Questions and Answers
If You Are in Favor of Genetics in the Courtroom…
Question 1: Why do you think that evidence of a defendant's genetic makeup should be allowed in a courtroom? Do you think that a person with genes that make him or her aggressive and unable to control his or her impulses is "less guilty" than someone who commits the same crime but has a normal set of genes?

Yes but only if the behavioral genetic mutation has been peer reviewed by other medical scientists and there has been several cases of the mutation present. On the other hand, using behavioral genetic mutation as an excuse to decrease the severity of the punishment, could lead to more tax dollars put into someone that does society no justice, or purpose. I do not see the point on wasting money on someone that will just sit in jail and require extra attention. Extra attention means more staffing and with more staffing, leads to an increase in cost per inmate. Housing inmates has no return on this investment.

This particular gene that creates the enzyme called monoamine oxidase- A would need to be measure in the “normal” human and the “mutated” human to compare the level of potency of the enzyme. If this person was a frequent drug user that caused the low level on MOAO, then the argument should not be valid, since they made the conscience choice to alter their body make up; however, if one was born with the lack of MOAO, I believe it would be okay.

Genetics should not be allowed in the courtroom to defend a criminal’s action because it leaves open too many loopholes and is too open for interpretation. I also believe that mutated genes, such as those that enable criminals to act upon their aggression, do not serve a purpose in society, unless during war. These citizens with mutated genes that cause them to turn on other citizens are not worth very much in our society. They serve no purpose.

I am a firm believer if you do that crime one should expect to do the fitted time.

What if these drugs are used to treat and lessen the violent tendencies, and they work? In theory that works out great; however, if these violent tendencies are only resolved through the use of drugs, this person will be dependent on a synthetic medication for their entire life. Let’s say this person eventually gets out of jail, and marries and leads to reproduction- what if this genetic disorder is passed on? Their child will have to be dependent on the drug also to avoid a crime incase if their violent tendencies are unleashed. People with these type of genetic mutations should not be given the chance to reproduce because of the offspring that they would produce would eventually be a drain on society. I don’t see the harm in letting nature take its course instead of always having man-kind interfere. Children should not be subjected to testing unless they do show signs of intense criminal behavior. For example, if a child at the age of 3 takes pleasure into killing animals or overly harassing other children compared to children of their age, then yes, genetic disorder testing should be done to reduce the chances of their violent crimes. We can compare this to the common chicken pox, which occurs for a child at the ages between 3-10 years old. When a child catches the pox at 3 years old, chicken pox is neither so harmful nor difficult to cure. Throw some mitts on them to prevent scratching and fill up a tub with some of that anti-itch stuff and within a week, it’ll be as if virus had never occurred. I believe the same can be applied to this mutation of genes. If doctors and parents work closely together to diagnose the behavior of a “bad seed” child, we can introduce external factors, such as holding therapy sessions, or positive reinforcement for the child’s good behavior, nurture will overcome nature. Some of the drawbacks may be that once tested, and tested positive for violent genetic mutations, children may be treated like a criminal, rather than a normal child, and ostracized from the sandbox to prevent any harm. It all depends on the situations. Genes differ from person to person; therefore, each case should be handled differently as well. We can not summate one person’s characteristics to another. | |[pic]