Judging in the genomic era: judges’ genetic knowledge, confidence and need for training

Abstract

Genetic information is increasingly used in many contexts, including health, insurance, policing and sentencing—with numerous potential benefits and risks. Protecting from the related risks requires updates to laws and procedures by justice systems. These updates depend to a large extent on what the key stakeholders—the judiciary—know and think about the use of genetic information. This study used a battery of 25 genetic knowledge items to collect data from 73 supreme court judges from the same country (Romania) on their knowledge of genetic information. Their responses were compared with those of two other groups: lawyers (but not judges; N = 94) and non-lawyers (N = 116) from the same country. The data were collected at approximately the same time from the three groups. The judges’ results were also compared to the results obtained from a general population data collection (N = 5310). The results showed that: (1) judges had overall better knowledge of genetics than the other groups, but their knowledge was uneven across different genetic concepts; (2) judges were overall more confident in their knowledge than the other two groups, but their confidence was quite low; and (3) the correlation between knowledge and confidence was moderate for judges, weak for lawyers and not significant for non-lawyers. Finally, 100% of the judges agreed that information on gene-environment processes should be included in judges’ training. Increasing genetic expertise of the justice stakeholders is an important step towards achieving adequate legal protection against genetic data misuse.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Notes

  1. 1.

    ABC v St George’s Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 336’, 2017

References

  1. 1.

    Oliveri S, Masiero M, Arnaboldi P, Cutica I, Fioretti C, Pravettoni G. Health Orientation, Knowledge, and Attitudes toward Genetic Testing and Personalized Genomic Services: Preliminary Data from an Italian Sample. BioMed Res Int. 2016. Accessed 10 Jun 2019. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/6824581/

  2. 2.

    Catley P, Claydon L. The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales. J Law Biosci. 2015;2:510–49.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Archibald AD, Smith MJ, Burgess T, Scarff KL, Elliott J, Hunt CE, et al. Reproductive genetic carrier screening for cystic fibrosis, fragile X syndrome, and spinal muscular atrophy in Australia: outcomes of 12,000 tests. Genet Med. 2017. Accessed 7 Nov 2017. https://www.nature.com/gim/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/gim2017134a.html

  4. 4.

    Innocence Project. DNA Exonerations in the United States. Innocence Project. Accessed 14 Jul 2019. https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

  5. 5.

    Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM. Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016;11:3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Polderman TJC, Benyamin B, Leeuw CAde, Sullivan PF, Bochoven Avan, Visscher PM, et al. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat Genet. 2015;47:702–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Jones M. Overcoming the myth of free will in criminal law: the true impact of the genetic revolution. Duke Law J. 2003;52:1031–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hill WD, Marioni RE, Maghzian O, Ritchie SJ, Hagenaars SP, McIntosh AM, et al. A combined analysis of genetically correlated traits identifies 187 loci and a role for neurogenesis and myelination in intelligence. Mol Psychiatry. 2018;1:169–81.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Howard DM, Adams MJ, Shirali M, Clarke T-K, Marioni RE, Davies G, et al. Genome-wide association study of depression phenotypes in UK Biobank identifies variants in excitatory synaptic pathways. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Okbay A, Beauchamp JP, Fontana MA, Lee JJ, Pers TH, Rietveld CA, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature 2016;533:539–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Zhang-James Y, Fernàndez-Castillo N, Hess JL, Malki K, Glatt SJ, Cormand B, et al. An integrated analysis of genes and functional pathways for aggression in human and rodent models. Mol Psychiatry. 2018;1:1655–67.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Selita F. Genetic data misuse: risk to fundamental human rights in developed economies. Leg Issues J. 2019;7:53–95.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Denno DW. Courts’ increasing consideration of behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: results of a longitudinal study. Mich State Law Rev. 2011;2011:967–1047.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Farahany NA. Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: an empirical analysis. J Law Biosci. 2015;2:485–509.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Catley P, Claydon L. The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales. J Law and the BioSci. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv025.

  16. 16.

    Forzano F, Borry P, Cambon-Thomsen A, Hodgson SV, Tibben A, de Vries P, et al. Italian appeal court: a genetic predisposition to commit murder? Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18:519–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    de Kogel CH, Westgeest EJMC. Neuroscientific and behavioral genetic information in criminal cases in the Netherlands. J Law and the BioSci. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv024.

  18. 18.

    Bowling BV, Huether CA, Wang L, Myers MF, Markle GC, Dean GE, et al. Genetic literacy of undergraduate non-science majors and the impact of introductory biology and genetics courses. BioScience 2008;58:654–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lanie AD, Jayaratne TE, Sheldon JP, Kardia SLR, Anderson ES, Feldbaum M, et al. Exploring the PUblic Understanding of Basic Genetic Concepts. J Genet Counseling. 2004;13:305–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Miller JD, Scott EC, Okamoto S. Public acceptance of evolution. Science 2006;313:765–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Shaw KRM, Horne KV, Zhang H, Boughman J. Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics 2008;178:1157–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Chapman R, Likhanov M, Selita F, Zakharov I, Smith-Woolley E, Kovas Y. New literacy challenge for the twenty-first century: genetic knowledge is poor even among well educated. J Community Genet. 2018;8:1–12.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    United States Sentencing Commission, editor. Intra-city differences in federal sentencing practices: federal district judges in 30 cities, 2005-2017. Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission; 2019. p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Aspinwall LG, Brown TR, Tabery J. The double-edged sword: does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 2012;337:846–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Fuss J, Dressing H, Briken P. Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: a randomised controlled trial with German judges. J Med Genet. 2015;52:730–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cheung BY, Heine SJ. The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality: causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affect legal decision making. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2015;41:1723–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Berryessa CM. Judicial stereotyping associated with genetic essentialist biases toward mental disorders and potential negative effects on sentencing: judicial stereotyping & genetic essentialist biases. Law Soc Rev. 2019;53:202–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Chapman R, Likhanov M, Selita F, Smith-Woolley E, Kovas Y. Genetic literacy and attitudes survey (Iglas): International population-wide assessment instrument. 2017;45–66. Accessed 19 Dec 2017 http://www.futureacademy.org.uk/files/images/upload/ICPE2017F6.pdf

  29. 29.

    Alba JW, Hutchinson JW. Knowledge calibration: what consumers know and what they think they know. J Consum Res. 2000;27:123–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    TAGC.world. Working group on legal, ethical and societal implications of genetics (LESIG). TAGC. Accessed 26 Jan 2020. https://tagc.world/lesig/

  31. 31.

    Gallop L, Chapman R, Selita F, Kovas Y. Effects of education and media framing on genetic knowledge and attitudes. Eur Proc Soc Behav Sci EpSBS. 2017;33:121–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all participants for taking time from their busy schedules to complete a lengthy survey and to provide additional comments. Their contribution is invaluable for development of justice in this complex area. The study was approved by the Goldsmiths Department of Psychology Ethics Committee (PSY10.10.2016).

Funding

This work is supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research Grant No. 18-29-14071.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatos Selita.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Selita, F., Smereczynska, V., Chapman, R. et al. Judging in the genomic era: judges’ genetic knowledge, confidence and need for training. Eur J Hum Genet (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0650-8

Download citation