Murderers: it's apparently all in the genetics.

ReallyRong

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
585
Reaction score
102
Apologies for yet another post from Sunday's Oberver, but I'm a slow reader and thought this piece might be worthy of mention. It's about the science of criminal investigation and how it's heading towards some sort of science fictional dystopia. Some might call it a forensic approach, whilst others might call it a modern witch hunt. It's about the idea that you can use brain scans and genetic information about a person to predict if they're likely to become a murderer, and at least part of it is based on the fact that "98.1 per cent of death row inmates carry these genes", which is actually pretty damning if true. The inference is that this information could be used to identify such people and intervene before they commit such a crime.
I'm personally not sure if that's something to feel good or bad about.

linky: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/12/how-to-spot-a-murderers-brain
 

ReallyRong

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
585
Reaction score
102
Apologies for yet another post from Sunday's Oberver, but I'm a slow reader and thought this piece might be worthy of mention. It's about the science of criminal investigation and how it's heading towards some sort of science fictional dystopia. Some might call it a forensic approach, whilst others might call it a modern witch hunt. It's about the idea that you can use brain scans and genetic information about a person to predict if they're likely to become a murderer, and at least part of it is based on the fact that "98.1 per cent of death row inmates carry these genes", which is actually pretty damning if true. The inference is that this information could be used to identify such people and intervene before they commit such a crime.
I'm personally not sure if that's something to feel good or bad about.

linky: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/may/12/how-to-spot-a-murderers-brain

Erm, this is pretty humbling. I've just followed that link and the online story is completely different to the one that was in the paper and there's now a retraction for the piece about where the guy apparently linked genetics to death row prisoners. Otherwise, it's all okay!
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
This was a very thought-provoking article (thanks for sharing it!), and also a great jump-off point for research on my YA/paranormal/dystopian/sci-fi/crime WIP. :D

I think I might buy Raine's book.

I hope AWers read and comment on the article.

My opinion is that it's quite likely that murderers' (and other violent criminals') brains function differently, biologically-speaking. I mean, we know this, to an extent, as far as the segment of psychopaths is concerned. Not putting aside environmental and social factors, of course.

The pre-crime subject is extremely fascinating (for story-telling, that is). Minority Report, anyone?
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
It's about the idea that you can use brain scans and genetic information about a person to predict if they're likely to become a murderer, and at least part of it is based on the fact that "98.1 per cent of death row inmates carry these genes", which is actually pretty damning if true.

No it's not.

Not unless 99.9999% of people who never commit murder do not carry those same genes.
 

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
No it's not.

Not unless 99.9999% of people who never commit murder do not carry those same genes.
Yep, this. It reminds me of the old study from the fifties where they linked comics to juvenile delinquency. They found that all the teens in juvie read comics, so they connected the comics to their actions and said that comics were bad. What they didn't look at was the overall population of comic readers.

I see the same problem here. This gene is pretty common among convicted murderers. However, how common is it in the general population and what's the total percentage of people with this gene that have ended up in prison? Until you answer that, you can't fully link this gene to being a murderer.
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,101
Reaction score
8,850
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Erm, this is pretty humbling. I've just followed that link and the online story is completely different to the one that was in the paper and there's now a retraction for the piece about where the guy apparently linked genetics to death row prisoners. Otherwise, it's all okay!

what am i supposed to do with this body now?
 

clintl

Represent.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,611
Reaction score
603
Location
Davis, CA
100% of death row inmates are homo sapiens.
 

LJD

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
4,226
Reaction score
525
No it's not.

Not unless 99.9999% of people who never commit murder do not carry those same genes.

Yeah. I mean, 89.7% of murderers are men, but most men aren't murderers...

But I'm not seeing this 98.1% figure anywhere in the article. This was in the paper version not the online version...?
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
But I'm not seeing this 98.1% figure anywhere in the article. This was in the paper version not the online version...?

It was from a scienctific study, and the researcher asked that it be retracted from the story.
 

TerzaRima

Absinthe O'Malice
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
892
Location
the foulest in the land
Yeah, there was lots of handwaving in that piece about PET scan findings and nothing about genes.

I was curious about how the 19th century serial rapist and killer went about doing his deeds without a cerebellum. I mean, in the complete absence of a cerebellum I would think his murdering and raping motor fluency would be quite compromised and this would be back in the days before disability rights accommodations.

Author gets points for mentioning phrenology, which always cracks me right up for some reason.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
Also, death row isn't exactly a meritocracy.

If you're a poor, black man who kills a white person, you're far, far more likely to end up there than the reverse scenario.

The difference in murders also kind of demonstrates the silliness of that. Most murders are situational. If this explored genetic markers particular to people who committed specific offenses, regardless of sentence (though that'd narrow the pool to those caught or who confessed in some circumstance), that would be a much more interesting and, imo, fruitful study.
 

Sarpedon

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
2,702
Reaction score
436
Location
Minnesota, USA
I read an older book that claimed a link between murder and damage to specific parts of the brain. Seems more plausible, but I haven't seen any back up for that, so my jury is still out.
 

ReallyRong

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
585
Reaction score
102
No it's not.

Not unless 99.9999% of people who never commit murder do not carry those same genes.

Okay, I still have my copy of the newspaper, so here's a bit that was printed but taken offline online, and I quote:

Raine is by no means alone in this argument, though his highly readable book serves as an invaluable primer to both the science and the ethical concerns. As the polymath David Eagleman, director of neuroscience and law at Baylor College in Texas, recently pointed out, knowledge in this area has to be advanced to the point where it is perverse to be in denial. What are we to do, for example, Eagleman asked, with the fact that "If you are a carrier of one particular set of genes, the probability that you will commit a violent crime is four times as high as it would be if you lacked those genes. You're three times as likely to commit a robbery, five times as likely to commit aggravated assault, eight times as likely to be arrested for murder and 13 times as likely to be arrested for a sexual offence. The overwhelming majority of prisoners carry these genes; 98.1% of death row prisoners do... Can we honestly say that the carriers of those genes have exactly the same range of choices in their behaviour as those who do not possess them? And if they do not, should they be judged and punished by the same standard?"

After I posted and then checked the link instead of doing it beforehand like a normal person would, I couldn't understand why there had been such a kerfuffle about the original story. But having had to type some of it in and think about it, I think I get why it was pulled.
 

MarkEsq

Clever title pending.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
3,711
Reaction score
1,139
Age
56
Location
In the wilds of Texas. Actually, the liberal oasi
There are several fundamental problems with the "it's in the genes" argument.

1. It doesn't address the millions of people who have the gene and don't break the law; put another way, it doesn't account for the situational element of most violent crimes. I prosecute violent crime and I promise you that the vast majority do not result from some pasty dude in leather gloves plotting evil ("not vast majority" = none).

2. One can argue: "It's in their genes, they can't help it, we shouldn't punish them as harshly."

3. At the same time, someone else can argue: "It's in their genes, they can't help it, we need to lock them up before they hurt someone."

There's a lot of stuff in my genes I fight all the time (I said genes, people). I exercise five times a week, else I'd be fat. I'm inherently lazy (that's a gene thing, right?).

By the way, a great novel called DEFENDING JACOB by William Landay (bestseller last year) took an interesting look at this very issue. You know, since we're all readers and writers here.
 

Sarpedon

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
2,702
Reaction score
436
Location
Minnesota, USA
While I am a big fan of science as a useful tool, I am not necessarily on board with using that tool for ethics.

To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Life is filled with risk and hardship, and we cannot necessarily ethically justify making changes that reduce risk and hardship to ourselves at the expense of another.

I would like to see whether the risk that such people pose to me is greater or lesser than the risks I am exposed to for the sake of economic convenience--such as vehicle exhaust, vehicle collision, preservatives, coal particulates, fires, VOCs, electric shocks, falling objects, etc etc. If I can accept these risks for the sake of my own convenience and other people's profits, why can I not accept the risk of the genetically violent for the sake of their rights?
 

ReallyRong

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
585
Reaction score
102
One thing I realised as I was slowly typing in that piece rather than quickly scanning it was that there's more than one way to interpret it. On the one hand there's the obvious "string 'em up before they harm us" argument, but on the other I think Eagleman was actually trying to advance a case for such people. I think he was saying you can't apply the normal rules of law and judgement to them because they're hardwired up to act like they do. It's not their fault. Either way it's a field day, so I'm guessing that he saw the spin in the Observer, got his quotes retracted from the internet and saved himself a mountain of online grief. Or at least tried to.