Ethical, legal and social issues surrounding research on genetic contributions to anti-social behavior

Abstract

Scientific study of genetic contributions to chronic antisocial behavior has stemmed from many lines of research in recent years. Genetic research involving twin, family, and adoption studies have traditionally been used to compare the health and behavior outcomes of individuals who share the same environment or hereditary lineage; several of these studies have concluded that heredity plays some role in the formation of chronic antisocial behavior, including various forms of aggression and chronic norm-defiance. However, the ethical, social, and legal environment surrounding research on the biological contributions to antisocial behavior in the United States is contentious. Although there has been some discussion in the last few decades regarding the ethical, social, and legal concerns around this type of research within academic and policy circles, analysis and discussion of these concerns rarely appear together. This paper explores the main themes that interact to form the basis of much of the resistance to positing biological contributions to antisocial behavior.

The forensic use of behavioral genetics in criminal proceedings: Case of the MAOA-L genotype

“…Alternatively, the genetic evidence may simply have played no role in the sentencing decisions, as has been suggested in studies of the general population (Appelbaum et al, 2015). This may have been due in part to the expert’s inability to make reliable statements about the genetic risk in individual cases (Berryessa, Martinez-Martin, & Allyse, 2013), i.e., the difficulty in translating group data into statements about particular individuals (Faigman, Slobogin, & Monahan, 2016). Even if at the group level the presence of an MAOA-L allele increases the risk of impulsive aggressive and antisocial behavior, it cannot be inferred that there is an increased risk for any given individual (Treadway & Buckholtz, 2011).…”

Behavioral Genetics in Criminal and Civil Courts

“…Unlike the previously prevailing Frye test that required scientific evidence to be sufficiently established to have gained “general acceptance” in the relevant scientific community, 23 the Daubert decision only required that the evidence be “relevant to the task at hand” and rest “on a reliable foundation.” Importantly, the Daubert decision also empowered judges to determine the validity and admissibility of scientific evidence in court as well as to exclude relevant evidence (including expert testimony) that is prejudicial, confusing and misleading for the jury. 24,25 Thus, this decision—which was later incorporated in the Federal Rules of Evidence 26 and endorsed by most states in the U.S.—not only provided a more flexible standard of admissibility but also substantially strengthened the role of judges as gatekeepers of the scientific evidence in judicial proceedings.…”

Potential Implications of Research on Genetic or Heritable Contributions to Pedophilia for the Objectives of Criminal Law

“…This interpretation of genetic evidence is of especially relevant use to the prosecution in an attempt to affect the perceptions of judges and juries [15]. Prosecutors may play on the concerns of legal actors and use this information to heighten judges’ or juries’ views that an offender is highly dangerous, likely to reoffend, and in need of long-term incapacitation and harsher punishment than normal [14, 18]. Lawyers or expert witnesses for the prosecution may suggest an individual’s genetics are unchangeable and, therefore, anything but incapacitation is pointless because the offender cannot be rehabilitated [14, 76].…”

“…Current views of juries and judges surrounding pedophilic and child sex offenders, describing these individuals as inevitable recidivists, unlikely to be rehabilitated and necessitating incapacitation to prevent reoffending [67-69], are similar to how juries and judges have described defendants in trials where genetic evidence has been seen as an aggravating factor [14, 16, 18, 76]. Indeed, Farahany and Bernet [15] argued that future research on specific geneenvironment interactions possibly correlated to sexual disorders, such as pedophilia, could in the future be used in court by experts to portray offenders with these factors as unlikely to be rehabilitated and more likely to recidivate.…”

“…Recent decades have been especially marked by a growth of academic dialogue on the relationship between genetics and criminal law, including discussions on how increased scientific understandings of genetic contributions, underpinnings or pre-dispositions to mental disorders, specific behaviors or types of criminality may complicate or alter traditional approaches to criminal adjudication, crime prevention and views on legal responsibility, punishment and justice [ex. 14-18]. The use or presentation of behavioral genetics evidence has also increasingly appeared in court as a method of explaining or contextualizing criminal behavior of offenders, often in an attempt to mitigate responsibility and corresponding punishment for criminal actions [14, 15].…”