It's not my fault, my Genes made me do it...

[LuckyKBoxer]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31128684

A separate study at Brown University from earlier this year found that individuals with the warrior gene display higher levels of aggression in response to provocation.

makes me think a couple things...

1. How will the legal defense start using this as an excuse to get clients off

2. With all the progress in Identifying genes and what they do, how soon before there is some serious attempts to erase certain genes from the population? This scares me... I know given my families history, and my cousins, brothers and myself, that there is a fairly good chance we have something like this... With all the attempts at controlling population that we have seen of late, do you think people are actually working on this now? Will be working on it? Or will there be something put in place to protect birthtraits? Or will it go the opposite direction and it be farmed to make more aggresive soldiers?
I know it sounds very science fiction like, but it the way we are going it seems we have to face these questions either now or fairly soon...

 

[Carol]

I don't personally think that having a genetic disposition towards something precludes a person from all responsibilities.

Massachusetts forbids discrimination based on genetics. I'm not sure about other states.

There is some legal precedence against genetic testing in the workplace on the federal level that was brought about by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, who was testing its employees for a genetic tendencies for carpel tunnel. The railroad settled.

(See EEOC vs. BNSF, 2001)

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I agree Carol, but I think this might be enough proof to show instigating circumstances, like when you get one of those annoying jerks who think its ok to provoke you with verbal insults and put downs and then add the disclaimer....touch me and ill sue.... like that makes their verbal assault okay, and not on the same level as a physical assault... /shrug

 

[Omar B]

Genes say one thing but that does not mean we don't have rational minds. There are 2 choices in life, to think or not to think. Obviously those who would blame their genes/hormones/urges for what they do would rather forget reason and live on the moment's whim without car for the meaning or costs of their actions.

An appendix is written in our genetic code but we all see how useful that is.

 

[terryl965]

I don't personally think that having a genetic disposition towards something precludes a person from all responsibilities.

Massachusetts forbids discrimination based on genetics. I'm not sure about other states.

There is some legal precedence against genetic testing in the workplace on the federal level that was brought about by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad, who was testing its employees for a genetic tendencies for carpel tunnel. The railroad settled.

(See EEOC vs. BNSF, 2001)

Very well said Carol

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I guess some of my issues with this are that its illegal for two grown men to consent to fight each other... yet if its in their genes to be prono towards violence, why should it be illegal?

Hell if you say its deviant behavior I can pull the whole argument about two men getting married being the same and just as harmful in every way shape or form.

Its not illegal for two men to make out in public, but two men cant throw fists against each other in public... seems like a ridiculous double standard to me.

Also I tend to think verbal abuse or verbal attacks are just as valid as physical ones, and should be put in th exact same category, yet there they once again they are not.

I don't bother street fighting anymore, but quite a few years ago we did it often, adults, meeting and fighting, many times having a beer afterwards, yet it was illegal.... /shrug I have always thought it was ridiculous, and people who tried telling us that we were wrong for doing it were ridiculous as well. After all I never came to their favorite hobby, or passion, and told them it should be illegal or how ridiculous they were for following it.

I know I don't have a popular view on this subject, and I know the vast majority disagree with me on it, and thats fine, I still have not heard anykind of argument that explains how my thoughts are wrong on it though.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have hazel eyes. I guess I'm just not tough enough to choose to have blue eyes. Right? Genetics don't determine anything. I wasn't tough enough to choose to be taller, too. And skinnier. Maybe better skin.

Kidding aside; we know genetics controls some things outright - and you can say what you like, you have the eye color your genes determined, there's no choice involved. We also know genetics has a hand in a variety of other predispositions, such as predisposition to certain diseases and illnesses. There may be some level of choice involved - or there may not be. Some things we just don't know.

And yet, when we ourselves do not have a trait we despise in others, we insist that they can control it themselves through mental will or toughness. If we have that trait, if it is negative we insist we had no ability to control it, and if it is positive we insist that we did it ourselves.

Basically, we're a pack of f'ing *******s. We know nearly nothing, but we insist we know everything about genetics and how it works.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

Is Genes the new "the Devil made me do it"

If there is a warrior gene does that mean there is a wimp gene too?

 

[searcher]

Makes me think about the futuristic movies and TV shows that have the "warrior" class seperated away from society.

 

[Tez3]

I guess some of my issues with this are that its illegal for two grown men to consent to fight each other... yet if its in their genes to be prono towards violence, why should it be illegal?

Hell if you say its deviant behavior I can pull the whole argument about two men getting married being the same and just as harmful in every way shape or form.

Its not illegal for two men to make out in public, but two men cant throw fists against each other in public... seems like a ridiculous double standard to me.

Also I tend to think verbal abuse or verbal attacks are just as valid as physical ones, and should be put in th exact same category, yet there they once again they are not.

I don't bother street fighting anymore, but quite a few years ago we did it often, adults, meeting and fighting, many times having a beer afterwards, yet it was illegal.... /shrug I have always thought it was ridiculous, and people who tried telling us that we were wrong for doing it were ridiculous as well. After all I never came to their favorite hobby, or passion, and told them it should be illegal or how ridiculous they were for following it.

I know I don't have a popular view on this subject, and I know the vast majority disagree with me on it, and thats fine, I still have not heard anykind of argument that explains how my thoughts are wrong on it though.

Is that American law? here in the UK 'consensual violence' is allowed, thats why we can have boxing, MMA and martial arts competitions.

Fighting in public is usually a police matter not because they are fighting but because they are causing a public nuisance, if they choose to fight in a field away from the public theres no problem.

 

[jks9199]

The word is mitigating, not instigating. Very, very different meanings.

To instigate is to stir up or start a fight. "Instigating circumstances" would, if anything, make you MORE liable for the offense, not less.

Mitigating circumstances act to lessen or partially excuse the act. For example, it might be a mitigating circumstance for assault if you were incited by the words or actions of the person...

I suspect it'll be tried. Similar arguments have already been tried to excuse DUIs, I know, and certain chromosonal variations that have been linked to aggression have been used in attempts to mitigate violent offenses. It'll probably not work.

 

[Tez3]

I would have thought actually that those with the 'short tempered or nob head' gene were more likely to respond with aggression to provocation, those with the 'warrior' gene would seemingly go instinctively into occupations and pastimes that suit them such as police, military, doormen etc and would be less likely to respond aggressively...it's just when they do respond the aggrression tends to be somewhat good though usually controlled lol!

 

[Ken Morgan]

Looking at one’s DNA is fascinating.

It can have some amazing benefits. You have the gene for breast cancer, so be vigilant, (it doesn’t mean you are going to get it, it just means you need to watch very carefully).

Then again you have the gene for breast cancer, guess what? We don’t want to employ you or insure you.

Out of the thousands of genes in our bodies that have purpose, it doesn’t mean you will have those traits, it just means you have the possibility of having them. If you follow a proper diet, exercise and avoid all carcinogens are you still going to get breast cancer?

A gene for aggressive behaviour can be mitigated through other means. How is the individual raised? Positive male and female role models, outlets for his/her aggression like sports. Because you have the gen, doesn’t mean you have the trait.

What about the genes that evolution has made dormant? Can you fire one up and make yourself a tail?

I’m glad Science is moving forward with genetics, it may solve a great many human genetic disorders, but we need to be careful when some laymen, (lawyers, politicians and the media for example) suddenly become experts on 1% of the knowledge a research scientist has.

 

[searcher]

Just because we have the human genome does not mean we have knowledge of what they all do or what they can do in combination.

We are also quite a ways away from actually being able to perform gene surgery.

I am sure that we will be able to do more in the future, but for now, we need to be patient and not get to worked up.