The article gives a good counter-argument if you actually read it. Nita Farahany nailed it right on the head. "She says genes may provide a guide as to how someone is likely to behave, but they will never tell us why they committed a specific act."I think the problem is as a society we are being somewhat negligent in creating environments or even allowing negative "predispositions" or genetics to be nurtured. I don't mean this in a eugenics sense, though, I'm speaking mainly in context to this specific case. The guy may have a predisposition to be violent, but there's an environment he grew up in that most likely nurtured it and there are most certainly events that led to him committing the murder.Does that make him the victim? No, every person must be responsible for their own actions, but to say that he is completely responsible for his own actions is like saying he lived in a vacuum up until the murder. He is most definitely guilty of a heinous crime, but I'm going to assume he had a very good lawyer that was able to convince the jury that society also had a hand in allowing this genetic predisposition of violence to be nurtured or even thrive. Crimes are, by a loose legal definition, offenses to society and if a lawyer is able to convince a jury that society has a hand in the offense the level of punishment may decrease (it really depends on the jury imo, some juries buy that ***** up and some are the complete opposite and of course there are the juries that are in between).