Can Crime Be Genetic?

By Stefanie Jones

Anyone reading The Washington Post last Sunday would be forgiven for thinking that the world – or at least the legal system – has finally gone mad. The newspaper reported that a growing number of legal defence teams across the US are using DNA profiles to get their clients off the hook.

Now I don’t know about you, but to me the “he couldn’t help it, being a murderer is in his genes” argument just doesn’t seem right. Lawyers are using the argument of a genetic predisposition for certain behaviours to justify their clients’ criminal behaviour, and what’s more astonishing is that they’re getting away with it.

The Post reports that more than 60% of antisocial and criminal behaviour is linked to genetics, a ‘fact’ which has caused several convictions to be overturned in recent years. One notable case in South Carolina involved the reversal of a murder conviction based on the implication that it was prompted by the biology of the convict, and not his own free will.

As interesting as it would be to learn where the figure of 60% came from, perhaps a more pressing question is: where are the lawyers proposing that these genes come from? Everyone knows that traits such as hair and eye colour are inherited from family members, most likely your parents, but is it the same for the so-called ‘criminal’ gene?

Most perpetrators of serious crimes don’t come from a long line of murderers and rapists. However, I will concede that less serious offences, such as shoplifting and burglary may in fact ‘run in the family’, but surely this is a result of environmental influence, such as lack of money and poor living conditions, rather than a shoplifting gene.

In fact, I reckon most ASBO-wielding teens would be lovely young (wo)men if it wasn’t for their environment, in terms of area, family and peer groups. Which brings us to my main point, the much loved nature vs nurture argument.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ->

More stories from the Null