Associate law professor Nita A. Farahany describes her blog as “a daily digest of legal opinions featuring cognitive neuroscience and behavioral genetics”.
Sometimes, even judges suffer from the “CSI” effect. The district court judge in the case today may have missed a few important days of his genetics class in high school or in college. Perhaps they didn’t teach genetics in the late 1960′s?
This may make for good sarcasm, but it’s a stupid criticism. Much of what the average student learned about genetics in high school as recently as 20 years ago, (let alone the 60’s) has been modified or even overturned by recent discoveries in genetics – the field of epigenetics among them. Nita Farahany ought to know this. Unless of course, she doesn’t know this.
The Defendant in this case, convicted of possession of child pornography, was given an “unreasonable” sentence based on the judge’s invented genetic theory that the defendant’s incorrigible genes made him act the way he did, and that there was nothing he could do about it.
Am I the only one mystified by the legal and societal contradiction that while sexual attraction to persons of the same sex is “not a choice”, sexual attraction to pre-adolescents is?
Well, good luck with that. I predict that a “my genes made me do it” defense for pedophilia will eventually be legitimized by the courts – blog snark notwithstanding, and Judge Sharpe noted as “ahead of his time”. The societal ground work is already in place.
Via.