Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

My Genes Made Me Do It? The Implications of Behavioural Genetics for Responsibility and Blame

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The idea of individual responsibility for action is central to our conception of what it is to be a person. Behavioural genetic research may seem to call into question the idea of individual responsibility with possible implications for the criminal justice system. These implications will depend on the understandings of the various agencies and professional groups involved in responding to violent and anti-social behaviour, and, the result of negotiations between them over resulting practice. The paper considers two kinds of approaches to the question of responsibility and ‘criminal genes’ arising from a sociological and philosophical perspective respectively. One is to consider the social context and possible practical implications of research into ‘criminal genes’ which will later be examined through interviews and discussions with a range of experts including lawyers and social workers. A second and different kind of approach is to ask whether the findings of behavioural genetics ought to have implications for attributions of responsibility. Issues of genetic influence are central to both approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a discussion of the issues surrounding children on the National DNA Database in UK see Levitt and Tomasini (2006) ‘Bar-coded children: an exploration of issues around the inclusion of children on the England and Wales National DNA database’. Genomics Society and Policy 2:1 available at: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/journals/gsp/vol2no1/levittabstract.htm

  2. Because females have two copies of the X chromosome low-low genotype is rare. Antisocial behaviour, especially convictions for violence, is also lower in females so the cases where females with the genotype had also been severely maltreated were too small for comparable analyses. However, the authors did find a link for low-MAOA activity and maltreatment with conduct disorder (assessed using a standard diagnosis) [5].

References

  1. Beckwith KF (2006) Whither human behavioral genetics? In: Parens E, Chapman AR, Press N (eds) Wrestling with behavioral genetics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 74–99

    Google Scholar 

  2. Brunner HG (1995) MAOA deficiency and abnormal behaviour: perspectives on an association. Genetics of criminal and antisocial behaviour. Ciba Foundation Symposium 194. Wiley, pp 155–167

  3. Collingwood RG (1946) The idea of history. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  4. Campbell E, Ross LF (2004) Attitudes of healthcare professionals and parents regarding genetic testing for violent traits in childhood. J Med Ethics 30:580–586

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Caspi A, McClay J, Moffitt TE, Mill J, Martin J, Craig IW, Taylor A, Poulton R (2002) Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 2:297 (5582):851–4

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dixon M (2005) Brave new choices. Behavioural genetics and public policy. London: IPPR http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=283

  7. Gerlach NF (2001) From disciplinary gaze to biological gaze: Genetic crime thrillers and biogovernance. Can Rev Am Stud 31:95–117

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gillham B, Tanner G, Cheyne B, Freeman I, Rooney M, Lambie A (1998) Unemployment rates, single parent density, and indices of child poverty: Their relationship to different categories of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Neglect 22(2):79–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gustafsson Stolt U, Liss PE, Ludvigsson J (2005) Nurses’ views of longitudinal genetic screening of and research on children. Br J Nursing 14(2):71–77

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hart HLA (1968) Punishment and responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  11. Human Genetics Commission (2005) Profiling the newborn: A prospective technology. Human Genetics Commission, London http://www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/Contents/Documents/Final%20Draft%20of% 20Profiling%20Newborn%20Report%2003%2005.pdf

  12. Kerr A (2004) Genetics and society. A sociology of disease. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Manson NC (2003) Freud’s own blend: functional analysis, idiographic explanation, and the extension of ordinary psychology. Proc Aristotelian Soc 179–195

  14. Manson NC (2004) Presenting behavioural genetics: spin, ideology and our narrative interests. J Med Ethics 30:601–604

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. McAra L, McVie S (2005) The usual suspects? Street-life, young people and the police. Crim Justice 5(1):5–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moffitt TE (2005) Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behaviors: Evidence from behavioural-genetic research. Adv Genet Amsterdam:Elsevier 55:41–104

    Google Scholar 

  17. National DNA Database Annual report 2004/5 http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/NDNAD_AR_ 04_05.pdf

  18. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) Genetics and human behaviour: The ethical context. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Plomin R, Defries JC, Craig IW, McGuffin P (eds) (2002) Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era. American Pyschological Association, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rose N (2000) Government and control. Br J Crim 40:321–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ross LF (2004) Should children and adolescents undergo genetic testing? Pediatr Ann 33(11):762–769

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rowe DC, Harris JR (2002) A Gene-Environment Interaction in Antisocial Behavior? Comment on “Role of Genotype in the Cycle of Violence in Maltreated Children” http://xchar.home.att.net/tna/roweharris.htm (accessed 27/7/06)

  23. Schaffner KF (2006) Behavior: Its nature and nurture. Part 1. In: Parens E, Chapman AR, Press N (eds), Wrestling with behavioral genetics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 3–39

  24. Scraton P (2004) Streets of terror: marginalisation, criminalisation and authoritarian renewal. Soc Justice 31(1–2):130–158

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sevick MA, Nativo DG, McConnell T (2005) Genetic testing of children for late onset disease. Camb Q HeathC Ethic 14(1):47–56

    Google Scholar 

  26. Van Kampen P, Nijboer H (1997) Daubert in the Lowlands. U.C. Davis Law Rev 30(4):951–995

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. This work was part of the programme of the ESRC Research Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mairi Levitt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levitt, M., Manson, N. My Genes Made Me Do It? The Implications of Behavioural Genetics for Responsibility and Blame. Health Care Anal 15, 33–40 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-006-0038-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-006-0038-0

Keywords

Navigation