I think we have to be very careful when discussing the “nature vs nurture” elements in the debate over the “cause” of criminality.
I think the “nature vs nurture” elements are worthwhile to discuss/ debate as a purely intellectual exercise, or in an academic setting. I think teachers, counselors, mental health providers should be aware of these kind of emerging issues in caring for kids and teens—I think that is the best use, currently, for that information.
However, because these elements are so subjective, non-reproducible, and elusive to quantify, and are not backed with quantitative peer-reviewed research, I don’t think they bring much value to an objective evaluation of the lawfulness of someone’s criminal behavior. These issues of nature vs nurture should be given emphasis or weight in sentencing or clemency sparingly, IMO.
"Nature vs nurture” is in the infancy of actual peer-reviewed, double blinded research—and the populations that have been studied are scientifically insufficient to make *any* generalizations—as the author in a linked study above makes clear related to his own bran scan and family history.
Right now, the “nature vs nurture” issues are best appreciated and considered by psychologists, social workers, teachers, counselors, and other mental health providers. Not prosecutors, juries, judges, etc. These are not issues the justice system can, or should, be strongly considering at this point in time, IMO, because they CANNOT consider these issues fairly to ALL accused.
The legal and justice system needs to focus on actions, behaviors, and laws in order to exercise the highest degree of blind justice to all accused. Is our system perfect? Heck no. But I’ve lived and travelled in dozens of countries around the world in my life, and our U.S. system is by far the most fair and just in the world, IMO. I realize some don’t agree with that, but I’d argue that those people don’t have much perspective or knowledge about legal systems outside of the U.S., and the rights of the accused (or absence of rights). Cyntoia Brown was treated entirely fairly in the TN system. She was not given LWOP, she had her case debated between juvenile and adult charges, she had several charges dropped or reduced, she was not subject to the death penalty because of her age, etc.
We should remember that if CB had been just 517 days older when she killed JA, she could have been subjected to the death penalty, and LWOP, for her crimes in the state of TN.
No one wants to live in a society where we do a genetic test on an infant, or a brain scan, and declare that infant a future potential criminal that requires lifetime surveillance and limitations. And no one wants to live in a society where any convicted violent felon or murderer with an “excuse” from their childhood is found not guilty by reason of adverse childhood experiences.
Nature vs nuture discussions don't allow for the population of individuals that we don’t know about—how many with adverse childhood experiences and genetic pre-disposition DO NOT commit violent crimes?
How many with no genetic predisposition and no adverse childhood experiences DO commit violent crimes?
How will we OBJECTIVELY define, measure, and prove “adverse childhood experiences”? And so forth. The “science” in this area is simply not objective enough, and most of the research is convenience samples of descriptive research, or purely anecdotal retrospective reporting. Much of the common discussion about “nature vs nurture of criminality” is heavily biased opinion pieces in lay-person publications and magazines, with tenuous links back to a single, interesting observational “study”, etc. They are not scientific, they are pseudo-scientific.
We base our system of justice on ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS of individuals, and believe fundamentally that individuals have free will and choice when they act-- regardless of their background. Largely, we base our justice system on objective information and evidence about crimes. And yes, we do place the actions of an accused individual in context so we can understand better what happened and why. Which again, is why a hypothetical scenario of Jaycee Dugard, or a hypothetical scenario of Elizabeth Smart killing their captors is simply not at all comparable or equivalent to the circumstances and context of how and why Cyntoia Brown killed JA. They were completely innocent, cruelly kidnapped, imprisoned sex slaves. Cyntoia Brown was not. I'm hopeful Gov. Haslam does not pardon her-- I don't think that would be fair, or just. She has another appeal pending for potential re-sentencing. I think that's a better avenue.
The medical community has done work with brain scans. Hopefully this work will filter down to medical facilities that do not have the resources of more advanced ones