Abstract
The correlation between criminal activity and genetic composition is one of the polarizing issues in criminal justice today. This paper investigates the relevance of using genetic testing in courtrooms for defense and the causation relationships between the genetic composition and criminal behavior. The study conducted a survey on a random sample of 100 participants. The results indicated that most people do not support using genetic testing as defense in criminal procedures. Similarly, many people do not see the causation relationship between the two phenomena. Nevertheless, this research concluded that, following the implications of criminal behavior, and that, most criminal activities such murder and rape are premeditated, genetic testing should not be allowed in courtrooms because criminals should take responsibility for their behavior, which they can control.
Introduction
Scientific research reveals that there is a relationship between the genetic compositions of human beings and their behavioral traits and emotions such as depression, anxiety, depression, and alcoholism alongside several other traits. Over the years, there have been constant debates among different disciplines on the validity of blaming the genetic compositions of human beings and their criminal behavior. While some people believe that the genetic compositions of an individual are responsible for criminal behavior, others believe that the criminal behavior results from different environmental factors, which interact with the individual. The proponents of using genetics as defense in courtrooms explain that some people are born and brought up in supportive families, but continue to exhibit criminal behavior. For instance, citing a case that happened in 1991 involving Stephen "Tony" Mobley, who shot the manager of a pizza store at 25 years despite having been brought up in affluent, white middle-class American family. On the other hand, opponents believe that blaming genetic composition for criminal behavior implies causation, which is impossible to prove: an individual would have a hard time relating the role of genetics in causing their criminal activity.
Genetics can be responsible for criminal behavior. For instance, drawing from Cesare Lombroso’s statement of the 1800s that all criminals had similar distinct features such as huge eye sockets, enormous jaws, and handle shaped ears. He also asserted that only criminals, apes, and savages possess these features. Later in the 1960s, another theory suggested that men found guilty of committing criminal activities had an extra Y chromosome. This theory further explained that these criminals could not help stop what they did. Even though this theory was later dismissed since some men possessed the extra Y-chromosomes yet they were not criminals, proponents considered the latter as potential offenders. However, despite the inference of the relationship between criminal activity and genetics, genetic testing should not be allowed in courtrooms as defense because criminal activities can be controlled. Even though human beings have no control over their genetic composition, they have total control over their behavioral traits such as committing murder, rape, careless driving, or stealing. Using genetic testing as defense implies that the criminals would not be held responsible for their criminal behavior, which can be controlled or avoided.
The research hypotheses in this research study include the following:
- Genetics is responsible for criminal activity
- Genetic testing should not be allowed in courtrooms as defense
Literature Review
Many researchers have identified the problems that the society faces in relation to the crime, and especially violent crimes, thereby instituting research into the causes of criminal behavior. These researchers have found biological causes associated with criminal behavior and asserted that some biological traits predict which members of the society are predisposed to become criminals. The most resonating concept in most of the researches about the biological aspect human behavior and criminality is the 1960s notion of the extra y-chromosome found in most people depicting criminal behavior. Alper Joseph also mentions this concept in his article titled “Biological influences on criminal behavior: How good is the evidence? However, he indicates that the concept lacked support for its hypothesis, but other approaches such as genetic and biochemical approaches to determining the causes of criminal behavior have been developed.
In this article, the major issue that Joseph indicates is the fact that causation between genetics and criminal behavior cannot be proved. However, he identifies the past studies, where about 25 previous studies have reported that there exists a correlation between low cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid and violent criminal behavior (Alper, 1995). The 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid is a metabolite of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Joseph also introduces a controversy in the genetic approach of explaining criminal behavior. He raises the question of causation. Identifying that the abnormal behavior triggers a physiological response in the human body thereby lowering concentration, or whether the low concentrations of the 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid causes abnormal behavior must rely on third factor. He proposes that this third factor could be either psychosocial, biological, or environmental factor, and could be responsible for the abnormal behavior and low concentrations of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid.
In “The Genetic Defence: The Impact of Genetics on the Concept of Criminal Responsibility,” Krupp, Daniel B and Halwani, Sana proposes that genetics can alter an individual’s behavior in the same manner that it results into mental disorders. While recognizing that the genes of an individual’s cannot predetermine his actions, the genetic conditions can predispose him to violence (Halwani, & Krupp, 2004). This, therefore, reduces the range of choices to choose from them, especially evading criminal activity. Daniel B and Halwani further propose that the genetic testing, therefore, can be used in the courtrooms since through reducing the spectrum of choices for an individual, he can no longer be considered fully responsible for his actions. They propose that the criminal justice system should consider some form of mitigation either at the sentencing or guilt stages of the process. Nevertheless, they indicate that genetic testing defense should not be used to fully excuse or disassociate the suspect from the crime, but should be used to recognize the abnormality that affects the suspects and call into consideration the criminal law’s assumption of the accused a choosing being. Therefore, individuals should identify if they have such genetic conditions that impair their judgment and reduces their spectrum of choices, and avoid such situations, lest they are held responsible for their criminal behavior, however, with reduced forms of conviction and sentencing.
Halwani and Krupp use the criminal law theory to explain the nature of criminal responsibility as well as refute genetic testing as a defense in criminal justice. The criminal law theory assumes that human beings are autonomous agents capable of controlling their actions in accordance and conformance with the societal codes of behavior. Secondly, the theory asserts that criminal law deals with the choices individuals make in the society as depicted in their actions instead of their character (Halwani, & Krupp, 2004). Criminal law holds the accused in the subjective and objective means rea. For instance, serious criminal offences such as defilement and murder proof of subjective means rea are required.
Elger, Bernice S began by explaining the moral aspect of community interaction in the article “Attitudes of Future Lawyers and Psychologists to the Use of Genetic Testing for Criminal Behavior.” While studying the attitudes about genetic testing for behavioral traits such as antisocial and violent behavior, the researchers developed standardized questionnaires based on the Nuffield Council report and other studies about students' and the public's attitudes toward genetic testing for behavioral traits (Elger, 2005). They pretested these questionnaires among former law students, bioethicicists, and other students with university education not related to genetics. The researchers intended to identify the ethical validity of genetic testing as defense for criminal responsibility. As earlier indicated in this article, adults in a democratic society are considered as the moral agents of socialization who are supposed to responsible for their acts in the society (Elger, 2005). Crime is considered a violation of a predetermined set of rules, principles by an individual presumed t understand this set of principles of interaction, and that he is aware that by violating these rules he is committing an offense. From this survey, most of the law and psychology students indicated that they were not in support of genetic testing for criminal responsibility and argued that people should be held responsible for their criminal behavior.
The controversy in the essence of using genetic testing as defense in the courtrooms is depicted in David Adam’s article, Criminal courts ‘should take genetics into account.’ In this article, Adam cites the famous Stephen Mobley’s defense during his trial, where he had been accused of killing a pizza store manager in Georgia in the 1990s. In this trial, the lawyer pointed to family history of violence, which the jury rejected as defense and Stephen Mobley is now on the death row. Adam points out contradicting arguments from different professionals such as The London-based Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which indicates that just as social factors such as being a victim of child abuse, genetic factors should be cited in mitigation for criminal activity (Adam, 2002). They argue that if the courts can take child upbringing into account in criminal procedures, then genetics should equally be considered. On the contrary, Margaret Somerville, director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal, Canada believes that using genetic testing as defense would lead to using gene therapy to try to cure criminals and screening population for potential offenders (qtd. Adam, 2002).
Method
The controversies about genetic testing and the correlation between the genetic composition and criminal behavior seem to trigger different reactions from different classes of people. While some people believe that causation between the genetic composition and criminal behavior cannot be proved and that individuals should be held responsible for their actions in the society, others believe that genetics is responsible for criminal behavior. The latter asserts that some genetic conditions impair judgment because they reduce the spectrum of choices available for the criminals. Additionally, the criminal justice system has embraced concepts such as child upbringing, which are also consistent with genetics. Nevertheless, the proponents of genetic testing as well as the correlation between genetics also assert that genetic testing should not be used to fully disassociate offenders from criminal activities, but should be used as a defense to reduce the forms of sentencing or conviction.
Variables
The independent variable in this case is the genetic composition. However, the dependent variables include criminal behavior, the spectrum of choices, the society, the criminal justice system, and the psychosocial, biological, behavioral, and environmental factors.
Subjects
In this research study, I will conduct a survey on members of the society between 25 and 40 years in a random sampling of the population. According to the nature of the study, 100 people, with a fair share of gender balance would be sufficient for the survey. Most of the people that I seek to conduct the survey will be associated to law, psychology, and psychology fields of study.
Measurements
I intend to use the 7-point Likert Scale, where 1represents the least support for correlation between the genetic composition and the least support for the use of genetic testing as defense in the courtroom. 3 represents moderate support for correlation between genetic composition and moderate support for the use of genetic testing as defense in the courtroom. 7 will be the highest score in the scale representing very high support for correlation between the genetic composition and very high support for the use of genetic testing as defense in the courtroom.
Data Collection: Survey
In this survey, I intend to reach about 120 people through printed questionnaires that they will fill at their own convenience. 120 is the virtual sample size since some people might not respond to the questionnaires, and others might fail to return the questionnaires. However, the working sample size will be 100 individuals with a fair share of gender balance to avoid sample bias. The questionnaires will be composed of ten questions as attached in the appendix of this research paper. The survey will not be monitored to allow the participants to fill the questionnaires free from the influence of a second party.
Pilot Study
One hundred and twenty questionnaires were sent to different people in their workstations. After identifying the target groups and sending them emails requesting the permission to participate in the pilot study, the people who responded to the emails were requested to receive the survey questionnaires that would be sent to their, fill them, and return them to the sending address within 10 days. Out of the 120 questionnaires sent to different respondents, 104 were received back. However, four questionnaires were considered vague since the responses could not be used for the purpose of the research study.
Results and Discussion
Policy Implications
This research study sought to explain the causation relationship between the genetic composition and the validity of using genetic testing in courtrooms for defense in criminal proceedings. While these issues have become polarizing and controversial phenomena in the society, different schools of thought propose different solutions. However, in policy and administration, it is important to ensure that the issue is resolved. From the literature review and the survey, it is notable that both the opponents and proponents of these concepts consider genetics to play some important role in shaping behavior. While the opponents assert that there is no proof for the causation relationship between criminal behavior and the genetic composition, they neither refute the relationship as impossible. Similarly, other opponents such as Margaret Somerville, director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, do not oppose the relevance of genetic testing in courtrooms as defense, but fears the consequences of genetic testing such as screening the public for potential offenders.
The implication of this research is to ensure that rehabilitation centers meant to manage behavior control should be constructed in the society to help adults suspected or confirmed to have the genetic compositions that impair their judgment in criminal activities. Similarly, the educational system should incorporate mechanism that mange children with such disorders to ensure that they learn how to stay out of compromising situations. These situations are the environmental triggers that reduce the options for the population with criminal genetic composition. Consequently, it is very important to ensure that the people who end up in the courtroom for committing criminal offenses get served with justice by ensuring they take responsibility for their criminal behavior. This research did not find enough evidence to implement genetic testing in courtrooms as defense.
Limitations
Most of the participants in this research study were employed in different sectors, thereby limiting the time they have to participate in the survey. Additionally, the time available for conducting the survey was very short. However, the biggest challenge was getting the contacts of the potential respondents and bringing them to participate in the survey. Nevertheless, considering that the survey involved a hotly contested and debatable issue, most of the respondents answered the questionnaires very well, except a few people who wrote irrelevant answers since the questionnaires were not monitored.
Future Research
I recommend that future research should investigate how the government should help individuals found to possess genetic compositions that trigger criminal behavior to manage such behavior.
References:
Adam, D. (2002). Criminal courts 'should take genetics into account'. Nature, 419(6906), 422. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/419422b
Alper, J. S. (1995). Biological influences on criminal behaviour: How good is the evidence?. BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition), 310(6975), 272-273.
Elger, B. S. (2005). Attitudes of future lawyers and psychologists to the use of genetic testing for criminal behavior. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14(3), 329-45. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201418652?accountid=38129
Halwani, S., & Krupp, D. (2004). The genetic defence: the impact of genetics on the concept of criminal responsibility. Health Law Journal, 1235-70.
Appendix 1:
Questionnaire
- Do you believe that there is correlation between genetic composition and criminal behavior
- How do you perceive criminals
- Would you testify against a criminal in the courtroom if you knew they had unstable minds when committing the crime
- What is your take on criminal behavior, psychosocial, and environmental interactions
- Do you support embracing child upbringing as defense in criminal justice
- What other forms of defense do you propose apart from evidence
- Have you heard about genetic testing
Continue if Yes
- Do you support using genetic testing as defense in courtrooms
- Please give a reason for your answer to Q. 6 above
- If you were a judge in a murder case, would you consider genetic testing to fully excuse the criminal of the crime, or to reduce the sentencing and conviction?
