Sir Despite a headline reading Criminal Gene theory fails to account for male agression", Kathryn Holmquist (May 9th) in fact plays down sociological explanations and suggests instead that a crime gene might largely explain the phenomenon.
But what exactly are the phenotypical manifestations of this crime gene? And why does it seem to be distributed rather unevenly through the population, with middle and upper classes largely crime gene free? Are there white collar and blue collar varieties? Or are there genes for specific crimes? If we can have a gene for violent crime, then there seems to be no prima facie reason to deny the existence of, say, a gene that compels people to defraud EU intervention schemes. Presumably this beef gene lay dormant in humans until the environment was ripe for its emergence. Then, for a time, things went well for beef gene carriers until some people were motivated (presumably by their tribunal gene) to suppress them.
There is no denying that biology sets many limits on human capacities. However, loose talk of crime genes can all too easily tend to slide towards simplistic "just so" stories about supposed "human nature" where everyone gets what they deserve in the end. We should take care that the recent spate of violent crime does not push us down this well travelled but misleading road. -
Yours, etc.,
Princeton University,
New Jersey.