Genes, environment and responsibility for violent behavior: “Whatever genes one has it is preferable that you are prevented from going around stabbing people”

Abstract

For the legal system to function effectively people are generally viewed as autonomous actors able to exercise choice and responsible for their actions. It is conceivable that genetic traits associated with violent and antisocial behavior could call into question an affected individual's responsibility for acts of criminal violence. Evidence concerning genes associated with violent and antisocial behavior has been introduced in criminal courts in the USA and Italy, either alone or with associated environmental factors. One example of a “genetic defense” is based on low levels of monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) activity, with a prevalence of around 30% in Caucasian males. In countries with trial by jury it is particularly relevant to consider the views of publics on criminal liability and the significance they assign to evidence citing genetic influences on behavior. This article draws on largely qualitative research looking at participants' explanations of, and assigning of responsibility for, violent and antisocial behavior where environmental or genetic influences are claimed. Genetic factors were not viewed deterministically by participants but were considered by most to be irrelevant to personal responsibility. Notions of human agency, free will and choice were crucial to explanations of problem behaviors and ensured that offenders could be held responsible despite evidence on environmental and genetic factors.