Murderer with 'aggression genes' gets sentence cut

A judge's decision to reduce a killer's sentence because he has genetic mutations linked to violence raises a thorny question: can your genes ever absolve you of responsibility for a particular act?

In 2007, Abdelmalek Bayout admitted to stabbing and killing a man and received a sentenced of 9 years and 2 months. Last week, Nature reported that Pier Valerio Reinotti, an appeal court judge in Trieste, Italy, cut Bayout's sentence by a year after finding out he has gene variants linked to aggression. Leaving aside the question of whether this link is well enough understood to justify Reinotti's decision, should genes ever be considered a legitimate defence?

[... snip ...]

Link

I'm mystified as to how a judge could make a finding that you were genetically predisposed to commit violent crime, and then come to the conclusion that such predisposition meant you should be released *earlier*.

I agree with Brody. If he's genetically predisposed towards violence, that means he can't be rehabilitated and should be locked away for everyone's safety.

Me, three. Seems like the very definition of "future dangerousness." I would think that would be much better state's evidence than defense.

Any bets on whether the judge has idiot genes?

Would it be fair to increase the sentence for those that don't have it, on the theory that they are even more responsible for their actions? Seems like a slippery slope.

Anyone want to take a bet that this judge and judge Charlie Baird are related?