• To what degree do genetic and biological factors lessen or exempt a criminal offender's responsibility?
• Should some genetic and/or biological factors qualify offenders for lighter sentences compared to other genetic and/or biological factors? Why or why not?

one colleagues:

• Choose a response that is different from your own.
• Respectfully agree or disagree with their argument regarding the extent to which genetic and biological factors limit criminal responsibility.

The relationship between biology, genetics, and criminal responsibility in the criminal justice system is very complicated and contentious. New behavioral genetics and neuroscience findings are challenging traditional notions of guilt and punishment.It is debatable to what extent genetic and biological factors influence conduct, but not to the point where a criminal offender's accountability is diminished or excused. According to Bartol & Bartol (2020), conduct is not predetermined, even if certain genetic and biological predispositions might have an impact on it. Given that both the environment and individual choices significantly impact behavior, a person's genetic and biological makeup should not completely absolve them of responsibility.

However, it is important to consider these factors while determining the appropriate sentence. Johnson (2018), for instance, cites instances in which people with brain impairments have committed crimes. The degree of impairment, especially in the brain regions in charge of impulse control and decision-making, might seriously affect a person's capacity to follow social standards. Similarly, Hughes (2014) addresses how behavioral genetics is considered in the legal system, suggesting that although some genetic traits may predispose people to certain acts, they do not excuse them.

When age is considered as a biological aspect, the discussion becomes much more complicated. Requarth (2016) sheds light on how neuroscience is reshaping the debate over the appropriate place of age in the legal system. Antonio House's case illustrates how his sentence was reduced despite his 19-year-old brain's immaturity. Even in one's 20s, the brain, especially the prefrontal cortex, which is in charge of impulse control and decision-making, is still developing (Bartol & Bartol, 2020). Biological reality implies that people in this age range may not be fully capable of making mature decisions, which challenges the legal definition of adulthood, which sets the age at eighteen.

Should some biological and genetic characteristics qualify criminals for shorter terms than others? The legal system must strike a balance between the knowledge of these effects and the demands of justice and public safety, even if it is evident that certain variables may significantly impact conduct (Johnson, 2018). If an individual's capacity to regulate their actions is substantially impaired by genetic or biological reasons, like in the case of major brain damage, then lighter penalties could be justified (Johnson, 2018). This should not be a general policy, however. Every case has to be examined on its own, taking into account the particular biological and genetic variables at work, the kind of crime committed, and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

In summary, an offender should still be held accountable for their actions, while genetic and biological characteristics should be considered when evaluating criminal liability and sentence. Justice must be served while considering genetics' influence on conduct, and the legal system must navigate the complex interactions between these factors and personal responsibility.

References: Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2020). Criminal Behavior: A Psychological Approach (12th ed.). Pearson Education (US).

Hughes, V. (2014, June 4). My DNA made me do it? How behavioral genetics is influencing the justice system. National Geographic. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2014/06/04/my-dna-made-me-do-it-how-behavioral-genetics-is-influencing-the-justice-system/Links to an external site.

Johnson, M. (2018, January 30). How responsible are killers with brain damage? Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-responsible-are-killers-with-brain-damage/Links to an external site.

Requarth, T. (2016, April 18). Neuroscience is changing the debate over what role age should play in the court? Newsweek.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Key Concept from Kimberly Nixons Rape Relief Case One key concept that can be related to the documentary film The Death and Life of Marsha P Johnson through Kimberly Nixons Rape Relief case is transph... View the full answer