From New Scientist (and make of that what you wish)
A judge’s decision to reduce a killer’s sentence because he has genetic mutations linked to violence raises a thorny question – can your genes ever absolve you of responsibility for a particular act?
Look, we probably all have “aggression genes” (whatever that means). Like, if someone was threatening my mom or one of my neighbours, what do you think would happen?
Every so often I get shaken down in local stores for money for women’s shelters.
Here is what I always say:
I will give you the donation you ask, but first I want to make a statement, as follows:
“Just beat the ka-shiddle out of the bastard and you won’t need a shelter! HE will!”
The female employees always burst out laughing – not at me, rather with me.
I give the clerk the money, but I sure hope those shelters teach self-defence. Otherwise, I don’t see the point.
Even if there really are aggression genes, why should anyone get time off without good behaviour? What about all the people who have served honourably in the armed forces, police and fire services, paramedic corps, and dealing with difficult animals or working with rescue dogs to find lost people? Don’t they have aggression genes too?
I don’t know who benefits if some perp’s sentence is cut because he supposedly has aggression genes, but I sure doubt it is the law-abiding public. Instead of an incentive to reform, he now has an excuse for his next offense.
Thanks, pop genetics (as opposed to real genetics), no doubt fronted by “evolutionary” psychology.