As a crime should not be determined on

As scientists make new discoveries,
learning more about human genetics each day. A multitude of new arguments will
arise. As is in the case of the MAO-A gene, this gene is

frequently utilized in our court
system and associated to antisocial behavior. In this paper, I will give my
opinion on why I believe this gene should not be the sole factor when reaching
a verdict. 

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            In
my opinion, the judge should not consider generic evidence to play a role in criminal
cases because judging or mitigating the individuals act to commit a crime
should not be determined on types of genetics but on actions. Some believe
certain people are born with a gene that makes them aggressive and are more
likely to have criminal tendencies. On the other hand, people argue that
individuals that experience hard environment and social experiences are more
likely to have criminal behavior. A case of nature against nurture. Data
suggest that average citizens do not share the belief that genetic data can
help identify defendants whose behavior is sufficiently beyond their voluntary
control to warrant findings of diminished responsibility (e.g., conviction of
manslaughter rather than murder) or to mitigate sentences (Appelbaum and
Scurich 2014 p.96) I believe that the individual committing the crime has the
control over their actions and behavior. Everyone has different motives on why
they commit crimes, whether necessity or is simply a matter of wanting
something so badly they are willing to withstand the consequences. In a bail
hearing a judge’s decision to deny bail to someone that has certain genetic
quality is unfair. It goes against their constitutional and human rights.

Decisions should be based on culpability, past behaviors, motive and the
aftermath of the crime. Genetic evidence is slowly making its way to the
courtroom but it is something that the judge should not facture into the
outcome because the findings are inconclusive.

 

 

            The
defendant has the right to present evidence that can prove his innocence or his
guilt. The sixth amendment guarantees the defendant to rights that cannot be
taken away. It would not be right to deny someone that opportunity, especially
in their own trial. Now that being said, showing genetic evidence would neither
help or hurt them in their trial. For example, if someone was trying to use the
excuse that he or she has the MAO-A gene and that is the reason why he or she
committed a crime.  This would only give
the jury one factor to take into account when it comes time to deliberate. The
MAO-A gene only tells you that he or she has the potential to be aggressive and
they might be a bigger threat in the future. On the other side if the person is
trying to prove that he or she does not have the MAO-A gene, therefore is less
of a threat to society.  The jury can’t
base their decision on just genetic evidence; all the evidence and criminal
facts in the case needs to be reviewed. Only then can a jury come to an
appropriate conclusion

            When
presenting genetic evidence in a case there could be aggravating and mitigating
elements that could be presented. This doesn’t guarantee the defendant argument
will hold up and the sentence reduced. 
In fact, the evidence presented could hurt the defendant. There is a
wide definition of what these factors are, each state has its own
interpretation of what that will be. Aggravating factors that might be
presented by the prosecutors could be prior criminal history, types of crimes
and repeated offences can show the individuals thirst for violence. Prior
criminal history alone can be an aggravating factor in the defendant’s case
since one way to determine criminal behavior is to look into the past crimes.

If the defendant is constantly getting into trouble they might determine that
genetic evidence is not necessary. If the defendant, has repeated arrest it
could also be a reason to dismiss the genetic evidence.  Regardless of genetics, the individual is
demonstrating an un-wiliness to follow the law. Another aggravating factor is the
way that the victim was abused or murder. The more gruesome the crime the more
severe the sentence should be for the defendant. In this case, the defendant’s
actions could be enough evidence to base the case on without the use of genetic
evidence.

            On
the other hand, mitigating factors that could be in the defendant’s favor could
be a certain gene, their mental stability, the type of involvement in the
crime. If the defense party proves that the MAO-A gene somehow inspire the
defendant into committing the crime, it could be a reason to mitigate the
sentence. Mental stability can also be a lessening factor if the defendant was
diagnosed with mental illness before and after the crime occurred. In my
opinion, in capital punishment cases this approach rarely works because the
type of case. The members of the court also take in consideration the role that
the defendant took while committing the crime. Someone that is coincident of
what there are doing knows what exactly is taking place.

            In
conclusion, data that proves the connection between the criminal behavior and
genetics is inconclusive. Genetic evidence should not be a consider in
criminal. There are theories on how a person becomes killer. Nature versus
nurture explains how the theory of someone becoming genetically made to have
criminal tendencies or life experiences and the environment. Individuals that
choose to break the law can’t be determine by genetics.