[MUSIC] In the next few lectures, we'll be talking about the relationship of genomics and criminal law. The first question that I want to talk about is why is it worth talking about the relationship between genomics and criminal law? And to answer this question, or at least to cast some light on this question, I want to talk about an example from a recent criminal case. The case involved Mr. Bradley Waldroup, who was charged with first degree murder after shooting and killing his wife's best friend, Leslie Bradshaw. He also shot but did not kill his wife Penny Waldroup, and for shooting her he was charged with attempted murder as well. To get a little more deeply into the facts of the case, the shooting occurred as Penny Waldroup and Leslie Bradshaw were dropping off the Waldroup children at Mr. Waldroup's remote trailer. Penny Waldroup and Bradley Waldroup were separated at this time, and so she was bringing the children by for a visit. Mr. Waldroup met Leslie Bradshaw and Penny Waldroup outside his trailer with a rifle in his hand. At that point he accused Leslie Bradshaw of undermining his marriage to Penny Waldroup. He became very angry and ultimately he shot and killed Leslie Bradshaw. He also shot his wife who survived her injuries. And these were the crimes for which he was charged with, first degree murder in the killing of Leslie Bradshaw and attempted murder in the shooting of Penny Waldroup. At his trial, Mr. Waldroup raised a heat-of-passion defense. And in support of this defense, he presented evidence by a psychiatrist named Dr. William Bernet. Dr. Bernet testified that Mr. Waldroup carried a particular variant of the MAOA gene that is sometimes known as the warrior gene. Dr. Bernet testified that this variant of the MAOA gene, together with Waldroup's history of childhood abuse at the hands of his parents, made Waldroup strongly predisposed to commit violent crimes. And that the strong predisposition to commit violent crimes had contributed to his conduct in this particular case. What's interesting about the Waldroup case, and the reason why it raises interesting questions about the connection between genomics and criminal law. Is that to a lot of us it seems as though this genetic predisposition somehow bares on the question whether and to what degree Mr. Waldroup should be held criminally responsible and subject to punishment for his conduct. After all, Mr. Waldroup didn't chose to have this particular gene any more than any of us choose to have any of our genes. And so the fact that he wound up with this strong predisposition to commit violent crimes really wasn't anything of his own doing. Therefore it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that he ought to be held responsible for. And since it's really just a product of bad luck, we have an intuition that at least to some degree it perhaps ought to mitigate the punishment to which he is subject for the crimes that he committed. That intuition appears to have been shared by the jury in Mr. Waldroup's case, which actually acquitted him of the charge of first degree murder and convicted him only of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the killing of Leslie Bradshaw. I'll return to the Waldroup example repeatedly over the course of this series of lectures about genomics and criminal law. In part because this example very nicely frames a lot of the issues that arise from the interplay of genomics and criminal law. Mr. Waldroup's claim is not by any means unique. A lot of criminal defendants are starting to raise claims about genetic predispositions to the kind of conduct that Mr. Waldroup was charged with. Often they are raising these claims in connection with sentencing, arguing that they ought to receive a mitigated sentence on the basis of their conduct. And one of the reasons they're raising it in sentencing because the substantive criminal law itself. The statutes that define what qualifies as a crime and what counts as a defense to a crime doesn't really make any accommodation at all, doesn't really provide any room at all, for claims like the one that Mr. Waldroup actually raised. In this series of lectures, I want to talk about the ways in which the criminal law might or might not accommodate claims like Mr. Waldroup's. And in talking about that, I'm going to take a fairly broad survey of the criminal law. We're going to talk about the essential elements of crimes, for example. The actus reus and the mens rea, as they're known. And we're going to talk about whether the actus reus and the mens rea of criminal statutes really leave any room for defenses like the one that Mr. Waldroup raised. Does the application of criminal statutes actually depend in part on the genetic basis for the defendant's conduct? I'm also going to talk about criminal law defenses and whether any of the existing criminal law defenses make room for defenses like the one that Mr. Waldroup wanted to raise. Arguing that his genetic predisposition ought to mitigate his punishment or perhaps absolve him of criminal liability entirely. We're going to talk too about how the criminal law might be changed or reformed to accommodate this kind of genomics evidence. As we're going to see, probably the existing criminal law doesn't provide much room for defenses like the one that Mr. Waldroup raised, despite the fact that the court in his case allowed him to introduce the testimony by Dr. Bernet. Most courts wouldn't allow that kind of evidence to be introduced because it doesn't directly bear on any of the substantive criminal law issues in most jurisdictions. Finally, we're going to talk about whether the sort of change or reform that would be required to accommodate defenses like Mr. Waldroup's would actually improve the criminal law or make it worse.
