A fascinating article in the Washington Post explores new uses for DNA tests in the legal system. (We mentioned it yesterday in passing, but thought we'd say a bit more.)
Everything that's written on genetics has an obligatory section on eugenics. But after getting that out of the way, the piece turns to the more interesting possibilities for DNA. One is as a predictor of criminal behavior:
Rather than simply proving, for example, that the blood on a suspect's clothes does or does not match that of a murder victim, these "second generation" DNA tests seek to shed light on the biological traits and psychological states of the accused. In effect, they allow genes to "testify" in ways never before possible, in some cases resolving long-standing legal tangles but in others raising new ones.Already, chemical companies facing "toxic tort" claims have persuaded courts to order DNA tests on the people suing them, part of an attempt to show that the plaintiffs' own genes made them sick -- not the companies' products.
In other cases, defense attorneys are asking judges to admit test results suggesting that their clients have a genetic predisposition for violent or impulsive behavior, adding a potential "DNA defense" to a legal system that until now has held virtually everyone accountable for their actions except the insane or mentally retarded.
For example, researchers have identified a genetic mutation in a brain enzyme that causes increased violent behavior. Could genetic predisposition towards violence one day be a possible defense by excuse?
As Vanderbilt's Nita Farahany -- an expert in behavioral genetics and the law, who has previously appeared in these pages (second photo) -- rightly points out, finding the cause for a behavior does not excuse a crime. But it could influence sentencing. [FN1]
Another possibility for DNA test applications is measuring life span, to determine awards in civil cases:
Many genes contribute to longevity; just last month, researchers announced the discovery of more than a dozen genes newly suspected of helping determine a person's life span. Even if all of them were known, they could at best provide a probabilistic estimate. But as those estimates become more accurate, said Hoffmann, the Maryland associate dean, they will force judges and jurors to think hard about a question that has long dogged legal scholars: Should damage awards be linked to projected life span at all?"If it's for compensation, then yes, that means you'd want to fine-tune it to the details of the individual and their personal life expectancy," Hoffmann said. "But if damages are about deterrence, then that says you don't get off the hook just because you were lucky enough to hit someone who had a short life expectancy."
It's all speculative for now, as these tests are still in their early stages and not yet at the level of admissibility. But when they get to that point, there will be some interesting new possibilities and challenges for legal application.
[FN1] Earlier this month, Professor Farahany wrote an extremely interesting opinion piece for the Washington Post , imagining a world in which "police officers can read the minds of potential criminals and arrest them before they commit any crimes." It's not as far-fetched as it might sound: "various government agencies are funding the development of technology to detect brain activity remotely and are hoping to eventually decode what someone is thinking."
DNA Tests Offer Deeper Examination Of Accused [Washington Post]
The Government Is Trying to Wrap Its Mind Around Yours [Washington Post]