Evil gene would make punishment a tricky business

Apr 26, 2013 by Allan Mccay

Are there evil genes or is it only people who can be evil? A recent story in The Age ("Deep Divide of 'Evil Genes'") raised the question of whether criminals might evade responsibility for their crimes by blaming their genes.

The suggestion that there may be biological causes of crime is troubling in many ways. It reminds us of the horrors of the Nazis and the evasion of responsibility seems like a slap in the face for victims of crime.

The very notion of a crime gene makes us reflect on the purposes of . Should the courts try to give offenders what they deserve, or should they just protect the community from those with dangerous genetic profiles?

An example of a so-called "evil gene" might be the low activity MAOA gene. MAOA is a neurotransmitter in the brain and some research has suggested that those males who have low levels of the substance are particularly vulnerable to the effects of being maltreated when young.

Experience of has long been thought to be an influence on criminal conduct but it seems that being maltreated and having the genetic vulnerability is particularly likely to lead to .

But children don't get to choose their genetic profile nor whether they are maltreated. These are just things that happen to them and it is a matter of luck whether they receive the "evil gene" and a matter of luck whether they are abused. Some are very unlucky on both counts.

So it's not a level playing field. Some people appear to have genetic and environmental that brings difficulties in complying with the .

This becomes problematic when punishing offenders. Once a person has been convicted of an , it is up to the judge to sentence them. But if a person has "evil " - or, put another way, a - and is unlucky enough to have been maltreated, one might ask whether it is fair to give them the same punishment as an offender without these issues.

It is well recognised in the law that the characteristics of the offender are relevant to punishment. A mentally impaired young person from a severely dysfunctional background deserves less punishment than an unimpaired adult, even if they have committed the same type of crime.

It's just not fair to treat them the same because one has more difficulty in behaving well.

Similarly, it seems unfair to treat maltreated low-activity MAOA offenders the same as those who are more fortunate in their and family circumstances.

But things are not so simple. Those with the "evil gene" and difficult backgrounds may still be very dangerous.

This is how the purposes of punishment come into question. Should judges focus on giving offenders what they deserve or should they just try to prevent future crimes?

Perhaps judges should just lock them up until they won't cause any more trouble. Or even lock up those with "evil genes" before they cause any trouble.

But that doesn't seem right. It seems to be a condition of a decent society that only the guilty are punished and that they not be punished in excess of their guilt. shouldn't get a worse punishment than they deserve and people who haven't committed a crime shouldn't get any punishment.

The late David Hodgson had the unusual distinction of being both a judge of appeal in the NSW Supreme Court and a philosopher of some note. His last book was on the problem of free will. This is a difficult issue to tackle and has perplexed some of the greatest figures in the history of philosophy.

Hodgson's philosophical position was that we are "partly free". Perhaps his experience as a judge drew attention to some of the factors that limit people's freedom to choose.

To be just, it seems the courts must pay attention to how partial an offender's freedom of the will is. But they also need to protect us and, at times, they must do all of this amid all of the pain of a victim or grieving loved ones.

The proper consideration of "evil genes" just draws attention to the complexity of the practice of punishment. It is easy to present it as a simple matter but it just isn't.

However, one thing seems clear. The ethical issues described here are likely to be forced on the courts by developments in science and there is no simple resolution in sight.

Explore further: Physicists create tool to foresee language destruction impact and thus prevent it

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Professor examines race and sentencing

Feb 23, 2012

A Sam Houston State University professor is working on a series of studies that examine the effects of race and ethnicity on state and federal sentencing outcomes, including incarceration and sentence length decisions.

Tax evaders prefer institutional punishment

Jul 05, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Selfish behaviour is a threat to successful coexistence and mutual cooperation. In many cases this human cooperation is based on punishing those who do not cooperate. There can be two different forms of punishment ...

Crime Victims' Institute studies adolescent sex and laws

May 24, 2011

While statutory rape laws have been enacted to protect minors from sexual abuse by adults or peers, more teenagers are engaging in sexual activity before the legal age of consent and are facing sexual assault charges.

Recommended for you

Affirmative action elicits bias in pro-equality Caucasians

Jul 25, 2014

New research from Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business indicates that bias towards the effects of affirmative action exists in not only people opposed to it, but also in those who strongly endorse equality.

Election surprises tend to erode trust in government

Jul 24, 2014

When asked who is going to win an election, people tend to predict their own candidate will come out on top. When that doesn't happen, according to a new study from the University of Georgia, these "surprised losers" often ...

Awarded a Pell Grant? Better double-check

Jul 23, 2014

(AP)—Potentially tens of thousands of students awarded a Pell Grant or other need-based federal aid for the coming school year could find it taken away because of a mistake in filling out the form.

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nowhere
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2013
Since there is no such thing as free will it seems redundant to discuss "evil genes", in the context of criminal responsibility.
ormondotvos
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2013
What is a discussion of morality and philosophical ethics doing in physorg.com?

If they're evil, kill them before they breed. I bet you'll never find such a gene, because you'll never get an agreement on what evil is.

Dumb article.
RobertKarlStonjek
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2013
What the idiot who wrote this is suggesting is that if a person is found to have a condition whereby they will commit offences against society and have no control over it, courts should let them go free...would this bone head feel the same way if the crime was rape of one of his children? Would he be happy to know that it wasn't the offender's fault and that the offender was set free and intended to rape the rest of this idiot's children??