Open Access Research Article
GENETICS, GENESIS, THE BIBLE & BEHAVIOR: PERSPECTIVES ON CRIMINALITY BY: ISHAAN DEEPAK JOSHI
Published Paper
Article Details
GENETICS, GENESIS, THE BIBLE & BEHAVIOR: PERSPECTIVES ON
CRIMINALITY
AUTHORED BY:
ISHAAN DEEPAK JOSHI
Institutional
Affiliation: NALSAR University of Law and MIT-WPU Faculty of Law
Contact No:
+919158636644
ABSTRACT
By
incorporating the perspectives of biblical scholars and their analysis, this
study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of
psychiatrists in testifying on behaviour heredity within the criminal justice
framework. This approach acknowledges the potential influence of religious
beliefs and values on societal attitudes towards criminal behaviour and its
determinants. Additionally, exploring these perspectives can contribute to a
more nuanced and inclusive discussion surrounding the complex interplay between
psychiatry, genetics, and the legal system.
KEYWORDS: Behavioural
Genetics, Genesis, Old Testament, New Testament, Criminality, Cognition, Legal
Process
INTRODUCTION
Genes exert significant influence on
the formation of both our physical structures and cognitive abilities. The
subject of behaviour genetics is progressively uncovering the intricate
interactions across the environment and genes that influence the variations in
behaviour among individuals. An area of
study in behavioural genetics that has garnered significant interest is the
investigation into the origins of aggressive conduct. Researchers aspire to
eventually possess the capability to precisely identify individuals with a high
propensity for violence and to create efficacious interventions to prevent
violence within this group.
While it may seem that these advanced
technologies are currently unattainable, the societal consequences of
behavioural genetics studies may demand our attention sooner than
anticipated. Behavioural genetics has
the potential to become the next area of exploration in the field of criminal
justice. The scientific evidence indicating that the propensity for malevolence
may be partially ingrained in our genetic makeup offers a fresh perspective on
a longstanding ethical and legal quandary concerning criminal culpability and
retribution: if the predisposition towards violent conduct is inherent in an
individual's innate characteristics, how should it impact the imposition of
punishment for criminal acts? Should it be regarded as a component of
mitigation that reduces the severity of the penalty, or should it be seen
as an exacerbating feature that justifies a more severe penalty?
This article examines the subject
from a Biblical standpoint, principally drawing upon the insights of classical
rabbinic commentators, albeit not solely relying on them. Although the field of behaviour genetics is
relatively young, the question of the connection between the propensity for
wrongdoing and the penalty of criminal behaviour is not novel. The matter is examined through the Old
Testament and deliberated over by its interpretations; their perspectives can
enhance the present-day discourse on this matter.
THE ROLE OF
GENETICS IN VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR
The hypothesis that genetic factors
contribute to the development of criminal behaviour was proposed during the
peak of research in genetics and inheritance in the late the nineteenth
century. Francis Galton, a prominent scholar who extensively studied heredity,
acknowledged the challenging nature of addressing the issue of the criminal
classes being passed down through generations. The investigation is hindered by
their transient behaviours, their illicit relationships, and their propensity
for extreme dishonesty. Nevertheless, it is straightforward to demonstrate that
criminal tendencies have a propensity to be passed down across
generations. In his essay "The Criminal Man" published in 1876,
Cesare Lombroso, an Italian psychologist and physician, posited that
criminality is innate rather than acquired from the environment. He further
suggested that it might be discerned by distinctive physical attributes. Subsequent years saw the emergence of other
papers with a scientific focus, but the evidence supporting these conclusions
remained insufficient.
During the 1960s and 1970s,
individuals with an additional Y chromosome, known as XYY syndrome, were
believed to have a higher likelihood of engaging in violent behaviour. However,
this claim was later found to be false.
In 1993, a distinct and more
encouraging correlation amongst genetic traits and violent criminality was
documented. Brunner et al. reported on a Dutch family in which multiple boys
displayed borderline intellectual disability and atypical behaviour,
characterised by impaired control over impulsive violence. They were
discovered to exhibit a total lack of function of the enzyme monoamine oxidase
A (MAOA), that breaks down certain important monoamine neurotransmitters. The
genetic study showed that the men who were affected had an abnormality on the X
chromosome in the MAOA gene, which caused the enzyme to become inactive. Genetic abnormalities in the metabolism of
neurotransmitters may impact aggressive behaviour, as proposed by the authors.
In 2002, a further publication
expanded the range of the MAOA results. While it is highly uncommon to have no
MAOA activity at all, a team of researchers hypothesised that decreases in
activity, which are associated with alterations within the promoter region of
the MAOA gene, could potentially heighten the likelihood of violent and other
antisocial behaviours. This risk may be further amplified when combined with
unfavourable environmental conditions.
The researchers examined how the
combination of participants' genetic traits and their environmental conditions
influenced the effects of mistreatment during the ages of three to 11 on their
later tendencies towards antisocial behaviour. Specifically, they focused on
the implications of mistreatment on individuals with through either high or
even low MAOA activity. It was
discovered that the group with both reduced MAOA function and a background of
severe abuse had a notable rise in signs of antisocial behaviour.
Conversely, individuals with elevated
levels of MAOA exhibited a considerably less notable rise in antisocial
behaviour, even when exposed to maltreatment. The gene-environment
interaction is demonstrated by the fact that a tiny percentage of the
cohort, who experienced both low MAOA levels and abuse, were responsible for
almost half of the verdicts for heinous crimes. Most of the boys who
possessed both risk variables exhibited some manifestation of antisocial
behaviour.
Multiple endeavours have been
undertaken to reproduce the Dunedin discoveries, with the majority yielding
positive results but a few falling short. However, meta-analyses indicate that
the impact is indeed genuine. This body of literature has been thoroughly
examined in other sources. The variation in findings between research can be
partially attributed to disparities in subject demographics and the
operationalization of maltreatment or violence. This emphasises the necessity
of more precisely defining and quantifying environmental elements in future
empirical studies on gene-environment interactions. Furthermore, it highlights
the potential impact of varying levels of early trauma on the findings.
Several research have been undertaken
to investigate the underlying mechanism behind the variance in innate
aggression, which has been attributed to changes in the synthesis of MAO-A
protein in humans, accounting for more than thirty percent of the variability.
One group suggested that hormonal activity could be the underlying cause of
both reduced MAO-A activity and violent behaviour. A separate study
demonstrated that there was an elevation in operational interconnectivity across
the ventromedial prefrontal cortex & the amygdalae specifically in
males who possess the low MAO-A gene.
Furthermore, the study revealed that
males with low MAO-A activity had heightened stimulation of the amygdalae &
reduced activation of the vmPFC during a face-matching assignment, in
comparison to the control group. Based on previous evidence linking this
pattern to antisocial behaviour, conviction for heinous crimes, as well as
self-reported brutality, it was hypothesised that heightened stimulation of the
emotion centres in the amygdalae and reduced stimulation of detrimental
feedback via the prefrontal cortex could contribute to aggressive behaviour.
Subjects with low MAO-A activity
exhibit increased stimulation of the anterior cingulate when excluded from a
simulated ball-passing task, as well as an increased degree & severity
of aggression in relation to provocation, in comparison to subjects with high
MAO-A activity. These mechanistic investigations did not consider the potential
impact of environmental factors on the genesis of aggressive behaviour, which
is a methodological weakness that should be remedied in future research.
Despite the ongoing uncertainty
surrounding the precise influence of monoamines and their genetic foundations
on aggressive and antisocial behaviour, as well as the controversy surrounding
the current relevance of this knowledge to court decisions, it is probable that
with further progress in behavioural genetics, we will eventually be able to
identify specific genes that, when combined with environmental factors,
predispose individuals to higher levels of criminal activity. The expected results will present a
difficulty to the criminal justice process in terms of their impact on
determining criminal responsibility and sentencing.
Within legal frameworks that consider
some mental diseases as grounds for diminished responsibility, analysts are now
questioning why hereditary factors, such as reduced MAO-A activity, should not
be treated similarly. A recent analysis of the function of MAO-A in violent
behaviour emphasised two instances when the levels of MAO-A were presented as
proof in trial and seemed to have an impact on the verdict in favour of the
defendants. Estimating the precise contribution of genetic evidence to the
final legal conclusion is challenging in both scenarios. However, it is
noteworthy that despite the early stage of scientific understanding regarding
the importance of low MAO-A activity's influence on violent behaviour, several
courts have acknowledged this data and modified their judgements and sentencing
appropriately.
The challenge of establishing a
connection between genetic predispositions and the performance of specific
criminal acts may hinder the ability to prove the necessary conditions for a
determination of non-responsibility. Hence, it looks more probable that the
primary challenges encountered by the criminal justice process in response to
behavioural genetics discoveries would be to the determination of appropriate
punishments rather than the exoneration of individuals, as is currently
evident. Indeed, an analysis of the initial application of behavioural genetics
in court demonstrates that the vast majority of defendants in criminal
cases who have presented expert testimony concerning their predisposition
towards certain behaviours in cases of crime have done so with the
intention of reducing their sentence, rather than absolving or rationalising
their criminal actions. While it is evident that such proof can have a
neutralising impact, it can also be likened to a classic double-edged sword.
Hence, both theoretically and practically, the influence that behavioural genetics
information should exert on punishment is still uncertain.
REFLECTIONS
ON PHILOSOPHICAL MATTERS
There are two conflicting approaches
to criminal punishment that exist in opposition to one other. The retributive
approach assigns blame and determines the appropriate level of punishment based
on past actions. Retributivists analyse the criminal conduct and determine
suitable sanctions based on the character of the mens rea, which refers to the
guilty mind associated with the action. The retributive approach to assessing
punishment considers the offender's level of responsibility for their conduct
when deciding what kind of punishment, they deserve. Consequently, advocates of
the retributive perspective may hesitate to assign complete blame to an
individual for an action that was influenced, to some extent, by factors
outside of their control. Therefore, considering that an individual cannot be
held accountable for possessing genes that, in conjunction with early life
events, partially contribute to criminal conduct, it would be unwarranted to
impose the same level of punishment on an offender as in a situation where
someone has complete agency over their actions.
Conversely, the utilitarian
perspective on sentencing is future-oriented, prioritising the punishment that
will be most efficacious in deterring future offences. Utilitarians prioritise
safeguarding society from potentially harmful criminals over the painstaking
pursuit of perfectly justified retribution for past criminal acts. Therefore, if a defendant is determined to
possess an inherent inclination towards criminal conduct, whether due to genetics
or other factors, and there is no viable remedy for this condition, it could be
justifiable, from a utilitarian perspective, to lengthen his or her
sentence.
In practise, however, the process of
sentencing may often be influenced by various moral intuitions rather than by
deliberate moral reasoning. According to certain researchers, actual moral
judgements are formed instinctively and immediately based on what feels morally
correct. For instance, the responsible control model suggests that evaluations
which are relatively unconscious and spontaneous. Emotional responses to the
detrimental incident and the individuals implicated are influential in
determining attributions of culpability. According to this perspective, where
emotion takes precedence over reason, both retributive and utilitarian rational
reasons are seen as after-the-fact occurrences, serving as intellectual
defences for prior, intuitive moral judgements.
Extensive research indicates that
individuals often possess instinctive biases when forming moral and legal
judgements regarding criminal responsibility. Offenders' personality traits
influence people's legal intuitions about legal responsibility. Due to the
established connections between perceived freedom and aggressiveness and judgements
of responsibility and punishment, it is logical to assume that genetic
information would have a comparable impact on the moral and legal intuitions of
sentencing judges.
The dominance of instinctive
reactions in moral decision-making is logical when considering the evolutionary
history of organisms. Throughout the evolution of the human species, it is
likely that our ancient predecessors relied on their innate pro-social
instincts to make moral judgements before they were capable of providing logical
explanations for their actions.
Rousseau proposed that if nature had not endowed mankind with a sense of
compassion to support their reason, they would have remained no better than
beasts. Generosity, clemency, and humanity can be defined as the act of
applying compassion towards those who are weak, guilty, or humanity as a whole.
This compassion compels us to promptly assist others who are in pain, without
pausing for consideration. Modern researchers have suggested contemporary,
scientifically grounded interpretations of Rousseau's theory, which hold that
our inclination to form moral judgements is inherent, having developed from
pro-social feelings. According to these views, it is plausible to believe that
the emergence of reflective conceptualizations of morality and rational
justifications of moral decisions occurred only as human cognitive abilities
advanced and language became established.
A VIEWPOINT
BASED ON THE TEACHINGS AND PRINCIPLES FOUND IN THE BIBLE
The Old Testament contains one of the
oldest organised sets of moral principles. The moral philosophy of the Hebrew
Bible cannot be simplified to a singular moral system, as it encompasses both
deontological and utilitarian perspectives. Similarly, because of the Bible's
presentation of multiple justifications for punishment in diverse scenarios, it
would be incorrect to attribute to its authors a singular theory of punishment.
The Bible's multifarious nature in terms of morality has maintained its ability
to serve as an inspiring reference for supporters of various moral
perspectives.
The Bible's inconsistent stance on
moral concerns is evident when studying two early biblical verses that address
the quandary of whether an inherent inclination towards wrongdoing should be
seen as a mitigating or aggravating factor. Due to the limitations of this
study, we shall only examine the example provided by two references in the book
of Genesis, as a comprehensive analysis of the biblical solution to this
difficulty is beyond our scope.
The Bible addresses the issue of
human inclination towards evil and the subsequent consequences throughout the
narrative of Noah. Following the flood, the Bible implies that God holds a
negative view of human nature, stating that the thoughts and desires of man's heart
are inherently wicked from a young age. The Bible attributes to God the belief
that humans possess an innate inclination towards evil from an early point of
their development. Some contemporary scholars, such Thomas Hobbes and Sigmund
Freud, have expressed a similar idea found in the Bible, albeit they have
different theoretical justifications.
Hobbes produced a political theory
predicated on the premise that human nature is inherently malevolent and
antagonistic, but Freud's psychological theory, along with its cultural
implications, is grounded in the assertion that baby behaviour is influenced,
to some extent, by innate aggressiveness.
At what age may one detect the
initial signs of this malevolence in a child? Early Christian and Jewish
beliefs ascribe inherent wickedness to individuals, even from infancy. Saint
Augustine posited that no one is exempt from sin, not even the newborn who has
just spent a single day on this planet. The infant's innocence resides in the
frailty of their physique rather than in their cognitive abilities. He
personally seen a non-verbal newborn displaying jealousy, evident by its
furious expression while observing another infant being breastfed. During that
era, Jewish academics also held the belief that inherent wickedness exists
inside humans from the moment they become aware of the universe.
Biblical interpreters and translators
have faced a barrier in comprehending a certain part of the story of Noah. This
challenge arises when God declares that he would never again annihilate all
living beings on the planet. The Lord resolved within himself that he would no
longer bring a curse upon the earth for the sake of mankind, nor would he
inflict destruction upon all living beings as he had previously done. God's
proclamation, which initially appeared to solely prohibit collective
retribution, was interpreted by the traditional Jewish interpreters as also
encompassing individual chastisement. Furthermore, by connecting this
commitment to the previous assertion regarding humanity's inherent tendency
towards wickedness, they construed it as a manifestation of leniency stemming
from the belief that uncontrollable urges reduce moral responsibility.
Rabbi Moses ben Nachman Girondi, a
renowned mediaeval Jewish physician and scholar, argued that the inherent
tendency towards wrongdoing acts as a moderating element, based on these
words. Rabbi Hezekiah ben Manoah, a
Jewish scholar, said that due to the inherent immaturity of human beings and
the inherent evilness of their hearts, it is unethical to seek retribution against
them through such an extreme means as a flood. An in-depth analysis of Rabbi
Hezekiah ben Manoah's viewpoint demonstrates the correlation between a punitive
mindset and a tendency to view the inherent inclination towards wrongdoing as a
mitigating element.
The inclusion of the phrase ‘take
revenge’ provides insight into his underlying understanding of punishment and
its intended objective. Arguing for a decrease in punishment based on an
inherent inclination towards wickedness, in relation to the reasons for seeking
revenge, indicates that, from a retributive perspective, individuals are not
deserving of severe penalties, such as a worldwide deluge.
In his reasoning, Rabbi Chaim ben
Moses ibn Attar, a later commentator, recognised that an individual's
inclination towards misbehaviour is not sufficient to absolve them from
punishment. However, he contended that it is crucial to evaluate it during the
sentence stage. God opted to mitigate
the intensity of forthcoming penalties, particularly those of a capital nature,
but refraining from fully eliminating punishment, as humans still possess the
capacity to triumph against malevolence.
The analysis of the initial Biblical
phrase explored earlier, which considers the inherent tendency towards
malevolence as a mitigating element, appears accurate when viewed just from a
literal standpoint. The Hebrew term 'kee', which is used to link the assertion
about a man's inherent inclination towards evil with the lessening of future
penalties, typically translates to 'because'. Therefore, according to this
prevailing interpretation of 'kee', the Biblical phrase implies that God will
diminish the severity of the punishment due to the inherently wicked nature of
man's heart from an early age.
Nevertheless, while this
interpretation that lessens the severity of the situation may seem more
attractive when considering the literal meaning, it encounters challenges when
compared to a contrasting viewpoint expressed earlier in a few chapters. In
that earlier passage, God observed that the wickedness of humanity was
extensive on the earth, with every thought and intention of their hearts being
consistently evil. The Lord then declared his intention to eradicate mankind,
whom he had brought into existence, from the face of the earth.
This scripture clearly indicates
that, in contrast to the mitigating approach, the inherent inclination of
humans towards evil plays a pivotal role in God's determination to administer
punishment to humanity. In this context, the inherent tendency towards
malevolence is regarded as a contributing element that warrants the use of
capital punishment.
The Bible's exegetes observed this
inconsistency. Furthermore, God regarded mankind's inclination towards
wickedness as a basis for imposing a devastating curse, while simultaneously
regarding this inclination as a rationale for refraining from punishing the
earth. How may a single assertion be
used to support two conflicting inferences?
Various responses, many of which are
outside the purview of this document, have been proposed by the traditional
Biblical interpreters. A single, concise suggestion, comprising just two words,
is incredibly pertinent to our ongoing conversation. Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon
suggested that the word "kee" should be understood as "even
though" rather than "because."
The alteration in the perception of this particular word dramatically
impacts the correlation between the propensity for wrongdoing and retribution.
Contrary to viewing the tendency towards evil as a reason to lessen punishment,
the alternative interpretation argues that this inclination should actually be
considered as a component that worsens the harshness of punishment. According to this reading, there is no
inconsistency between the two scriptures that describe God's distinct mental
attitudes. When considering the destiny of humanity from God's perspective,
which aligns with the utilitarian approach, it appears pointless to exhibit
mercy. What is the advantage of
mitigation if the criminal is likely to reoffend? Human beings would not face the same level
of punishment as the deluge, just because of God's mercy, without any
requirement for intellectual justification.
Given that the Bible was initially
written in Hebrew, and translating it involves interpreting its meaning, it is
not unexpected to discover that various translators have differing opinions
regarding the translation of the Hebrew word "kee." As a result, they
also present different viewpoints on the connection between the tendency
towards wrongdoing and its consequences.
As per the King James Version, the key phrase translates to the Lord's
declaration that he will no longer curse the ground for the sake of mankind, as
man's heart is inherently evil from a young age. Additionally, he will refrain
from causing harm to all living beings, as he has done in the past. Here,
following the mitigating approach, the belief that the human heart is
inherently wicked from a young age result in a decrease in the severity of
punishment.
Conversely, as per the New
International Version, the Biblical expression is rendered as follows: He will
never again curse the ground because of mankind, even though every inclination
of their hearts is evil from childhood. He will never again annihilate all life
beings, as he previously did. In this iteration, akin to Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon's
exegesis, the inherent human propensity towards malevolence necessitates an
exacerbating approach. Nevertheless, despite the valid request, God elects to
embrace kindness and proclaims that he would never again impose a punishment as
severe as the deluge, regardless of the extent of human sinfulness.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS
We are currently facing a period in
which we will surely encounter ethical and legal difficulties as our
understanding of the genetic foundations of behaviour continues to expand. Nevertheless, when it comes to the influence
of behavioural genetic data on criminal sentencing, the fundamental factors are
not completely novel. The interpretation of genetically determined tendencies
as either reducing or intensifying may indicate two opposing moral intuitions
of human wrongdoing. One approach exhibits greater leniency and a tendency
towards clemency, whilst the other approach is characterised by strictness and
a more punitive nature. These two distinct fundamental human tendencies likely
represent instinctive evaluations, occurring before contemplation and
independent of any intellectual rationale.
The contrasting viewpoints are
apparent in the initial chapters of the Bible, where they are depicted without
explanation as reflections of God's mindset on various occasions. Throughout the decades, Biblical
commentators and translators have provided additional details and explanations
for each perspective. However, even those who support a less severe approach do
not claim that the tendency towards wrongdoing is sufficiently strong to
completely absolve an individual from punishment.
What insights can be gained from the
Bible's portrayal of the dilemma as a universal issue, relevant to all
individuals and not exclusively confined to a certain vulnerable group? Furthermore, what might be the significance
of God Himself upholding two conflicting viewpoints of the matter on separate
occasions? The passage suggests that accurately and fairly judging the immoral
actions of others is a complex undertaking. However, as humans, we consistently
and instinctively make moral evaluations of this nature. Inquiries pertaining
to the impact of the propensity for wrongdoing on retribution extend beyond the
legal system and are widespread and relevant to our daily assessments. For
instance, a parent or teacher may respond differently to the same misbehaviour
exhibited by a child with an explosive temperament and seemingly uncontrollable
behaviour, as compared to a youngster whose acts appear more intentional.
Nevertheless, there are circumstances
in which the determination of the connection between the propensity for
wrongdoing and retribution is far more intricate, requiring greater effort and
having broader implications. This occurs when individuals are tasked with
deciding the fate of another individual who has committed a crime, assessing
the appropriate level of punishment, potentially including the imposition of
the death penalty. Given the intricate nature of these circumstances, it is not
unexpected that humans struggle with making judgements when even God, as
indicated in the Bible, seems uncertain between the two options.
Considering God's inconsistencies in
this topic serves as a reminder that each scenario possesses unique attributes.
Each person possesses a distinct combination of genetic factors and
environmental influences, resulting in their distinctive characteristics and
behaviours. Hence, it is imperative to
make decisions on a personalised basis, and the ability to be adaptable and
open-minded, known as cognitive flexibility, should be a crucial element in our
ethical and legal decision-making process.
REFERENCES
1. Zondervan Publishing House (Grand
Rapids Mich.). The Holy Bible. Zondervan; Grand Rapids, Mich.: 2007.
2. Kim, Y-K. Handbook of behavior
genetics. Springer; New York, NY: 2009.
3. Carroll, RP.; Prickett, S. The Bible
: Authorized King James Version. Oxford University Press; Oxford ; New York:
2008.
4. Viding E. On the nature and nurture
of antisocial behavior and violence. Ann N Y Acad Sci. Dec. 2004 1036:267–77.
[PubMed: 15817743]
5. Sa'adia-ben-Joseph-Gaon. Sa'adia Gaon
Commentary on the Torah. Mosad Ha'Rav Kook; Jerusalem: 1963.
6. Baker LA, Bezdjian S, Raine A.
Behavioral Genetics: The Science of Antisocial Behavior. Law Contemp Probl.
2006; 69(1-2):7–46. [PubMed: 18176636]
7. Abrabanel, I. The Abrabanel
Commentary on the Torah. Horev; Jerusalem: 1997.
8. Beecher-Monas E, Garcia-Rill E.
Genetic Predictions of Future Dangerousness: Is There a Blueprint for Violence?
Law & Contemp Probs. 2006; 69(1-2):301–41.
9. Ibn-Atar, H. Or Hachayim. Urim
Publishers; Jerusalem: 1999.
10. Galton, F. Hereditary genius : an
inquiry into its laws and consequences. Macmillan and co.; London: 1869
11. Hezekiah-ben-Manoah; Chavel, D. The
Chizkuni's commentary on the Torah. Mosad Ha'rav Kook; Jerusalem: 1981.
12. Galton, F. Essays in eugenics. The
Eugenics education society; London: 1909.
13. Nachmanides; Blinder, Y.; Kamenetzky,
Y.; Bulman, Y. [Perush ha-Ramban : *al ha-Torah] = Ramban : the Torah with
Ramban's commentary. 1st ed.. Mesorah pub.; Brooklyn, N.Y.: 2004.
14. Bulmer, MG. Francis Galton : pioneer
of heredity and biometry. Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore: 2003.
15. Freedman, H.; Simon, M. Midrash
rabbah. Soncino Press; London: 1939.
16. Galton, F. Inquiries into Human
Faculty and its Development. Macmillan; London: 1883.
17. Augustine; Outler, AC. The
confessions of St. Augustine. Dover Publications; Mineola, N.Y.: 2002.
18. Baum ML. The Monoamine Oxidase A
(MAOA) Genetic Predisposition to Impulsive Violence: Is It Relevant to Criminal
Trials? Neuroethics. 2011
19. Freud, S.; Strachey, J. Civilization
and its discontents. Norton; New York: 2005.
20. Lombroso, C.; Gibson, M.; Rafter, NH.
Criminal man. Duke University Press; Durham, NC: 2006.
21. Hobbes, T.; Gaskin, JCA. Leviathan.
Oxford University Press; Oxford ; New York: 1998.
22. McComas H. The heredity of mental
abilities. Psychological Bulletin. Oct; 1914 11(10):379–83.
23. Krašovec, Jz. Reward, punishment, and
forgiveness : the thinking and beliefs of ancient Israel in the light of Greek
and modern views. Brill; Leiden ; Boston: 1999.
24. Steinfels MO, Levine C. The XYY
controversy: researching violence and genetics. Hastings Cent Rep. Aug
1-32.1980 10(4):1. [PubMed: 11680485]
25. Friedmann, D. To kill and take
possession : law, morality, and society in biblical stories. Hendrickson
Publishers; Peabody, Mass.: 2002.
26. Brunner HG, Nelen M, Breakefield XO,
Ropers HH, van Oost BA. Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in
the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science. Oct 22; 1993
262(5133):578–80. [PubMed: 8211186]
27. Waal, FBMd; Macedo, S.; Ober, J.;
Wright, R. Primates and philosophers : how morality evolved. Princeton
University Press; Princeton, N.J.: 2006.
28. Caspi A, McClay J, Moffitt TE, Mill
J, Martin J, Craig IW, et al. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in
maltreated children. Science. Aug 2; 2002 297(5582):851–4. [PubMed: 12161658]
29. Joyce, R. The evolution of morality.
MIT Press; Cambridge, Mass.: 2006.
30. Kim-Cohen J, Caspi A, Taylor A,
Williams B, Newcombe R, Craig IW, et al. MAOA, maltreatment, and
gene-environment interaction predicting children's mental health: new evidence
and a meta-analysis. Mol Psychiatry. Oct; 2006 11(10):903–13. [PubMed:
16801953]
31. Rousseau, J-J.; Coleman, P. Discourse
on the origin of inequality. Oxford University Press; Oxford ; New York: 2009.
32. Farahany, NA. The impact of
behavioral sciences on criminal law. Oxford University Press; Oxford ; New
York: 2009.
33. Kane T, Joseph J, Tedeschi J.
Perceived freedom, aggression, and responsibility, and the assignment of
punishment. Journal of Social Psychology. 1977; 103(2):257–63.
34. Prichard Z, Mackinnon A, Jorm AF,
Easteal S. No evidence for interaction between MAOA and childhood adversity for
antisocial behavior. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. Mar 5; 2008
147B(2):228–32. [PubMed: 18023041]
35. Endres J. Intuitive evaluation of
guilt of violent offenders in relation to offender personality. Z Exp Psychol.
1995; 42(3):353–85. [PubMed: 8640478]
36. Widom CS, Brzustowicz LM. MAOA and
the “cycle of violence:” childhood abuse and neglect, MAOA genotype, and risk
for violent and antisocial behavior. Biol Psychiatry. Oct 1; 2006 60(7): 684–9.
[PubMed: 16814261]
37. Feigenson N, Park J. Emotions and
attributions of legal responsibility and blame: a research review. Law Hum
Behav. Apr; 2006 30(2):143–61. [PubMed: 16786404]
38. Taylor A, Kim-Cohen J. Meta-analysis
of gene-environment interactions in developmental psychopathology. Dev
Psychopathol. 2007; 19(4):1029–37. Fall. [PubMed: 17931432]
39. Alicke MD. Culpable control and the
psychology of blame. Psychol Bull. Jul; 2000 126(4):556–74. [PubMed: 10900996]
40. Tremblay RE, Szyf M. Developmental origins
of chronic physical aggression and epigenetics. Epigenomics. 2010; 2(4):495–9.
[PubMed: 22121967]
41. Haidt J. The emotional dog and its
rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev.
Oct; 2001 108(4):814–34. [PubMed: 11699120]
42. Weder N, Yang BZ, Douglas-Palumberi
H, Massey J, Krystal JH, Gelernter J, et al. MAOA genotype, maltreatment, and
aggressive behavior: the changing impact of genotype at varying levels of
trauma. Biol Psychiatry. Mar 1; 2009 65(5):417–24. [PubMed: 18996506]
43. Forzano F, Borry P, Cambon-Thomsen A,
Hodgson SV, Tibben A, de Vries P, et al. Italian appeal court: a genetic
predisposition to commit murder? Eur J Hum Genet. May; 2010 18(5):519–21.
[PubMed: 20216573]
44. Alia-Klein N, Goldstein RZ, Kriplani
A, Logan J, Tomasi D, Williams B, et al. Brain monoamine oxidase A activity
predicts trait aggression. J Neurosci. May 7; 2008 28(19):5099–104. [PubMed:
18463263]
45. Hagerty, B. Can your genes make you
murder?. National Public Radio. Jul 1. 2010
46. Sjoberg RL, Ducci F, Barr CS, Newman
TK, Dell'osso L, Virkkunen M, et al. A non-additive interaction of a functional
MAO-A VNTR and testosterone predicts antisocial behavior.
Neuropsychopharmacology. Jan; 2008 33(2):425–30. [PubMed: 17429405]
47. Appelbaum PS. Behavioral genetics and
the punishment of crime. Psychiatr Serv. Jan; 2005 56(1): 25–7. [PubMed:
15640139]
48. Buckholtz JW, Callicott JH, Kolachana
B, Hariri AR, Goldberg TE, Genderson M, et al. Genetic variation in MAOA
modulates ventromedial prefrontal circuitry mediating individual differences in
human personality. Mol Psychiatry. Mar; 2008 13(3):313–24. [PubMed: 17519928]
49. Bernet W, Vnencak-Jones CL, Farahany
N, Montgomery SA. Bad nature, bad nurture, and testimony regarding MAOA and
SLC6A4 genotyping at murder trials. J Forensic Sci. Nov; 2007 52(6):1362–71.
[PubMed: 17944904]
50. Eisenberger NI, Way BM, Taylor SE,
Welch WT, Lieberman MD. Understanding genetic risk for aggression: clues from
the brain's response to social exclusion. Biol Psychiatry. May 1; 2007
61(9):1100–8. [PubMed: 17137563]
51. Kaplan J. Misinformation,
Misrepresentation, and Misuse of Human Behavioral Genetics Research. Law &
Contemp Probs. 2006; 69(1-2):47–80.
52. McDermott R, Tingley D, Cowden J,
Frazzetto G, Johnson DD. Monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA) predicts behavioral
aggression following provocation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Feb 17; 2009
106(7):2118–23. [PubMed: 19168625]
53. Wasserman D. Is there value in
identifying individual genetic predispositions to violence? J Law Med Ethics.
2004; 32(1):24–33. Spring. [PubMed: 15152423]
54. Volavka J, Bilder R, Nolan K.
Catecholamines and aggression: the role of COMT and MAO polymorphisms. Ann N Y
Acad Sci. Dec.2004 1036:393–8. [PubMed: 15817751]
55. Farahany N, Bernet W. Behavioural
Genetics in Criminal Cases: Past, Present, and Future. Genomics, Society and
Policy. 2006; 2(1):72–9.
56. Reif A, Rosler M, Freitag CM,
Schneider M, Eujen A, Kissling C, et al. Nature and nurture predispose to
violent behavior: serotonergic genes and adverse childhood environment.
Neuropsychopharmacology. Nov; 2007 32(11):2375–83. [PubMed: 17342170]
57. Gunter TD, Vaughn MG, Philibert RA.
Behavioral genetics in antisocial spectrum disorders and psychopathy: a review
of the recent literature. Behav Sci Law. Mar; 2010 28(2):148–73. [PubMed:
20422643]
58. Grigorenko EL, De Young CG, Eastman
M, Getchell M, Haeffel GJ, Klinteberg B, et al. Aggressive behavior, related
conduct problems, and variation in genes affecting dopamine turnover. Aggress
Behav. May; 2010 36(3):158–76. [PubMed: 20127808]
Article Information
GENETICS, GENESIS, THE BIBLE & BEHAVIOR: PERSPECTIVES ON CRIMINALITY BY: ISHAAN DEEPAK JOSHI
Authors: ISHAAN DEEPAK JOSHI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/11/10
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.