We should grow up and accept the blame

The Australian Janet Abrechtsen

March 09, 2005

THE blame game is becoming tiresome. In 16th-century Europe, when a severe cold snap caused crops to fail there was a spike in witchcraft trials. Witches became scapegoats for bad weather. The modern version is only slightly different.

These days, bad behaviour is blamed on our genes or our upbringing. But where does society end up if we treat people as little more than automatons, irrevocably pre-programmed by their DNA or their environment, without free will or the ability to makechoices?
To answer this question, start with the violent riots in Macquarie Fields, southwest of Sydney, last week. As night after night, hundreds of youths and residents pelted police with rocks and bottles, well-meaning people began showcasing a more modern species of scapegoat. Apparently poorly maintained public housing in Macquarie Fields was to blame for the criminal behaviour. Academics claimed that law and order was not the answer to youths stealing cars and punching police to the ground. Social ills were to blame, they said. And on it went.
Father Peter Norden, from Jesuit Social Services in Victoria quoted from his "postcodes" Disadvantage Survey to explain why people would throw firecrackers and chemical bombs at police. Searching for that modern holy grail known as social justice, the Catholic News talked about "root causes" to explain why 33 people were charged with 88 riot-related offences.
NSW Premier Bob Carr would have none of that. "Listen, reality check," he said. "There are no excuses for this behaviour." It was illegal behaviour based on bad choices and the law would punish the perpetrators, hesaid.
As calm returned to the streets of Macquarie Fields, across the continent, a new set of thugs started throwing rocks and bottles at Perth police at the weekend. And, as the action ultimately moves to the courtroom, just watch as cries of "disadvantage made me do it" grow louder and become more finessed by those charged with offences. Indeed, step inside a courtroom on any given day, in any given city, in any given Western country and the blame game, in one form or another, is in full swing.
In Australia, a man sues a government department responsible for roads when, after drinking six beers in three hours, he steps over a roadside guardrail to urinate, and falls 10m. A paroled prisoner in Canada commits a crime and then files a million-dollar negligence claim against the parole board for lack of supervision. A US couple sue McDonald's over an improperly prepared bagel that damages the husband's teeth and the couple's marriage.
Back in Australia, a Northern Territory court sentencing a 31-year-old gunman, who abducted two German tourists and terrorised another three people, hears that he lacked confidence, felt alone and was finding it hard to cope with a job he disliked and colleagues who resented the fact that he was being paid more than them.
Even if most of these arguments are ultimately tossed out of court, even articulating them points to a deeper malaise. Abdicating individual responsibility has become the real social ill of our time. An innate human tendency to blame others for one's misfortune is fuelled by a modern-day belief that happiness is doled out by governments. If you're not happy, the government must be doing something wrong. So when you do wrong, the government is to blame. Fed on a constant drip of government intervention, we end up abdicating more responsibility for our actions.
But on the horizon is a potentially much more powerful "root cause" theory. Our genes. Research suggests there is a link between a variant of the MAO-A gene and a propensity towards criminal behaviour. MAO-A, a monoamine oxidase, is an enzyme that regulates the levels of certain brain chemicals. Studies have shown that those with low MAO-A activity in the brain are more likely to become violent if mistreated as children. So, according to this theory, criminal tendencies may stem from an unfortunate mix of environment and genes.
Science is a wonderful thing but how should we use this knowledge? A report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics suggests that judges should take account of genes that predispose a person to criminal behaviour. It suggests the current defence of diminished responsibility may need to be widened to excuse bad behaviour caused by bad genes.
But there is another view. Perhaps a genetic predisposition should attract a harsher penalty. After all, as Alasdair Palmer has argued in The Spectator: "No gene has ever been changed as a result of being given a good talking to."
Betting on the first response, criminals will soon be pleading "my genes made me do it." Using Dutch research into the MAO-A gene, lawyers in the US have argued for genetic testing for their death row client, convicted killer Stephen Mobley. It didn't work for Mobley, who was executed last week. But next time, it just might.
There is no point in denying significant social disadvantage in communities such as Macquarie Fields. Nor can we deny the power of the gene pool. But that does not mean just throwing our hands despairingly in the air and declaring that crime is not a choice and should be excused. The results of zero-tolerance policing in New York and elsewhere, while not perfect, at least suggest that even criminals make choices when they steal a car or hurl a brick at police. Acknowledging that can only empower individuals and improve society.
The Australian Janet Abrechtsen