Nature and nurture are illuminated by each other. One’s environment determines behavior. One’s biology determines behavior. The two forces are inextricably bound together.

The real question to ask, then, is not is it nature versus nurture, but rather, to what degree do the factors of nature and nurture influence behaviors? And how do those choices take form? You could choose to be a soldier to serve your country. And then your brother, brought up with those same military stories, might choose to write a patriotic song for his country. No one could deny both are patriotic acts, but they are very different responses.

There is much to learn about the relationship between biology and environment.

If I’m not mistaken, the INTENDED message of “A Clockwork Orange” (which I haven’t seen in quite a while, either) was that the “cure” offered for violent thugs like Alex was, in its own way, every bit as disturbing as the problem it sought to eradicate.

No sympathy for psychopaths here, I’m just applying the Holmesian “Bad Man” standard to your statement about “treatment and deterrence” and wondering how that idea could be extrapolated by governments inclined to misuse it. Sheesh — listen to me! Where are Mark and PJ? Please save me from this anti-authoritarian fever!

Mark: What’s the “I-word”?

maybe every homosexual has a certain genotype. maybe every murderer has a certain genotype. I concede that both are entirely within the realm of possibility. but the likelihood that a person with the genotype will display the associated characteristic is still undetermined. without a very high likelihood, using it as evidence in proving a criminal case when you have juries who [often] love to convict and probably won’t understand the science seems incredibly dangerous. in the contest of the probative and prejudicial, such evidence is incredibly suspect and I would expect courts to throw it out.

on the other hand, it makes tremendous sense to use such knowledge as part of a treatment and deterrence program. use it to identify those prisoners who are most likely to re-offend and offer them specialized treatments. a world of possibility opens up of ways to re-engage a population that is otherwise highly dangerous and is likely to remain locked away for the rest of their lives.

Colin, didn’t you contradict yourself? I agreed with your first statement but then you seemed to suggest exactly the opposite, (sarcastically) in your last. Sounds like a conundrum to me: DON’T gene-type my client as a murderer, but DO accept that we have no control over our sexual preferences!

[Foul! Undefined use of the l-word. Your penalty is comment moderation until further notice. M.]

I agree we’re pretty screwed, maybe we should lobby for the mandatory use of KY Jelly.

Jigmeister, to the contrary, we’re there now. See the third page of the article (free registration required):

[A] number of studies have strengthened the link between MAO-A and violent behavior, and other genes have been added to the mix. This month, scientists in Israel reported that a version of a gene called AVPR1a is associated with “ruthlessness.” And although such tests can offer only the probability that a given behavior will arise, they can sway jurors, experts said, because they seem more scientific than a doctor’s clinical assessment.

There is very little that I would dare say is not going to happen in my lifetime.