Biology, Behavior, and Criminal Law: Seeking a Responsible Approach to an Inevitable Interchange
![handle is hein.journals/vlr22 and id is 277 raw text is: BIOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND CRIMINAL LAW:
SEEKING A RESPONSIBLE APPROACH TO AN
INEVITABLE INTERCHANGE
Oliver R. Goodenough*
INTRODUCTION
This issue of Vermont Law Review-and the April, 1997 symposium on
Biology, Behavior and the Criminal Law which preceded it-poses two basic
questions. First, is there value in using the emerging insights of biology about
behavior in understanding the problems of the criminal law? Second, if such
uses are valuable, how is the inquiry to be appropriately conducted? In
planning the symposium, the Vermont Law Review, together with its co-
sponsor, the Gruter Institute for Law and Social Research, sought to provide
a socially responsible context for discussing these issues. I was fortunate to
work with the 1996-97 Editorial Board in helping to plan the symposium
around this dual objective.'
This Essay will not explore particular applications of biological thinking
to problems of criminal law-that task is left to others in this volume. Rather,
it examines the enterprise itself in light of the two basic questions posed
above. As to the first, the encounter between biology, behavior, and law is
inevitable. I explore the traditional social science bent of legal scholarship,
and suggest the useful role that biologically-informed views of human
behavior can play in adding to our understanding; the encounter can bear
significant fruit. As to the second question, I examine some of the objections
which have been raised to the use of biology in studying human behavior. On
two of the most vexed issues--race and gender-the law itself provides useful
cautionary tools for evaluating proposed applications. Finally, I suggest some
common-sense principles for responsibly carrying forward the discussion.
Biology is, in one sense, always around us. In the last few years, an
awareness of biology-both around us and within us-has become more and
more pronounced. Biology's advances cascade across such general scientific
* Professor, Vermont Law School; Of Counsel, Kay Collyer & Boose, New York, N.Y.; J.D.,
University of Pennsylvania (1978); A.B., Harvard College (1975). The author is grateful to the Vermont
Law Review and the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research for their support and perseverance
in this issue and the symposium, and particular thanks to Laura Gillen for her assistance.
1. This also represents something of a personal goal. During the planning of this conference, I
took some pride in a colleague's somewhat incredulous, and probably inaccurate, declaration that I was a
P.C. [politically correct] Sociobiologist. Matt Ridely comments on political correctness in this context,
calling it the reverse naturalistic fallacy: arguing from ought to is. Because something ought to be, then
it must be. MATT RIDLEY, THE ORIGINS OF VIRTUE: HUMAN INSTINCTS AND THE EVOLUTION OF
COOPERATION 257-58 (1996). Perhaps my conclusion that sound science and social responsibility go hand
in hand--central to this Essay-falls into this definition.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/vlr22&div=19&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Biology, Behavior, and Criminal Law: Seeking a Responsible Approach to an Inevitable Interchange
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most