The Genetic Killer

Another proposed “solution” to the mass shootings in America is sure to upset many camps; privacy advocates, mental health care advocates, and even those calling for the heads of the murderers. Soon we will have the results of genetic analysis of Adam Lanza, which may be used by scientists to model genetic predispositions of violence, or by defense attorneys in their pleas. This controversial science is being criticized from all sides, condemned as “misguided and could lead to dangerous stigmatization.”

via Vaughan Bell at Mind Hacks:

But the request to analyse the DNA of Lanza is just the latest in a long line of attempts to account for the behaviour of individual killers in terms of genetics.

Perhaps the first attempt was for a case that bears more than a surface resemblance to the Sandy Hook shooting. In 1998, a 15-year-old high school student called Kip Kinkel killed both of his parents before driving to school and shooting 24 students, one of whom died.

In his trial a child psychiatrist argued that Kinkel had “genetic loading” that made him susceptible to mental illness and violence.

His appeal also relied upon this angle. His lawyer argued that “owing to a genetic predisposition, and therefore through no conscious fault of his own, the defendant suffers a mental illness resulting in committing his crimes.”

Perhaps for the first in decades, an appeal to genetics was used in an attempt to explain the killer’s behaviour.

The genetic arguments became more sophisticated with the trial of serial killer Cary Stayner where a psychiatrist and geneticist presented a genealogy of the his family showing how mental illness and violence ‘ran through the family’.

By the time of the trial of murderer Stephen Mobley, the defence based part of their case on molecular genetics – suggesting that Mobley had a version of the MAOA gene that made him susceptible to violence.

It’s worth noting that none of these appeals to genetics have been successful in the courtroom but it’s interesting that in light of the tragic events in Sandy Hook there has been, yet again, a look towards genetics to try and make sense of the killer – this time presumably based on the yet more advanced technology of whole DNA sequencing.

On this occasion, however, the reasons seems less related to issues of legal responsibility and more for scientific motivations, supposedly to better understand the ‘DNA of a killer’.

As the Nature editorial makes clear, this is foolish: “There is no one-to-one relationship between genetics and mental health or between mental health and violence. Something as simple as a DNA sequence cannot explain anything as complex as behaviour.”

There is a valuable science of understanding how genetics influences violent behaviour but analysis of individual killers will tell us very little about their motivations.

It does, however, reflect a desire to find something different in people who commit appalling crimes. Something that is comprehensible but distinct, alien but identifiable.

This may give us comfort, but it does little to provide answers. In the midst of tragedy, however, the two can easily be confused.

While I have mulled the utility of psychopathy testing before (mostly to weed out serial killers and white-collar criminals), I certainly don’t want to demonize mental illness. I also don’t want to see this turned into a genetic witchhunt, with public registries that would affect hiring, insurance rates, or result in other forms of discrimination or revocation of rights. Not only is it unknown for sure if Adam Lanza (or even James Holmes, for that matter) suffered from mental illness or disorder, but depending on the definitions, as many as 1-in-4 Americans might fall into this camp. This framing also narrowly and unfairly decides what is “normative,” always a dangerous proposition for society.

This sort of ‘registration’ might end up much worse for our liberty and democracy than any gun registration, by orders of magnitude. Especially if, as indicated by our elected leaders and the NRA, we are more concerned with tracking and banning these individuals than providing resources and help.

It sets a scary precedent, but it is also the observable evidence-based realm of science. Should we even go there? What do you think?

Read the artice in Nature, and follow Mind Hacks for more in-depth analysis of complex psychological and neurological issues.

, , , ,

  • Ted Heistman

    They must be looking for the genes for non-state sponsored violence.

  • Dingbert

    I suspect tomorrow’s gun control proposals by Obama will endorse some type of national database for ‘mental defectives.’ Even the NRA supports this–they even helped write a similar bill after the VT massacre.

    Unlike banning guns for felons or the criminally insane whose status is determined by the courts and sometimes a jury of peers, mental illness can only be diagnosed by a doctor. A doctor should not have control over one’s constitutional rights based on the current edition of the DSM and a half hour consultation. It also seems much more likely that someone with a condition that makes them more prone to paranoia or violence would simply not seek help rather than end up on a government list.

    I’m also reminded of this old joke:
    Q: What do you call the person who graduated at the bottom of their medical school class?

    A: Doctor.

  • BuzzCoastin

    the voodoo called modern science would be laughable
    if it wasn’t so effectively used as a tool of oppression

    everyone one is looking in the gene pool for the source of mental confusion
    while ignoring the effects of rapid change caused by rapidly evolving technologies
    and their effects upon the human psyche

    modernity would rather put people in jail
    than hold back the technological onslaught against humanity

  • DeepCough

    What do you think, Dr. Strangelove?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww7WlSPi9gc

  • https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather Matt Prather

    I’ve got a solution:

    How about we stop taking cues to action from the media after events like 9/11 or this recent Lanza shooting and start holding to account people who are giving out lies for propagation? There are just too many inconsistencies or caught-in-a-lie moments about the Lanza shooting and about 9/11 to be taking them as given “this happened; this is how it happened” things and then making social policy based on the supposed “given”.

    There are people in this world driving policy through manufactured media. So instead of talking about “how should be now be aggressively checking mental illness?” or “how should we now be restricting gun ownership in the common people’s households in the country?” how about we start accusing the ones who are lying through the media to get us to endorse new policy?

    (Not saying one disturbed person didn’t do all the killing and all the firing of all the bullets, but I am saying we currently live in a world where we take a media narrative for truth, and brush away reports of inconsistencies with that “mainstream” truth, and start demanding new policies based on the mainstream narrative — which mainstream reporters risk losing their jobs over reporting in-contradiction-of, just like 9/11.)

21
More in adam lanza, DNA, James Holmes, Kip Kinkel
First Therapy Approved That Corrects Errors In A Person’s Genetic Code

The day is approaching in which we will be GMOs. KurzweilAI recently reported: European regulators have approved the first therapy in the western world that can correct errors in a...

Close