so help me out here - if we have someone who is "proved" to be genetically disposed to commit murder, then we have to set him free, because he can't help himself?

i say lets all return to "phrenology" - where scientists claimed (100 years ago) that they could identify criminals by the bumps on their skulls.

The argument cuts both ways, claiming a defendant had a genetic predisposition for violence is an admission that the defendant will always be a danger and thus should receive the longest sentence possible to protect society. A defense lawyer should think twice before putting that idea in front of a jury.