[biglebox]

A judge's decision to reduce a killer's sentence because he has genetic mutations linked to violence raises a thorny question – can your genes ever absolve you of responsibility for a particular act?

In 2007, Abdelmalek Bayout admitted to stabbing and killing a man and received a sentenced of 9 years and 2 months. Last week, Nature reported that Pier Valerio Reinotti, an appeal court judge in Trieste, Italy, cut Bayout's sentence by a year after finding out he has gene variants linked to aggression. Leaving aside the question of whether this link is well enough understood to justify Reinotti's decision, should genes ever be considered a legitimate defence?

No, says Nita Farahany, a legal scholar at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, who tracks the use of behavioural genetics in the courtroom. She says genes may provide a guide as to how someone is likely to behave, but they will never tell us why they committed a specific act. "It doesn't tell us why they did the thing they did and that's what criminal cases are ultimately interested in."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ef=online-news

What do people think?
I think this is stupid, the very fact this guy is prone to 'aggression' surely gives more of a reason for prison!

[ArtGoblin]

If it's something beyond his control, then it seems unfair to punish him. Of course, he is in control of his actions up to a certain point, but I agree with the decision. I haven't read the article though, so I could be missing something.

[Supporters]

This man murdered another human being without his or her consent - unless he was defending himself, there is no excuse.

He may be prone to agresssion but he should control himself.

[biglebox]

Originally Posted by ArtGoblin

If it's something beyond his control, then it seems unfair to punish him. Of course, he is in control of his actions up to a certain point, but I agree with the decision. I haven't read the article though, so I could be missing something.

True, but in my mind the whole idea of prison is to keep dangerous people away from the pubic/society. Releasing someone on the grounds that 'ohh but that just what hes like' is downright irresponsible. If it was a mentally ill person he'd be in a padded room for the rest of his life, i fail to see to much of a difference.

[numb3rb0y]

I don't really see how this is any different to any other recognised mitigating factor, all of which can reduce punishment even though the defendant ultimately had to make a decision whether to commit the crime.

[x0carrie0x]

Originally Posted by ArtGoblin

If it's something beyond his control, then it seems unfair to punish him. Of course, he is in control of his actions up to a certain point, but I agree with the decision. I haven't read the article though, so I could be missing something.

He is still in control of his actions though he's just "prone to aggression". That's like some people are prone to desiring children - that does not mean that should they act on these desires they shouldn't be punished. He still had the capability to resist his instincts but chose not to. More to the point a gene for aggression seems as unlikely as a gene making you more prone to obesity; it's an excuse.

[biglebox]

Originally Posted by x0carrie0x

He is still in control of his actions though he's just "prone to aggression". That's like some people are prone to desiring children - that does not mean that should they act on these desires they shouldn't be punished. He still had the capability to resist his instincts but chose not to. More to the point a gene for aggression seems as unlikely as a gene making you more prone to obesity; it's an excuse.

- If you are more prone to something, you must try harder to work against it, instead of rollover and go 'its not my fault', something that really gets on my nerves about obesity

[x0carrie0x]

Originally Posted by biglebox

- If you are more prone to something, you must try harder to work against it, instead of rollover and go 'its not my fault', something that really gets on my nerves about obesity

I totally agree. I hate when people use little things as an excuse for their behaviour - you're in control of your life.

[didgeridoo12uk]

millions of people will be 'prone to aggression' or child molesting or rape etc etc due to genes or other factors. most of them manage to resist it just fine! the guys genes really shouldnt make a difference to the judge

[ArtGoblin]

Originally Posted by biglebox

True, but in my mind the whole idea of prison is to keep dangerous people away from the pubic/society. Releasing someone on the grounds that 'ohh but that just what hes like' is downright irresponsible. If it was a mentally ill person he'd be in a padded room for the rest of his life, i fail to see to much of a difference.

I agree, that is one of the main functions of prison. However, as long as he was helped to control himself during that time, there is no reason why he couldn't become a civilized member of society. As presumably he hadn't received help before he killed someone, it seems fair to reduce the sentence.

[ArtGoblin]

Originally Posted by x0carrie0x

He is still in control of his actions though he's just "prone to aggression". That's like some people are prone to desiring children - that does not mean that should they act on these desires they shouldn't be punished. He still had the capability to resist his instincts but chose not to. More to the point a gene for aggression seems as unlikely as a gene making you more prone to obesity; it's an excuse.

It's an excuse, but a valid one. I didn't say he shouldn't be punished - I said that a reduced sentence seemed fair as it doesn't seem right that someone who commits the same crime but doesn't have 'aggression genes' gets the same punishment.

[Meagz]

He took the concious decision to carry a knife around with him. If he knows he is prone to violence, why carry around a weapon which could kill someone.

This is pure BS. Everyone is in control of their own actions unless you really have a mental problem.


Also they have an INCREDIBLY good lawyer.

[Rucklo]

Originally Posted by Meagz

He took the concious decision to carry a knife around with him. If he knows he is prone to violence, why carry around a weapon which could kill someone.

This is pure BS. Everyone is in control of their own actions unless you really have a mental problem.


Also they have an INCREDIBLY good lawyer.

Dosn't say he was carrying it, could have just been in the enviroment.

And how can he control it to a point if its his genes? Thats like telling a balding person to stop balding.

[gbduo]

What. The. ****.

He murdered someone, doesn't matter if he has aggressive genes or not, the end result is still the same, the family of the murdered victim have still lost someone dear to them. It really makes no difference whether he has aggressive genes or not, frankly I think 9 years is not long enough for taking away someone else's life. Life should mean life, not 9 years. This aggressive genes makes a mockery of the victim and their family.

It is incredibly morally/ethically wrong.

[Of_the_hook]

I don't think its fair they have actually reduced his sentence regardless of whether he is "prone to violence" or not. I think environment has more influence than anything else...but thats different topic. Do they not realise they going to release someone into society who is likely to repeat what his done
He should've had the will power to resist, so what they going to do about him reproducing?
Its just excuse to me tbh.

[crazylemon]

Originally Posted by x0carrie0x

He is still in control of his actions though he's just "prone to aggression". That's like some people are prone to desiring children - that does not mean that should they act on these desires they shouldn't be punished. He still had the capability to resist his instincts but chose not to. More to the point a gene for aggression seems as unlikely as a gene making you more prone to obesity; it's an excuse.

And you are wrong.
There are genes which are associated with common obesity: MC4R, PCSK1 etc

In adoption studies it comes out that about 30-40% of obsesity my be genetic.

Food for thought there (FYI I am not fat )

[mcgoohan]

Is there a gene for being prone to inactivity? Will evidence of it be used to defend students who are unprepared for exams; they will be marked more leniently.

[crazylemon]

Originally Posted by mcgoohan

Is there a gene for being prone to inactivity? Will evidence of it be used to defend students who are unprepared for exams; they will be marked more leniently.

No, and exam is to access competency.

Not competent you fail.

[Samrout]

i feel that people unable to change should be kept under close watch, not free to mix with the empathising members of society. Although saying this it kind of goes against my values, but for example, why let out a sociopathic peadophile if you know he is going to reoffend and destroy lives?

[punkyrocker]

Surely this paragraph from the article explains it completely?

"...should genes ever be considered a legitimate defence?

No, says Nita Farahany, a legal scholar at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, who tracks the use of behavioural genetics in the courtroom. She says genes may provide a guide as to how someone is likely to behave, but they will never tell us why they committed a specific act. "It doesn't tell us why they did the thing they did and that's what criminal cases are ultimately interested in.""

Just because he is more likely to behave that way than another person, it does not mean that he should, or that he is exempt from any consequences. No, this is ridiculous.