Overview of Genetic Influence on Criminal Behavior - Essay Example

Theory of Knowledge Could genes influence criminal (e.g. violent) behavior? Does this undermine the validity of the legal system (guilt, punishment, etc.)? Introduction: More than three decades ago scientific research suggested the possibility of a link between the presence of an extra Y gene, and increased aggression in men. This suggestion has led to considerable controversy over the extent to which human behavior is determined by genes. This debate on the possibility of the influence of genes is the result of essentially the difference in perspectives that human behavior results from natural genes or the nurture experience of the individual experiences, and the degree of their influence on human behavior. (BLAME IT ON YOUR GENES). Overview of Genetic Influence on Criminal Behavior: The 1970s saw prominence given to the possibility of the influence of genes on criminal behavior, as some scientific studies concluded that there was a high prevalence of XYY genes in different types of criminals that were put in institutions. These studies suggested that the presence of an extra Y chromosome in the genetic structure of individuals was responsible for their aggression, and criminal tendencies. Despite the fact that subsequent studies were to question the reliability of this finding, the XYY syndrome as a possible cause of criminal tendencies in individuals began to grow in popular esteem. (Could Genetic Factors Be Used To Accurately Predict Criminal Behavior). The boost to the popularity of the influence on criminal behavior did not come from valid scientific evidence, but more from the influence of media, and films that used more imagination to boost the perception of human behavior being a reflection of the genetic composition of the individual, far removed from the prevalent perception that human behavior was a result of the influence of the nurture and environment factors on the individual. Filmmakers have found the debate between nature and nurture as a fertile ground for sowing wild and imaginative seeds in the mind of the public, and thus drawing them to watch films. This aspect can be seen in a long list of films made on the aspect of genetic influence on human behavior and criminal attitude, like “Natural Born Killers” (1994), “Mary Shelley's Frankenstein” (1994), and “The Island of Dr. Moreau” (1996), and the popular manner in which the public accepted these films. The growth in popularity of the perspective that the genetic composition of an individual was responsible for human behavior in general, and criminal behavior in particular, stemmed not from scientific evidence or facts, but more as a part of the fertile imagination of the general public. (Nottingham, S., 1999). Theory of Knowledge: The subject of true knowledge, and the manner in which it can be sought has been a subject of study from a very long time, and has given rise to many theories on the subject. There are four ways to knowing, and these are perception, reason, emotion, and language, and six areas from which knowledge can be acquired. These areas are mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, ethics, history and arts, and that is why these subjects have always been a part of the education system, which with its aims of imparting knowledge. However, what an individual accepts as knowledge comes from the justification based on logic, sensory perception, revelation, religious faith, political authority, consensus, intuition, and self-awareness. In addition an individual uses three truth tests before any evidence is accepted as knowledge and are that the evidence be coherent, correspondent and is pragmatic. (The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology). Applying these principles of the theory of knowledge, it becomes evident that even if science were to come up with evidence of genetic influence on criminal behavior, it may not be acceptable as knowledge, because of the impact of the justification factors of religious faith, political authority and social consensus and the action of the truth test of pragmatism. Acceptance of genetic influence on criminal behavior would imply that an individual is born with characteristics that cannot be influenced by society or political authority, and would run against the grain of social consensus and political authority. It would also mean that religious faiths based on the responsibility of the individual for good and bad actions in the eyes of religious norms that have been accepted by a majority of the people would lose their relevance. In the final run it would fail the pragmatic truth test as acceptance of the role of genes in criminal behavior upsets all the basis of human activity. Such being the case it is likely that it would be difficult to overcome the objections to the validity of genetic influence on criminal behavior and the rather than accept this as knowledge society may opt to remain ignorant of it. (Mowbray, S., 2004). Validity of Genetic Influence on Criminal Behavior: The research into the influence of genetics on human behavior itself is a contentious issue, as there exist scientific obstacles in the form of correlating an individual’s genetic endowment and behavior. Examples of these problems are defining a specific endpoint that characterizes a condition, and identifying and excluding other possible reasons for the cause of the condition, thus allowing a determination of the signification of the supposed correlation. The acceptance of supposed relevant findings on the impact of genetic structure and human behavior as truths, has to be done with due diligence, for they act on strong feelings and beliefs, and in that have potential social and political consequences. Examples of this abound not only in historical experience, but also in recent times. The gender screening of the fetus, and the resultant impact on societies in countries like India, where dowry is an issue is one example. The gender screening has led to abortion of the female fetus, having a negative impact on the female male ratio, and raising objections that have led to regulation of the screening of fetuses. History has provided us with many a horrendous example of political consequences of attempts of racial cleansing, including Hitler and the Jews, a little more than six decades ago. Extending this, acceptance of genetic influence on human behavior, could lead to political sanitizing of elements of society that do not conform to the political views of the dominant ruling authorities. This it makes it imperative that before any discoveries in behavioral genetics are accepted, it be properly vetted for substantial scientific corroboration. (Rathsteim, A.M., 1999). Antisocial-behavior is often found in clusters within families and this does give rise to the knowledge, and acceptance that inherited genetic factors, as well as family environment are risk factors for anti-social behavior. To come to this conclusion, twin and adoption studies have been used as the means to separate genetic and environmental factors, and then evaluate the impact of these factors on anti-social behavior. Adoption studies have used the procedure of adopting individuals out of families with antisocial behavior to families that do not have a history of antisocial behavior. Should the adopted individuals display antisocial behavior at a later stage in life, then it could be concluded that genetic factors have a greater influence on the behavior of the individual, and by natural extension on human behavior, than the family and nurture environment. Review of the majority of twin and adoption studies on antisocial behavior show that genetic background does have an influence on the antisocial behavior of individuals, but the influence of environmental factors, have a much stronger influence. These studies reveal that even if individuals do have a strong genetic predisposition towards antisocial behavior, they may never indulge in such behavior, if they are exposed to the proper environment, in terms of parenting style, socio-economic status, peer groups, education, family expectations, and diet, and kept away from an environment that supports such behavior, and thereby stresses the importance of environment over genetic disposition, or rather that the nurture factors are stronger than the nature factors, in the determination of the behavior of an individual. This implies that an individual with genes, which appear to predispose towards impulsivity, might become an opportunistic thief, a high-flying business entrepreneur, a freewheeling backpacker, or none of these depending on the environmental factors. (Morley, I.K., & Hall, D.W., 2003). Research does indicate that environmental factors do have the more significant role in the behavior of individuals. The next logical step in analyzing the role of genetic factors on human behavior is to ascertain whether environment has a role to play on the genetic factors that influence human behavior. There is an old proverb that says birds of the same feather flock together, and this seems true in the case of association of the male and female genders that come together in the creation of new progeny. Research has indicated that men and women with similar behavior patterns tend to become partners and mate, and this happens with individuals with a tendency for antisocial behavior, and this partnership tends to be more prolific in the creation of children. This indicates that the nature of the spread of the genes that may be responsible for antisocial behavior among the population. These findings have not emanated from behavior genetic studies, but do have an implication on these studies and the gaining of knowledge on the subject of the possible influence of genetic structure on criminal behavior. This assortative mating on a genetically influenced phenotype, in this case, criminal behavior has significant implications for the genetic variation among the population. This assortative mating causes couples to differ from each other more than the average would have been, had more random mating been the norm. This assortative mating leads to greater diversity in respective families, owing to genetic and environmental modes that get transmitted down from generations. When successive generations partner and mate assortatively, genes relevant to a particular phenotype, in this case, criminal behavior is likely to get concentrated within the families. A better understanding of this is possible through viewing the transmission of height through generations. On a general basis individual family units are made up of individuals with similar height patterns, but across society the family units differ in terms of height. A plausible explanation for this lies in assortative mating with individuals of similar height partnering over successive generations. In studies conducted across countries like New Zealand, Britain, and the United States of America there have been findings that both males and females with a history of adolescent criminal behavior tended to form unions with partners, who had a prior history of criminal behavior, and physical abuse was part of the family environment. These relationships may not have extended over long period of time, but the number of children that resulted from these assortative partnerships, were well over the average seen in individuals with no criminal behavior antecedents, who were part of the study. These studies do indicate that environment may have an impact on genes that are considered responsible for behavior patterns of individuals. The knowledge of society on the issue of the impact of genetic factors on criminal behaviors are restricted to the studies that are available, and these studies do not provide society or individuals with enough substantiated findings that allow accurate decision making on the issue of genetic structure, and the inheritance of these factors on criminal behavior in individuals. There is greater evidence that suggests that environment has a significant role to play in the molding of behavior of individuals, and this may even extend to any genetic impact on the behavior of individuals. On the basis of the research conducted so far on the issue of influence of genetic structure on criminal behavior, and the knowledge that has emanated from it, the conclusion is that the role of genetics in criminal behavior is inconclusive, and there is greater evidence to support the significance of environment on criminal behavior. (Antisocial behavior). Impact on the Legal System: The legal system is not independent of culture and the social value system, and operates within it. The legal system does face a challenge now with behavioral genetics, as it did in the 1920s, with the eugenics being a dominant subject of scientific thinking at that time, and its impact on culture, society and the legal system. The areas of impact on the legal system include the scrutiny that would be required of the claims of behavioral genetics and the affect of behavioral genetics on legal doctrines that are related to privacy, autonomy, nondiscrimination and societal opportunities. There is no doubt that judges and juries are going to be tested and challenged by the scientific claims that are going to be thrown at them at the time of ascertaining the behavior of individuals that appear before the judicial systems, through the legal processes in the courtrooms. It becomes imperative that the knowledge levels of those that are part of the legal systems be made capable of evaluating scientific claims in keeping with the acceptable social norms and legally acceptable norms of behavior in society. The legal system has established a standard of behavior in society that is considered lawful or criminal and it is against this standard that behavior of an individual is considered criminal or lawful. Any change in acceptance of genetic structure on criminal behavior would mean that these standards are changed. This is the challenge that behavioral genetics has thrown at the doors of society and the legal system and it only through maintaining adequate knowledge levels of behavioral genetics and the relevant scientific findings that society and the legal system would meet these challenges successfully. Socially acceptable behavior has resulted from the knowledge that exists in society and the consultations within society over generations and so to with behavior that is considered criminal. Human behavior is not a domain of science alone, because it is deep rooted in society and social norms. It would need irrefutable scientific evidence for any kind of discussions in society for changes in established social behavior, which is currently not available. The legal system is a part of society and leans heavily on society for what constitutes normal behavior and what constitutes criminal behavior and there is no indication that the current knowledge levels of the impact of genetic structure on criminal behavior would bring about any changes in the legal systems of society. To the contrary it is possible that even if evidence does arise that society would be averse to changing its perspectives on acceptable social behavior. Studies conducted have suggested the possibility of alcoholism being a result of genetic structure. This would mean that society accept alcoholism and its impact on the social behavior of an individual as an unavoidable consequence due to inheritance factors. Far from it, society does not accept alcoholism or the anti-social behavior that may be associated with it. The likely result would be that society may take a more lenient view of the condition of alcoholism, but not on the behavior that results from it and there will be no change in the legal system on account of alcoholism or the anti-social behavior as a result of excessive consumption of alcohol. (Rathsteim, A.M., 1999). Conclusion: Behavioral genetics has brought new possible perspectives on the individual behavior. It still needs to really prove itself with regards to reliability to be of knowledge value to society. Till that happens it is unlikely that there would be an impact on society and the legal system. Works Cited 1. “BLAME IT ON YOUR GENES”. Genetic Interest Group. 23 March 2006. . 2. “Could Genetic Factors Be Used To Accurately Predict Criminal Behavior”. 23 March 2006. . 3. Nottingham, S. “Exploring the Cinema Genetics Interface”. 1999. 23 March 2006. 4. “The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology)”. 23 March 2006. http://www.phil.uga.edu/Phil2400/EPIST.2000.htm/ . 5. Mowbray S. “Ignorance: The Cost Goes Up”. Popular Science. 2004, Vol. 264(1). Academic Search Premier Database. EBSCO. 6. Rathsteim, A.M. “The Impact of Behavioral Genetics on the Law and the Courts”. American Judicatory Society, 1999, Vol. 83(3). 23 March 2006. . 7. Morley, I.K., & Hall, D.W. “Is There a Genetic Susceptibility to Engage in Criminal Acts?” 2003. AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLGY. 23 March 2006. . 8. “Antisocial behavior”. NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS. 23 March 2006. . Read More