ABSTRACT
In 2007, Abdelmalek Bayout confessed to stabbing and killing Walter Felipe Novoa Perez because he had mocked Bayout for wearing eye makeup, which Bayout wore for religious reasons. After considering three psychiatric reports, the judge determined mental illness was a mitigating factor in the murder. Bayout was convicted and sentenced to just over nine years in prison, three years less than typical because of mental illness. However, in an Italian appeals court, Bayout underwent a further evaluation, which included brain scans and genetic testing. Both the scans and the genetic testing revealed abnormalities. Bayout was found to have a variant of the MAOA gene that encodes the neurotransmitter-metabolizing enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which was suggested to place him at risk for violent behavior. In response to this evidence, Bayout’s sentence was reduced further by one year. This court case sparked a great deal of debate about the ethical considerations of genetic research being used in court, including if, and to what extent, biological measures should be considered as a mitigating factor in the defense in court cases, and likewise for use by prosecutors. World-leading geneticist Professor Steve Jones of the University College of London stated, “90% of all murders are committed by people with a Y chromosome – males. Should we always give males a shorter sentence?” (Feresin, 2009). In actual fact, according to Professor Nita Farahany, a specialist in legal and ethical issues pertaining to behavioral genetics and neuroscience, geneticists are only able to characterize general population trends, and cannot use genetics data to explain an individual’s behavior (ibid.).
