Science
Criminal responsibility
Bernard Dixon
You have a baby son who was born with a genetic abnormality that could make him more than averagely prone to 'antisocial behaviour' and even criminality. There is no certainty about this consequence in his case, but a considerable body of circumstantial evidence' suggests that there is. Some counter-evidence indicates otherwise. Would you wish to be informed of this situation?
That question is at the centre of a frustratingly complex row now raging in the US. It concerns the chromosomes that determine sex. Normal females possess two X chromosomes in their cells, whereas males have one X and one Y chromosome. There are, in addition, various bizarre combinations of X and Y chromosomes that produce conditions intermediate between feminity and masculinity. The British research was on the tiny minority of men with one X and two Y chromosomes, who seemed to show no physical abnormality other than unusual tallness. Research indicated, however, that there were more such males in high security mental hospitals, where they had been detained because of criminal records (often involving violence), than in the general population.
The discovery was greeted with predictable sensationalism in the press, and seemed to threaten our very concepts of criminal liability and justice. If some people were driven to crime by their chromosomal constitutions rather than by conscious choice, or even by environmental handicap, then they must be correspondingly less culpable.
But the evidence has proved to be less than clear-cut. Further surveys over the past decade have suggested that XYY males are almost as common in the population at large as they are in mental institutions and prisons. Other studies have confirmed the original suggestion of a statistically significant difference between the two groups. One difficulty is that the alleged effect of the XYY chromosome complement — antisocial behaviour — is undoubtedly found in all communities. It is the laws and public standards in different societies, and the vigilance of the police force,
Spectator February 15, 1975
that determine the likelihood of such people being incarcerated in prison or hospital. A prudent assessment of the evidence to date implies that there is indeed a relationship between XYY chromosomes and criminality but that — like most genetically determined factors — its expression is heavily influenced by environment. But we don't really know, and the US Center for the Study of Crime and Delinquency is trying to find out the truth. The Center has funded a project, at Harvard Medical School, designed to discern with greater clarity what influence XYY chromosomes have on be haviour. Part of the project involves identifying children with the abnormal chromosomes and then monitoring their behaviour as they grow up. Not unreasonably, parents are consulted. Some are simply told that their child has a potentially significant genetic abnormality. Some are informed specifically of the XYY defect and its pOssible implications. Not everyone at Harvard likes the idea. Dr Jon Beckwith and his colleagues have criticised the pro ject on its basic premise — "that we can and should attempt to distin guish between the behaviour of groups of people on the basis of genetics." More specifically, they point out the difficulty of distin guishing whether an XYY child's behavioural problems are caused by his chromosomes or by the impact on the parent-child relatibnship of telling parents of their son's abnormality.
On the other hand, there are similar difficulties in withholding the information from parents. BY adhering to strictly scientific methods of experimentation, and observing the development of XYY children without informing parents, it could be that researchers would deny the children psychiatric or other helpful assistance.
Reactions to Beckwith's criticisms have ranged from flippant ridicule to attacks on his campaign as a modern version of "academic McCarthyism." But none of this has resolved the central dilemma.
Shouldthe experiment proceed as planned, with the likelihood that
the result will be rendered uninterpretable because of the information given to patents? Or should it be done in secrecy, possibly yielding meaningful conclusions but with the risk of denying psychiatric aid to children in need? There seems to
be no answer to the dilemma that is consistent with both scientific rigour and social compassion.
Previous page
