Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Are You Good Or Evil? -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) ('I WANT TO BREAK FREE' BY QUEEN) A bit of a rock chick!

Captions (c) SBS Australia 2012

Good evening. Peta-Jane Madam with

an update from World News Australia.

Day two of talks in Greece and

still no government. The smaller

Democratic Left party has met the

leader of Pasok. It's expected that

negotiations will lead to a 3-party

coalition, along with election

winners New Democracy. At least

four people have been killed and

seven others are missing after a

landslide in the eastern Indonesian

province of Maluku. It was

triggered by torrential rain in the

area. At least five houses were

buried. The applause and admiration

continues for Aung San Suu Kyi. The

Burmese politician received a warm

welcome in Dublin and she's just

arrived in London for what's

expected to be a bittersweet

reunion with extended family. And

how could anyone survive this?

Incredibly, a teenager in the US is

alive and recovering after a

frightening accident with a spear-

9:30. gun. Stay with us - more news at

What makes us good... or evil? Scientists are daring to investigate this unsettling question. of the psychopathic killer. They're trying to peel back the mask pretty scary about them. but there is something I hate to use the term evil, a conscience. These are people without terrifying people? What separates us from these of person you think they are. Psychopaths really aren't the kind that divides vice from virtue. They're exposing the biology but we can manipulate it. we can not only measure it If there's a chemical involved, the good and evil in us all. reveals something about What they're finding there it was. Bingo. When we broke the code, That group were the killers. Who, or what, is evil? I killed Leslie Bradshaw. our ideas of right and wrong, Now, scientists are rewriting even of crime and punishment. it is a new kind of science. novel science, in that This is what one might call he would live or die. I think this did affect whether designed an ingenious experiment. At Yale University, scientists have are born good or bad. They wanted to see if babies their children. Hundreds of parents have volunteered are Karen Wynne and Paul Bloom. The two scientists behind the project to spend five minutes as a baby. I would give a year of my life To recapture what if feels like to be that sort of creature. of good and evil. of morality, the origin I'm interested in the origin in all sorts of ways. You can ask that question across different species. you could look across cultures, You could look at evolution, But the way we study it here the development of babies. is by looking at start off with. We want to see what people with a moral sense? Do they start off With good impulses or evil impulses? you can ask, And when you have a sense of that, adult moral behaviour? the adult sense of right and wrong, how does this develop into what is in a baby's brain. They wanted to find out play that each baby will watch. they've devised a kind of morality To try and unlock this secret, that he is playing with. So, this character has a ball to this other fellow, And he passes it reciprocal manner. who returns it in a nice, with his ball again. But now, he's playing to this other fellow, And he is now going to pass it who takes it and runs away with it. character the baby will prefer. What they're waiting to see is which But how will they know? who gave back the ball is good. As an adult seeing this, the person The person who ran away with the ball is kind of a jerk. and who's the bad guy?" "Who's the good guy And for an adult, you just say, You can't do that with a young baby. and you get the baby to choose. So what you do is you hold them out the two puppets to the baby, The experimenter who hands

was the bad one. was the good one and which puppet she doesn't know which puppet the baby's preference. So she can't unconciously influence Happy? Hi! from the show? Do you remember these guys Look at me. Which one do you like? CHILD GURGLES Which one do you like? OK, that was the nice one. That one? Good job! Aasrith has chosen the good puppet. The fact is, about 70% of babies do. towards kindness. that these babies are drawn Paul and Karen believe this is a sign of a moral feeling. And that this is a glimmer as well as they did. that these experiments worked out I was surprised and we get them over and over again. These are very strong findings That one? All right! Good job! that babies feel strongly about. I think we are tapping something These are not subtle effects. and respond accordingly. in a rich and powerful way Rather, babies analyse these scenes that leaves 30% who don't. But if 70% choose the good guy, those babies? So what does that say about We have always wondered about that. who reach for the bad guy? What do you do about the babies these are psychopath babies, The sort of sexy explanation is the world differently. babies who see Who actually prefer the bad guy. a logical possibility. And I think that's in any experiment you run, I think it's more likely that no matter what. 20 of them are going to act funny, if you test 100 babies, or they get distracted. Because they just fall asleep babies who reach for the bad guy It's an open question whether with a different moral code. are different kinds of babies you get in every experiment. it's the sort of noise As opposed to, it's just noise, do pick the good puppet is striking. The high percentage of babies who really seems present in babies. to show that a moral instinct These are the first experiments what we do know I would suggest that good characters over bad characters, is that babies prefer even when they themselves by the good character aren't being treated well or badly by the bad character. the pain of others. We know babies respond to that are in trouble. We know babies seek to help those who have done badly. We know babies seek to punish those

This is the moral sense. Well, I think at very minimum, into a moral sense. this is a capacity that develops for what we have as adults This is the foundation which nobody would deny is morality. I would even suggest that it's stronger than that. I would suggest that, in many regards, the moral sense we have as adults is already present by the time we've reached our first birthday. Most of us seem to start life with good impulses, not bad. The inclination to help each other, to empathise, seems to be built into our brains. We feel distress when we see someone in pain. But why? The fact that this is such a strong feeling has inspired a new and bold scientific quest. Human beings are obsessed with morality. We need to know why people are doing what they're doing. And I, indeed, am as obsessed with morality. I really want to know when people are good and evil, and why that occurs. Paul Zak is a neuroscientist. His mission is to try and trace the basis of our morality. So I was really looking for a chemical basis for these behaviours. If there is a chemical involved, that means we can not only measure it but we can manipulate it. Paul wanted to find the actual chemicals that drive our behaviour. And to do that, he's doing an experiment he's never done before. He's bringing his lab outside to see if he can catch good, co-operative behaviour. He's using a group of people who don't know each other well but are going to have to work together if they want to succeed. Hi, guys, thanks for coming out and burning part of your Saturday to be with us. So, we want to do this experiment where we want to find out how do you bond as a group? And that's intuitive. But we want to find some neuroscience behind this. Paul thinks their brain chemistry may undergo a transformation. They may release a chemical that will make them feel empathy. If this is true, this chemical could be driving our morality. It could be the moral molecule. We see lots of cooperation in the world but we don't know why. So I began wondering if there was an underlying biological basis for co-operation.

If there was,

could there be an underlying chemical foundation for this? One of the chemicals he's interested in he knows is active within families. But he has never looked for it in a team of relative strangers. This chemical, oxytocin, that motivates co-operation, is triggered in a variety of ways. It's released in little children when they are nurtured by their mothers when they are breast-fed. It's released during touch. We found it's even released when complete strangers trust us. So the next question we want to ask is,

are there a variety of rituals that may induce oxytocin release and lead to bonding among groups, even among groups of strangers? One of these rituals could indeed be the pre-match warm-up. We're going to take a baseline blood draw and find out what his baseline physiologic state is and then we'll measure after the warm-up how it changes. So each individual is different so it's important to get a baseline for each individual. OK. What they are really doing is training their movements together, getting in sync, so they are actually forming themselves as almost a super organism. Coming together, they're warming up their muscles. At the same time, they are warming up their brains. Their brains are starting to bond together. So as a group they can be aggressive against the other team. OK, we're starting the second blood draw in just a minute. At the end of the warm-up, Paul prepares for the second blood draw. As the blood is sent back to the lab, the match got underway. This is where we are seeing the real payoff from that warm-up.

They're working as a group. Oh, look at him go! He almost made it. Two weeks later and Paul had the results. This is a brand-new experiment. We don't really know what we're going to find.

The oxytocin levels of the players had, in fact, converged, getting them in sync with each other. This would have helped them feel bonded and confirms what Paul has found in his many laboratory experiments. Oxytocin seems to be the key to empathy. I call oxytocin the moral molecule. When oxytocin is released we feel empathy, we feel attachment, we connect to people. But the results showed something else. Another hormone, testosterone, had increased. And this drives aggressive behaviour. So is testosterone the opposite of the moral molecule? Oxytocin makes us more selfless and testosterone makes us more selfish. What's interesting in the ritual setting like with the rugby team is that sometimes these run together. So if the rugby players want to be both selfless, they want to support their team but also selfish, they want to grab goals from the other team. And that's pretty interesting, so they're not always in conflict. Paul believes that what happens on the sports field reflects our moral battlefield in life. The way to think about this is that rugby is like society in miniature. We have to co-operate as a group to achieve a goal. But yet we have another group that's trying to stop us from doing that. So there's a balance between testosterone and oxytocin. There's a way to understand how societies work. What we experience as a battle between good and evil may be a chemical battle waging inside us. Perhaps being moral means achieving a balance. Most of us manage to do this. But if our natural instinct is to do no harm, how can we explain those who seem totally devoid of this feeling? Who have no revulsion at taking a life? Scientists have embarked on a new, dark voyage to understand evil. They've turned to the serial killer psychopath. Three. Two. One. Holden's end of financial year countdown is in its final days and ends soon. Hurry or you'll miss out on the Captiva 7 SX petrol. On top of Bluetooth and seven seats as standard, you'll get an extra three years roadside assist for free,

an extra two years factory warranty for free and your first HoldenWise standard service for free. That's over $1,600 of extra value,

Deals this good must end soon. See your Holden dealer today before it's too late.

WOMAN: She can't breathe by herself. She's reliant on ventilators and pacers and Oxylogs. You know, everything you and I take for granted, day to day, she can't do. (VENTILATOR WHOOSHES) One man has done more than anyone to understand the mind of a psychopath. Psychologist Professor Bob Hare set out on this trail 30 years ago. He was determined to penetrate what lay beneath the mask. I'm looking at two pictures of very well-known, infamous serial killers, Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy. When you look at the pictures, you see ordinary people. That was their strong point. They looked perfectly ordinary when they were out in society. After the fact, of course, we realise they were far from normal. They're very deviant, cold-blooded killers. This was a world he came into by accident. I needed a job, the only job I could find at the time was as the sole psychologist at the OBC Penitentiary, a maximum security institution near Vancouver. Bob found himself face to face with psychopaths. When I was first starting out, I had no idea at all about the sorts of people with whom I was dealing. They were people. Some would be very difficult to deal with. You could see there was something strange about them, even predatory. I hate to use the term evil, but something pretty scary about them. But many of them were open, warm-appearing people until you find out what they've done. 'NEWS REPORT: Parts of 11 different bodies were found in Dahmer's flat 'when he was arrested on Tuesday.' He wanted to find the rules of a psychopath. 'I'm the same person I was on the street, except for the killing. 'I'm still someone's brother, someone's son.' I tried to find out what makes them tick. What they have in common and why do they have these things in common.

'I never once had any guilt.' Who are they? How do we go about assessing this guy, saying he's psychopathic? 'I never once shed any tears.' We had to have some sort of diagnostic criteria. Bob drew up a checklist defining their core personality traits. The essential features of psychopathy

would include a lack of empathy.

I don't mean a general, I mean a profound lack of empathy. A general callousness towards other people. These are people without a conscience, shallow emotions. "I'm number one in the universe, there's nobody else." He then devised an experiment looking into their brains. A psychopathic killer who volunteered was Anthony Frazzel. If we assume, and the evidence seems to support this, that psychopaths have sort of a blunted emotional life, the emotions aren't as powerful, they don't have the same range they have for most people, it should be reflected in things like their language. Bob showed Frazzel both real and made-up words and asked him to spot the difference.

Some of those words would have an emotional charge. Most people can decide very quickly when it's emotional. More quickly than a neutral word. There's a difference. The brain responses to the emotional words are quite different than they are to neutral words. For psychopaths, there was absolutely no difference. A word was a word was a word. The word rape had the same emotional impact as the word table or tree. He ran the experiment with dozens of psychopaths

and got the same result. They were so dramatic that reviewers So we rewrote it, explained it in more detail and sent it into another top journal, Psychophysiology.

It was published and it's actually a seminal study. Bob Hare had identified one of the lines that might separate good from evil. It was our emotions. Psychopaths simply did not seem to have the feelings of empathy that stop the rest of us from harming. The search had begun. What else could we see if we peered into the brain of the psychopath? In California, neuroscientist Jim Fallon found himself almost by accident picking up the quest. He had specialised in standard clinical disorders.

Now he was about to become an expert in the brains of psychopaths. I spent a lot of my research career looking at different brain abnormalities. Mostly schizophrenia but also depression and addictions of different sorts. And then my colleagues started to do something different. They asked him to analyse a variety of brain scans. What he didn't know was some of them were the brain scans of murderers. They brought me these scans and said, "What do you think of these? What do you see?" There were normals mixed in. People with schizophrenia, depression and there were killers. But I didn't know the mix. It was just like, "Here it is." About halfway through I noticed a pattern. It was fascinating. This one group, no matter what other damage they had or didn't have, they always had damage of the orbital cortex above the eyes. The other part of the brain that looked like wasn't working right was the front part of the temporal lobe which houses the amygdala. That is where your different animal drives are. I said, "This is extraordinary." So I separate out the piles and I said, "This is a different group." And bingo, when we broke the code, there it was. That group were the killers. It was really one of those "ah-hah" moments. The areas that looked abnormal were crucial for controlling impulsivity and emotions. Fallon's images seem to confirm what Hare's work had suggested. It looked like we were getting closer to the signature brain profile of the serial killer. This is about as dramatic as a difference can be in a PET scan. It's just a mind-blower, really. The location of these abnormalities indicated to Jim why psychopaths could be driven towards extreme behaviour. Just to get up to the point of being satisfied of feeding the amygdala, that whole system, some of these psychopaths do extraordinary things. Somebody like that may have to fly to Vegas and get drunk, and be with a bunch of prostitutes or snort cocaine, or kill somebody over and over again.

It really indicated that there was a biological basis,

a really hardcore brain basis, for this urge to kill. That brings the other question,

is that enough to cause someone to be a psychopath or a killer? Or are there other factors? That moment was immediately followed by a bunch of question marks. Once it seemed that the brains of psychopaths were different,

the next urgent question was why? Back in Vancouver, the direction seemed clear. The path to pursue was genes. Once we had determined there were certain differences in brain function and structure, the next question is, where do they originate from?

That brings up question of genetic factors. All behaviour, all physical features have strong genetic contributions. The search was on.

Were there genes that linked to violence? In 1993, the breakthrough came with one family's history. Here all the men had a background of violence

and all lacked the same gene. There was one gene that was missing and it was in the men and all these men were violent. What was important was that the loss of one gene profoundly affected behaviour. That kind of supported idea that one gene really controlled behaviour. It then emerged that just being born with one variant of this gene could also predispose you to violent behaviour. The MAOA gene became known as the warrior gene. That was pretty exciting because it implied first off that we could identify specific contributing factors to psychopathy

but also because it suggests that this particular area of research is bound to be fruitful. It seemed that it could be possible to trace the hallmark of evil in people's brains and genes. So did this mean that if you had both elements For Jim Fallon, this question was about to become deeply personal. VOICEOVER: So to launch the $2 'Family Guy' ticket range Instant Scratch-Its wanted an ad that talked to the 'Family Guy' demographic. But we were like, "No way! Monkey scratch!" Instant Scratch-It's 'Family Guy' tickets. Fans will get it, so get all eight - while stocks last. At a regular family party, a casual remark by his mother took him by surprise. As we were discussing this, and different brains, I said to him, "You should look into your own history." I said, "Did you ever hear of Lizzie Borden?" and I started telling the story about Lizzie Borden and how she had murdered her father and mother. I said, "There's a cousin of yours." Well, he was shocked

and, of course, started to delve a little further into this. It was pretty startling. I knew it was true. She doesn't make things up. There were quite a few murderers in that family. At least 16 murderers in the one line.

Hearing this, Jim took the bold decision to run a check on the entire family for the genes and brain structure linked to violent psychopathic behaviour. The results of the brain scans came back first. There were many, many sheets and they all looked normal. Fantastic. And then I came to one and it was the last one, as it turns out, and it looked very abnormal. This particular PET scan had no orbital cortex activity. It had no temporal lobe activity.

The whole limbic system was not functioning. I said, "Oh my god, it's one of these killers. "It's the exact same pattern as a killer." When I looked down at the code, it wasn't one of the killers. It was me. It was really a shock but I tried to think, "That's really interesting." "I'm not in jail, haven't killed anybody or done that stuff. "At least I don't have the genes. I just have the brain pattern." I said, "OK". I felt better. He then did the gene tests, looking not only for the warrior gene but for other traits, like impulsivity, that make up the profile of a psychopath. Back came the results.

Again, everybody had a mix of things in our family. It looked like an average mix of these different genes that have to do with aggression and all sorts of behaviours,

except now again there was one that showed all of these high risk genes. And it was mine. What are the odds of getting these? To throw the dice 20 times and it comes up six-six, six-six, six-six? It's millions to one. Now Jim started asking himself some unsettling questions. This really became probably more serious in my mind because it's like, who am I really? People with far less dangerous genetics become killers and are psychopaths than what I had. I had almost all of them. But the reaction from his family was to unsettle him even further. I knew there was always something off. It makes more sense now that, it's clear he does have the brain and genetics of a psychopath.

It all falls into place, as it were. He's got a hot head.

Everything you'd want in a serial killer, he has in a fundamental way. Because I've been scared of him a few times. Thanks. It was surprising but not surprising. Because he really is in a way, two different people. Even though he's always been very funny and gregarious, he's always had a stand-offish part to him. And that's always been there. That's always been there.

We'll drink to Shannon who's not here. Having heard what his family thought, Jim felt forced to be honest with himself. I have characteristics or traits, some of which that are psychopathic, yeah. I could blow off an aunt's funeral if I thought there was a party that day. I would just take off. And that's not right. The thing is I know that now And so I know something's wrong, but I still don't care. I don't know how else to put that, you're in a position where, that's not right, I don't give a shit. And that's the truth. But Jim still had a puzzle to solve. If he had the brain and the genes of a killer, why wasn't he one? The answer is that whether genes are triggered or not will depend

on what happens in your childhood. Simply having the warrior gene doesn't necessarily mean you'll be violent. If you've the high-risk form of the gene and you were abused early on in life, your chances of a life of crime are much higher. If you have the high-risk gene but you weren't abused, then there really wasn't much risk. So just the gene by itself, the variant, doesn't really dramatically affect behaviour, but under certain environmental conditions, a big difference. And that was a very profound finding.

So what was it about Jim's environment that cancelled out his unlucky genes? It turns out I had an unbelievably wonderful childhood. When I went back to look at old movies and pictures, and smiling and as happy as a lark. You can see it all the way through my life. There's a good chance that offset all these genetic factors, the brain development and everything.

And it washed that away. It seems your genes can increase your chances of being a violent psychopath. Though it's your environment that shapes whether you'll ever be one. But understanding the world of the psychopath is now leading scientists beyond the world of prison walls. Scientists could be looking for psychopaths in a place near you. When you walk in the city, you're not thinking of psychopaths. And yet the chances of passing one are higher than you think. Psychopaths have been adopting a camouflage, taking even the experts by surprise. I met my first psychopath a little over 25 years ago. And it wasn't someone in a prison, it was someone who was working for a company where I was a consultant. When I talked to people about it, half thought that he was a wonderful leader. The other half of the team members felt quite the opposite. They thought he was the devil incarnate. So I was somewhat puzzled by this and I called Bob Hare, and at the end of the conversation, I'll never forget it, he said, yep, you got one. When Paul called me and described the characteristics in the people he was dealing with, the concept of psychopathy hit me right between the eyes, of course. Paul applied Bob's psychopathy checklist, and found this leader fitted the profile. His high status had hidden the truth. Psychopaths really aren't the kind of person you think they are. In fact, you could be living with one, married to one

for 20 years or more and not know that that person is a psychopath. In more modern times, we've identified individuals who we might label the successful psychopath. Whom do you think of when you hear the term psychopath? Most likely it's Hannibal Lecter, or some other serial killer. But the actual behaviours they engage in will depend upon the context, on how bright you are. What do you look like? What kind of upbringing have you had? Being a psychopath doesn't mean you can't get a job. Part of the problem is that the very things we're looking for in our leaders, the psychopath can easily mimic. Their natural tendency is to be charming. Take that charm and couch it in the right business language, it sounds like charismatic leadership. You think of psychopaths as having at their disposal, a very, very large repertoire of behaviours. So they can use charm, manipulation, intimidation, whatever is required.

Psychopaths can also turn their lack of emotion to their advantage. The psychopath can actually put themselves inside your skin intellectually, not emotionally. They can tell what you're thinking, in a sense, they look at your body language, listen to what you're saying. But what they don't really do is feel what you feel. What this allows them to do is to use the words to manipulate and con and interact with you without the baggage of having this, "I really feel your pain".

Paul then constructed his own survey to see how many psychopaths had infiltrated big business. The answer? Almost four times as many as in the general population.

These were all individuals who were at the top of an organisation. Vice-presidents, directors, CEOs, so it was actually quite a shock. But the biggest surprise was when they looked at their actual performance. The higher the psychopathy, the better they looked. These people walked into the room and everybody got excited, watching them, the room lit up. Charisma, lots of charisma, and they talked a good line. But if you look at their actual performance and ratings as a team player and productivity and so forth, dismal. Looked good, performed badly. And that was really quite a dramatic finding. Their ability to communicate, to charm, to manipulate those around them overshadowed the hard data. Paul thinks this is just the beginning. Corporate culture today seems ideal for the psychopath. They're thrill-seekers, they're easily bored.

What better place to work than a place that's constantly changing? That's the perfect environment for a psychopath. So how do you tell the high-power, high talent MBA student from the lying, cheating, deceitful, manipulative psychopath? Very, very hard to do. So the blend of genes and environment determine not only who will be a psychopath, but whether they end up in the boardroom or behind bars. Now this new science is about to challenge us all. It's about to make us question not only our ideas of good and evil, but even of crime and punishment itself. I was asking him, "Please." I was begging him to stop. SIREN And he wouldn't stop. In 2006, a brutal murder took place that rocked the state of Tennessee. It was a horrible crime. Everybody knows that Mr Waldroup had committed a murder. He attempted to murder his wife

and he did murder the friend of his wife. And it was done in a very violent way. At one point, he had a machete, he ran after her, he cut her. So it was a pretty grisly scenario. This was the kind of crime where there is no question who did it. I killed Leslie Bradshaw. I attacked my wife. In the state of Tennessee, that meant Bradley Waldroup was facing the death penalty. But in this case, the man who could save Waldroup was not a lawyer, but a forensic psychiatrist. A fundamental question would lie at the heart of Waldroup's defence. He may have done it, but was he to blame? I think in the opening statements, the defence attorney said that, we are not disputing but what we would like to talk about is why it happened. Dr Burnet agreed to gather the evidence. I first saw Mr Waldroup. We arranged to do an evaluation at Vanderbilt and I met him in this room. The Sheriff sits on the other side of the window, but Mr Waldroup himself was... He's a middle-aged man.

He's pleasant. He's talkative. He's co-operative. In other words, this is a normal-looking man, who is conversant and fairly articulate, but who has a story.

And, in his case, I think the story was very important. Waldroup's actions suggested a brutal, destructive personality. My initial impression was that this was an unusually violent act. This was a murder case and it was also a capital case, meaning that the state of Tennessee was seeking the death penalty. The evaluation was going to include a new and controversial element. Did Bradley Waldroup have the warrior gene? After a week or so, we got the result back and it was, I guess what one would call a positive result, in the sense that he had the low-activity version of the MAOA gene. But this gene would only be relevant to his defence if he'd also had an extremely difficult early environment. The question is, does he have a history of child abuse? And he did. Mr Waldroup described times of getting physically disciplined where he had welts, he had bruising, and that this was a fairly regular experience for him. So we thought that that might be important in court. This genetic evidence was so new, that Burnet had to work out how he was going to explain it to the jury. We basically thought back! We didn't get out old textbooks. We did collect pictures. We thought that images would be very important.

We obviously want to keep their attention. It can be very boring to be on a jury for several days. The DNA evidence revolved around one idea. A gene composed of four segments is safe. Three, and you're at risk. But would a judge accept this evidence? It had never been used in court before. The day of the trial arrived. I drove down to this small town in Tennessee. We were mainly thinking would the judge let us testify about this topic? This is what one might call novel science, in that it's a new kind of science. We were the first people, as far as I know, to introduce this gene-environment interaction in a trial. Despite strong objections from the prosecution, the judge allowed Burnet to take the stand. Burnet knew he could be making history. The jury is sitting in the court and we're asked to go in to testify one at a time. When Penny tried to run, he intentionally drew that weapon up as she was running behind that trailer, and fired twice. Remember Penny's testimony. She said "That's why I got hit in the back." That's the best description... We were assuming that he would be found guilty of first-degree murder, and then the jury would have to decide

whether he would get the death penalty or something else. So we thought the fair outcome would be for them to take it into consideration at that time and to not give him the death penalty.

Burnet had described Waldroup as a highly troubled man with a gene that made him vulnerable to rage. Then, it was over to the jury. What actually happened really surprised us. This jury, after hearing the testimony, did not find him guilty of first-degree murder, but found him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. So I think the jury was really influenced by the testimony regarding behavioural genomics. One juror's comments show just how important it was to them. WOMAN: A diagnosis is a diagnosis. You know. It's there. A bad gene is a bad gene. I think this testimony did affect whether he would live or die. The implications of the verdict are enormous. They could rewrite the fundamental rules of crime and punishment. So was it right? I think we have to be really careful how we state this. This increases a person's vulnerability, but it doesn't make the person commit a crime.

In his particular case, I would say that his free will had been diminished. I don't think I would ever say it vanished, but I think it had been diminished. The verdict has set a powerful precedent. It's ushering in a brand new era of neuro-law. I think there's an avalanche coming. There are hundreds or thousands of research projects on behavioural genomics. And, I think in 10, 15 years, there will be much more information than we have now. The new science is starting to explain the basis of good and evil and why we are different from each other. I am pretty sure if I had not had this very positive environment, I would have turned out poorly. I would have been a real behaviour problem and I'm pretty sure of that. But while this science is giving us more information, it's also undermining our certainties. Whether we're good or whether we're evil lies partly in our genes and partly in our environment. But as we don't choose either, are we really free to choose at all? Subtitling by Red Bee Media Ltd This program is captioned live.

Ending the limbo -- the birthplace

of depock say on the verge of

forming Government. Live lost and

houses buried as a landside takes a Indonesian town.

# We are true colours... Rock star

reception, Aung San Suu Kyi

honoured in Dublin. You are a part

of my heart. I really mean it with

my whole heart. Thank you. Speared

through his brain -- how a teenager

boy survived this horrific injury.

The most important things to resist

the temptation the pull the thing out.

Good evening. First tonight, grief.

A new government could be just

hours away. Talks designed to form

a workable Coalition have entered

their second day. The leading party

New Democracy already has an in-

principle teal with Pasok. Now they

are just waiting for a further

agreement with another minor party

the Democratic left the Democratic

left captured just 17 seats in the

Greek election but if the latest

negotiations are anything to go by

the party will play a more central

role in Greece's political

landscape with New Democracy Pasok

forming an agreement to form

Government an alliance with the

Democratic left would further

strengthen their position amid

global frustration surrounding its economy.