Institute For The Future

Behavioral Genetics in the Court Room

A court in Italy has shortened the prison sentence of a convicted murderer due to the prisoner's heightened genetic predisposition for violence, according to Nature News. Specifically, the appeals court judge held that because the prisoner had five genetic mutations linked to violent behavior, as well as brain scan abnormalities, "would make him particularly aggressive in stressful situations." Though this isn't the first time that attorneys have tried to use genetic data to sway verdicts, this marks the first time a court has factored genetics into its holding, and in the process, it opens up some huge questions about how we'll navigate genetic data in our daily and instituional worlds.

For one thing, the extent to which these genetic mutations are predictive is a subject of significant debate. The defense attorney in this case argued that the mutations should be thought of as similar to psychological screenings--and in that sense, genetics offer a valid mitigating factor. In contrast, a couple of other experts quoted in Nature argue that the genetic links between these mutations and violence are relatively weak, and that the science of linking behavior to genes is far too primitive to use in courts.

Whatever the specific interpretation in this case, these questions aren't going away. Since genetic mutations generally operate in probabilities, rather than absolutes, it's unlikely we'll ever see a specific gene that indicates clearcut, violent intent; genes that are more or less associated with certain behaviors is the best that we're likely to get.

And in some sense, I think the fuzziness of genetics here is a good thing. Because if we did have predictive genetics, we'd have to figure out how to handle them. As Nature puts it:

 

Some fear that such cases could lead to the acceptance of genetic determinism — the idea that genes determine the behaviour of an organism — in criminal cases....

[Nita] Farahany points out that prosecutors could use the same genetic evidence to argue for tougher sentences by suggesting people with such genes are inherently 'bad'.

 

Stepping back from the specifics here, I think this case highlights the new sorts of questions genetic research will force us to prepare for, such as whether we should think of genes as a reason to blame or absolve someone. More generally, it's a reminder that genetics is creeping into an ever broader range of activities, and in that sense, it isn't just doctors who need to get accustomed to thinking about genetic risk probabilities. Researchers are finding new risk probabilities everywhere. And others, like courts, are starting to use this research--regardless of whether or not it's ready.

(Found via Discover.)