Murderer With “Violent Genes” Gets Lighter Sentence in Italian Court

[one...two...tree 2,762]

In an Italian court, a murderer has just had his sentence reduced because the judge agreed that the man’s genes predisposed him to violent behavior. Abdelmalek Bayout, an Algerian immigrant to Italy, admitted to stabbing and killing Walter Felipe Novoa Perez, a Colombian, when the two men got in a fight over the kohl eye make-up that Bayout was wearing. At trial, the defense team argued that Bayout was mentally ill at the time of the murder; the judge agreed that his psychiatric condition was a mitigating factor, and gave him a reduced sentence of 9 years. But at an appeal hearing, Bayout’s lawyers argued that his sentence should be shortened further based not just on psychiatric evaluations, but also brain scans and genetic testing.

Pietro Pietrini, a molecular neuroscientist who worked on the new evaluations, explains that the brain scans showed abnormalities, and the genetic test revealed irregularities in five genes that have been linked to aggressive behavior. One of those genes codes for an enzyme called MAOA, which helps control the levels of certain brain chemicals. Previous studies have found low levels of MAOA expression to be associated with aggressiveness and criminal conduct of young boys raised in abusive environments. In the report, [the researchers] concluded that Bayout’s genes would make him more prone to behaving violently if provoked. “There’s increasing evidence that some genes together with a particular environmental insult may predispose people to certain behaviour,” says Pietrini [Nature News].

Based on this evidence, the appeals court judge knocked another year off of Bayout’s sentence. But many scientists say that singling out a few genes from a person’s vast genome tells you very little about their complete biochemical makeup. In addition to questions of the genetic tests’ scientific relevance, bioethics experts also say that our society hasn’t yet decided to what extent criminal behavior can be excused by biology.

Some worry that cases like Bayout’s could lead to the acceptance of genetic determinism — the idea that genes determine the behaviour of an organism — in criminal cases. “90% of all murders are committed by people with a Y chromosome — males. Should we always give males a shorter sentence?” says geneticist Steve Jones [Nature News]. Others note that from such a legal precedent, it’s a small step towards preemptively labeling someone “bad” because of their genes. Gattica, anyone?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/...-italian-court/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Surely being predisposed to violence ought to be reason enough for some sort of therapy, not a lesser jail sentence.

[Nik+Heather 121]

Surely being predisposed to violence ought to be reason enough for some sort of therapy, not a lesser jail sentence.

Yah, I was going to say, "Oh, so they've proved he's more likely to be a repeat offender -- let's put him out again sooner!" GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAT idea!

Also: 9 Years (now 8) for KILLING someone?!?!?!?!?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'd think if your genes are violent, the system should just kill you. You can't be rehabilitated.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Surely being predisposed to violence ought to be reason enough for some sort of therapy, not a lesser jail sentence.

Yah, I was going to say, "Oh, so they've proved he's more likely to be a repeat offender -- let's put him out again sooner!" GREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAT idea!

Also: 9 Years (now 8) for KILLING someone?!?!?!?!?

Are they sending him to a regular jail or to a secure psychiatric facility? Seems it should be the latter if mental illness was the mitigating factor.

I'd think if your genes are violent, the system should just kill you. You can't be rehabilitated.

People are more than the sum of their genes - certain proclivities might be genetic, but there's really no guarantee that the person will behave in a predictable manner. I think a person's upbringing and environment play a bigger role.

[Nik+Heather 121]

I'd think if your genes are violent, the system should just kill you. You can't be rehabilitated.

People are more than the sum of their genes - certain proclivities might be genetic, but there's really no guarantee that the person will behave in a predictable manner. I think a person's upbringing and environment play a bigger role.

The point should be that you can't have it both ways. If you go and prove that you're incapable of not running around and killing people then what?? If you can control yourself, then genes shouldn't factor in at all.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yes. If it is the opinion of the court that he can't help but kill, then the court should kill him first.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd think if your genes are violent, the system should just kill you. You can't be rehabilitated.

People are more than the sum of their genes - certain proclivities might be genetic, but there's really no guarantee that the person will behave in a predictable manner. I think a person's upbringing and environment play a bigger role.

The point should be that you can't have it both ways. If you go and prove that you're incapable of not running around and killing people then what?? If you can control yourself, then genes shouldn't factor in at all.

You don't need to cite genetics to prove mental illness.

[Nik+Heather 121]

I'd think if your genes are violent, the system should just kill you. You can't be rehabilitated.

People are more than the sum of their genes - certain proclivities might be genetic, but there's really no guarantee that the person will behave in a predictable manner. I think a person's upbringing and environment play a bigger role.

The point should be that you can't have it both ways. If you go and prove that you're incapable of not running around and killing people then what?? If you can control yourself, then genes shouldn't factor in at all.

You don't need to cite genetics to prove mental illness.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Nik+Heather

[Heracles 417]

US Homicide rate: (Per 100,000)

Whites: 4.8

Blacks: 36.9

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

*Yawn*

[Heracles 417]

*Yawn*

Your excuses must exclude those figures right.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

US Homicide rate: (Per 100,000)

Whites: 4.8

Blacks: 36.9

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

So if there were more blacks and hispanics in Australia, the crime rate would go way up and it woud be just like here.

[Heracles 417]

So if there were more blacks and hispanics in Australia, the crime rate would go way up and it woud be just like here.

I don't know if it would, as we certainly would not pander to being PC.

We would target the source of crime head on. If some people were offended by this, we would say, "you know where the door is".

Edited November 4, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

So if there were more blacks and hispanics in Australia, the crime rate would go way up and it woud be just like here.

I don't know if it would, as we certainly would not pander to being PC.

We would target the source of crime head on. If some people were offended by this, we would say, "you know where the door is".

Hello pot......