Are the Genes Responsible? Community Members' Perceptions of Genetic Evidence

• In Event: Miscarriages of Justice: Pleas and Evidence in the Courtroom

Abstract

An emerging area of research has begun to untangle the impact of genetic evidence in the courtroom. There is an overall fear that genetic evidence will too easily persuade jurors, yet research is still trying to determine jurors’ complex use of this unique type of scientific evidence. Genetic evidence in the courtroom has recently been considered as both a mitigating factor for trial court judges (Aspinwall, Brown, & Tabery, 2012) and an aggravating factor for individual jurors (Appelbaum & Scurich, 2014); however, the latter study did not include gene-specific evidence (i.e. MAOA). Genetic evidence is now being called a double-edged sword because of its complexity in determining punishment as well as fear of the defendant (Cheung & Heine, 2015). The current study extends the previous studies by examining gene-specific evidence and by utilizing community members with this type of evidence. The question for the present study was, what effect would genetic evidence have on individuals’ perceptions of criminal responsibility when the genetic evidence is gene-specific and linked the gene to deviant behavior? Implications from the research may aid to the growing understanding of how jurors evaluate gene-specific evidence in court cases.

Authors

• Maggie Pate, Radford University

• Elise Costa, University of Florida