Bradley Waldroup: Killer by Nature?
In October of 2006, Bradley Waldroup killed his wife’s friend, Leslie Bradshaw, shooting her eight times and using a sharp object to cut her head open, and brutally attacked his wife, Penny, with a machete, in his Tennessee trailer home. Many people at first believed that Waldroup would be convicted of first degree murder, as the evidence, including the weapons and even the testimonies of the couple’s children, as well the fact that Bradley Waldroup admitted to what he did, proved he was responsible for Bradshaw’s death. However, the question of why he committed the horrible murderous acts made for a much more complex case.
The prosecution showed graphic evidence of the gruesome crime scene. The defense knew this evidence could not be denied and decided to take the approach of providing more background as to why Waldroup did what he did- not to prove that he did not commit the crime but to shift some of the responsibility onto uncontrollable factors that affected Waldroup, leading him to become violent: his genes and his upbringing. After DNA analysis and a psychiatric evaluation, the defense argued that because Bradley Waldroup had a high-risk version of the MAOA gene (the “warrior gene”) and was abused as a child, he was predisposed to becoming a violent adult.
If found guilty, Bradley Waldroup would have faced the death penalty. However, in spite of genetic data like this being a very new type of evidence to be used in court, the jury ultimately convicted Waldroup of voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the killing of Leslie Bradshaw (and attempted second degree murder for what he did to his wife as well as two counts of aggravated kidnapping). This case was very significant because it showed that genetic data seems to have the potential to help explain why some people commit acts of evil.
Nonetheless, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the verdict reached in this case. Even though Waldroup may have been vulnerable to becoming violent because of biological factors and because of childhood trauma he was not able to control, he still made the decision to kill an innocent person. Further, some argue that it is dangerous to use one’s genes as a kind of excuse for heinous crimes, especially considering how new this kind of genetic data attempting to explain human behavior is. Additionally, if one’s genes and background are believed to play a role in someone’s decision to commit an act of violence, that may be a reason to believe that person will continue to be a threat to society. With these considerations, should an accused individual with a predisposition to violence be given a more lenient sentence?
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128043329
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180530-the-controversial-debut-of-genes-in-criminal-cases
http://swordandscale.com/double-edged-sword-of-the-genetic-defense/
https://www.newstatesman.com/2016/09/why-we-can-t-blame-warrior-genes-violent-crime
I think it's very interesting that genetics are being used in cases as an entire defense argument because although it might show reason for why someone committed a crime, I don't think it necessarily excuses them for their acts. These people may be more likely to be violent because they have the "warrior gene" and obviously combined with a history of abuse, Waldroup did not have the most promising future, but I do not think that his should let him have a lesser charge for his actions. Overall, I think it's a bit crazy how much genes can affect our actions, but I don't think we can rely completely on this to excuse people's actions.
ReplyDeleteThe hype surrounding the Warrior Gene, the Moral Gene, and whatnot other genes made me interested in the science behind it, and I looked it up. Turns out, many of the discoveries made in behavioral science are pseudo-scientific, with very unsubstantial evidence there to back it up.
ReplyDeleteFor example, there was a huge uproar a few decades back when men with an extra Y chromosome, of the XYY variety, were diagnosed as violent. This supposed genetic connection erupted all over reliable media. But what happened was that the study all the excitement was based on had been of men in a mental hospital, who were obviously going to be more violent. Once the gene was studied outside of that population, there was no statistical difference.
Another thing that makes me question a little is this statistic: "MAOA-L was less common among Caucasians (34 percent) and Hispanics (29 percent) but even more common among Africans (59 percent) and Chinese (77 percent)." If this were the case, wouldn't that disproportionate tendency toward violence have been reflected in the general population by now?