be entirely down factors in the environment itself. E.g. you can possess the genes for being really tall, but if you're man-nourished,...

not eating enough men?

 

[KingOfAquitaine]

I think it's a hugely debatable topic tbh. Off hand I'd say experts don't really know. Your genes (genotype) can be expressed in the external environment (phenotype) if the right combination of alleles are present.

Whether the Genotype from "violent gene" leads to a Phenotype expression in the environment could be entirely down factors in the environment itself. E.g. you can possess the genes for being really tall, but if you're mal-nourished, then that's a factor which is going to hinder phenotype. Conversely there are genes that don't require any factors for expression and express themselves anyway, e.g. eye-colour. If they find the latter then lol all hell will break loose!

Certain theories/studies suggest that genetic predispoition expresses itself in this case with environment as a minor cause. Example given that lack of MAO increases levels of seratonin, norepinephrine and a few others I can't remember, means a person is 'armed' for want of a better word, waiting for a trigger.

In fact if you split crime between property and violent crime, there seems to be a strong social factor for the former, and a genetic/biological factor for the latter. I suppose it makes sense, given enough goading anyone could smash a window, but asaulting someone takes a bit more.

because ultimately the choice over whether you are going to commit a crime or not is still yours

is it though? I mean someone with downs sydrome or autism has no 'choice' over there behaviour, so why should someone who has genes for say aggressiveness and short temper.

Its a difficult area, not sure I would like to see it as a diminished responsibility

 

[VeNT]

dunno about criminal, but I'd like to wipe out all the chavs