Advertisement

Unraveling the Codes: The Dialectic Between Knowledge of the Moral Person and Knowledge of the Genetic Person in Criminal Law

  • John H. Robinson
  • Roberta M. Berry
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 75)

Abstract

The criminal code is both enduring and fragile. The reasons it is bound to endure, in some form, are obvious. We cannot hope to conduct our lives in community without some minimal assurance of safety and public order. We are, unavoidably, social beings, and our lives in community require that we protect ourselves against unwarranted force, unjustified deception, and all the other ways in which harm can be done to our basic interests. Whatever else we might say about the criminal code, we surely would agree that it was invented and sustained to serve this core purpose. It is no wonder that it endures.

Keywords

Moral Agency Moral Norm Political Community Criminal Code Battered Woman 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alper J. Biological influences on criminal behaviour: how good is the evidence? British Medical Journal 1995; 310:272–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barros, H.M.T., Miczek, K.A. “Neurobiological and Behavioral Characteristics of Alcohol-Heightened Aggression.” In Aggression and Violence: Genetic, Neurobiological, and Biosocial Perspectives, D.M. Stoff, R.B. Cairns, eds. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  3. Berkowitz A. Our genes, ourselves? Roles of genes in determining human characteristics. BioScience 1996; 46:42–51Google Scholar
  4. Berman M.E., Coccaro E.F. Neurobiologic correlates of violence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 1998; 16:303–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boudon, R., The Unintended Consequences of Social Action. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  6. Brock, D.W., Buchanan, A.E. “The Genetics of Behavior and Concepts of Free Will and Determinism.” In Genetics and Criminality: The Potential Misuse of Scientific Information in Court, J.R. Botkin, W.M. McMahon, L.P. Francis, eds. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. Brunner H.G. et al. Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science 1993; 62:578–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey, G. “Family and Genetic Epidemiology of Aggressive and Antisocial Behavior.” In Aggression and Violence: Genetic, Neurobiological, and Biosocial Perspectives, D.M. Stoff, R.B. Cairns, eds. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Churchland, P.M., Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind,rev. ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. Cloninger, C.R., Gottesman, I.I. “Genetic and Environmental Factors in Antisocial Behavioral Disorders.” In The Causes of Crime: New Biological Approaches, S.A. Mednick, T.E. Moffitt, S.A. Stack, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  11. Coccaro, E.F., Kavoussi, R.J. “Neurotransmitter Correlates of Impulsive Aggression.” In Aggression and Violence: Genetic, Neurobiological, and Biosocial Perspectives, D.M. Stoff, R.B. Cairns, eds. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  12. Coffey M.P. The genetic defense: excuse or explanation? William & Mary Law Review 1993; 35:353–99Google Scholar
  13. Crippen T. Toward a neo-Darwinian sociology: its nomological principles and some illustrative applications. Sociological Perspectives 1994; 37:309–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davenport C.B. Crime, heredity, and environment. Journal of Heredity 1928; 19:307–13Google Scholar
  15. Downs, D.A., More Than Victims: Battered Women, The Syndrome Society, and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Ellis, L. “The Evolution of Violent Criminal Behavior and its Nonlegal Equivalent.” In Crime in Biological, Social, and Moral Contexts, L. Ellis, H. Hoffman, eds. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. Farmer A., Owen M.J. Genomics: the next psychiatric revolution? British Journal of Psychiatry 1996; 169:135–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher A. Sociobiology: science or ideology? Society 1992; 29:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).Google Scholar
  20. Kitcher, P., Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. Lancet (editorial). Is it “all in the genes?” Lancet 1995; 345:466–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lelling A.E. Comment: eliminative materialism, neuroscience and the criminal law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1993; 141:1471–1564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lumsden, C.J., Gushurst, A.C. “Ethical Epistemology: Coevolution and the Cultural Superstructure.” In Sociobiology and Epistemology, J.H. Fetzer, ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1985.Google Scholar
  24. Maclntyre, A., After Virtue, 2nd ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  25. M’Naghten’s Case, 10 Cl. & F. 200. Eng. Rep. 1843; 8:718.Google Scholar
  26. Mann C. War of words continues in violence research. Science 1994; 263:1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mednick, S.A., Gabrielli, W.F., Jr., Hutchings, B. “Genetic Factors in the Etiology of Criminal Behavior.” In The Causes of Crime: New Biological Approaches,S.A. Mednick, T.E. Moffitt, S.A. Stack, eds. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996).Google Scholar
  29. Morris, H., On Guilt and Innocence. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  30. Pallone N.J., Hennessy J.M. Brain dysfunction and criminal violence. Society 1998; 35:21–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parens E. Taking behavioral genetics seriously. The Hastings Center Report 1996; 26:13–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parker, L.S. “Genetics, Social Responsibility, and Social Practices.” In Genetics and Criminality: The Potential Misuse of Scientific Information in Court, J.R. Botkin, W.M. McMahon, L.P. Francis, eds. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. Pettit, P., The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society, and Politics. New York: Oxford, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968).Google Scholar
  35. Powledge T. Genetics and the control of crime. BioScience 1996; 46:7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rafter, N.H., Creating Born Criminals. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  37. Reider L. Comment: toward a new test for the insanity defense: incorporating the discoveries of neuroscience into moral and legal theories. UCLA Law Review 1998; 46:289–342Google Scholar
  38. Robinson, J.H. “Madness and the criminal law.” Book Review of N. Morris: Madness and the Criminal Law, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Notre Dame Law Review 1983; 59:297–311Google Scholar
  39. Robinson J.H. Crime, culpability, and excuses. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 1996; 10:1–10Google Scholar
  40. Rosenberg, A., Instrumental Biology, or, The Disunity of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  41. Rosenberg, A., Philosophy of Social Science, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  42. Roush W. Conflict marks crime conference. Science 1995; 269:1808–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ruse, M., Sociobiology,Sense or Nonsense?, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985.Google Scholar
  44. Sayre-McCord, G. “Introduction: The Many Moral Realisms.” In Essays on Moral Realism, G. Sayre-McCord, ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  45. Sober, E., Wilson, D.S., Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  46. Steadman, H.J. et al., Before and After Hinckley: Evaluating Insanity Defense Reform. New York: Guilford Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  47. Stoff, D.M., Cairns, R.B. “Introduction.” In Aggression and Violence: Genetic,Neurobiological, and Biosocial Perspectives, D.M. Stoff, R.B. Cairns, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  48. Stoff, D.M., Cairns, R.B., eds., Aggression and Violence: Genetic, Neurobiological, and Biosocial Perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  49. Stoff, D.M., Vitiello, B. “Role of Serotonin in Aggression of Children and Adolescents: Biochemical and Pharmacological Studies.” In Aggression and Violence: Genetic,Neurobiological, and Biosocial Perspectives,D.M. Stoff, R.B. Cairns, eds. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  50. Virkkunen, M., Linnoila, M. “Serotonin and Glucose Metabolism in Impulsively Violent Alcoholic Offenders.” In Aggression and Violence: Genetic, Neurobiological, and Biosocial Perspectives,D.M. Stoff, R.B. Cairns, eds. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1996.Google Scholar
  51. Walker, L.E., The Battered Woman1st ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.Google Scholar
  52. Walters, L., Palmer, J.G., The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  53. Watson G. Excusing addiction. Law and Philosophy 1999; 18:589–619Google Scholar
  54. Williams J. Violence, genes, and prejudice. Discover 1994; 15:92–102Google Scholar
  55. Wilson, EO., Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, E.O., On Human Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, E.O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1998.Google Scholar
  58. Y.B. Pasch. 17 Edw. IV, f. 2a, p. 2 (1477).Google Scholar
  59. 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 17 (West Supp. 1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. Robinson
    • 1
  • Roberta M. Berry
    • 2
  1. 1.Notre Dame Law SchoolSouth BendUSA
  2. 2.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations