Cargando…

Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?

Certain genes and neurobiology (‘neurogenetics’) may predispose some people to violent behavior. Increasingly, defendants introduce neurogenetic evidence as a mitigating factor during criminal sentencing. Identifying the cause of a criminal act, biological or otherwise, does not necessarily preclude...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Segal, J Bradley
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27774246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw005
_version_ 1782455145817178112
author Segal, J Bradley
author_facet Segal, J Bradley
author_sort Segal, J Bradley
collection PubMed
description Certain genes and neurobiology (‘neurogenetics’) may predispose some people to violent behavior. Increasingly, defendants introduce neurogenetic evidence as a mitigating factor during criminal sentencing. Identifying the cause of a criminal act, biological or otherwise, does not necessarily preclude moral or legal liability. However, valid scientific evidence of an inherited proclivity sometimes should be considered when evaluating whether a defendant is less morally culpable for a crime and perhaps less deserving of punishment. This Note proposes a two-pronged test to understand whether and when neurogenetic evidence should be considered to potentially mitigate an individual's culpability for criminal behavior. The first prong normatively assesses whether a defendant meets a threshold of having meaningfully managed his risk of harming others based on what he knew, or should have known, about his own proclivities to violence. The second prong considers the admissibility of the evidence based on whether the specific neurogenetic proclivity claimed by the defendant is relevant and adequately supported by science so as to be reliable. This proposed two-pronged test, beginning with an ethical threshold and followed by a scientific hurdle, can help judges and juries establish when to accept arguments for neurogenetic mitigation at sentencing, and when to reject them.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5033442
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50334422016-10-21 Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing? Segal, J Bradley J Law Biosci New Developments Certain genes and neurobiology (‘neurogenetics’) may predispose some people to violent behavior. Increasingly, defendants introduce neurogenetic evidence as a mitigating factor during criminal sentencing. Identifying the cause of a criminal act, biological or otherwise, does not necessarily preclude moral or legal liability. However, valid scientific evidence of an inherited proclivity sometimes should be considered when evaluating whether a defendant is less morally culpable for a crime and perhaps less deserving of punishment. This Note proposes a two-pronged test to understand whether and when neurogenetic evidence should be considered to potentially mitigate an individual's culpability for criminal behavior. The first prong normatively assesses whether a defendant meets a threshold of having meaningfully managed his risk of harming others based on what he knew, or should have known, about his own proclivities to violence. The second prong considers the admissibility of the evidence based on whether the specific neurogenetic proclivity claimed by the defendant is relevant and adequately supported by science so as to be reliable. This proposed two-pronged test, beginning with an ethical threshold and followed by a scientific hurdle, can help judges and juries establish when to accept arguments for neurogenetic mitigation at sentencing, and when to reject them. Oxford University Press 2016-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5033442/ /pubmed/27774246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw005 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle New Developments
Segal, J Bradley
Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?
title Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?
title_full Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?
title_fullStr Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?
title_full_unstemmed Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?
title_short Inherited proclivity: When should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?
title_sort inherited proclivity: when should neurogenetics mitigate moral culpability for purposes of sentencing?
topic New Developments
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27774246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsw005
work_keys_str_mv AT segaljbradley inheritedproclivitywhenshouldneurogeneticsmitigatemoralculpabilityforpurposesofsentencing