Addiction, Genetics, and Criminal Responsibility

It is clear that genes build proteins, but God only knows what happens next.... If you want to know how the mind works, you should investigate the mind; not the brain, and still less the genome.... (1) I INTRODUCTION An immense proportion of alleged felons are under the influence of mind-altering substances when they are arrested, and many people arrested for drug offenses and other crimes are addicted. (2) Indeed, possession and use of illicit substances, which are necessary criteria of addiction, (3) are crimes in every state and under federal law. Assessing the moral and legal responsibility of agents who engage in such behavior is thus of paramount importance in our criminal justice system. But understanding the moral and legal responsibility of people for becoming addicted and for criminal conduct associated with their addictions has unfortunately been hindered by inadequate understanding of how explanatory models of addiction relate to responsibility. Even sophisticated people tend to think that the "man with the golden arm" is somehow an automaton, a puppet pulled by the narcotic strings of a biological disease, and that therefore the addict is not responsible for actions associated with his addiction. Evidence linking a genetic predisposition for this condition contributes powerfully, often confusingly, to this type of thinking. (4) Conversely, many people think that addiction is purely a result of moral weakness. The various characterizations of addiction may be striking and contain a grain of truth, and many models have great heuristic power. For the law's purposes, however, the metaphors and models often obscure rather than clarify issues of criminal responsibility and of social policy generally in response to the deviant behavior many addicts exhibit. This article has two simple underlying theses. The first is that it is impossible to understand the relation of any variable to criminal responsibility without having in place an account of criminal responsibility. The second is that discovery of genetic or of any other physical or psychosocial cause of action raises no new issues concerning responsibility, and discovery of such causes does not per se create an excusing or mitigating condition for criminal conduct or any other type of behavior. This article begins in Part II with a brief description of the phenomenology of addiction, describing generally what is known about the behavioral aspects of addiction in addition to the basic criteria of craving, seeking, and using. Thinking sensibly about the relation of addiction to criminal responsibility is impossible unless it is first understood that this condition is "defined solely in behavioural terms." (5) Part III addresses the contrast between the legal and scientific images of behavior, using the disease concept of addiction, now fueled by discoveries of genetic predisposition, as a prime example of the contrast. Part IV offers a general model of criminal responsibility to guide the analysis of responsibility for addiction-related criminal behavior, offering the best positive account of the present system. The model's essential criteria are behavioral, broadly understood to refer to actions and mental states. Part V deals with persistent confusions about responsibility. Part VI describes those aspects of addiction, if any, for which persons might be held morally or legally responsible, concluding that only actions related to addiction are appropriate objects for ascribing criminal responsibility. Part VII addresses the causal role genetics plays in explaining addiction. This discussion is deferred until this point because, as earlier parts explain, no particular causal explanation of any behavior, including a biological explanation, entails necessary legal consequences. In particular, the existence of a genetic explanation for addiction does not demonstrate that addicts are not acting when they seek and use substances or engage in other activities related to their addiction and a genetic explanation produces no necessary legal conclusion concerning responsibility for such addiction-related actions. …