That defence is only relevant to the extent that the punishment is retributory. The main themes of punishment in modern law systems are restraint, deterrence, restitution and (heaven forbid!) virtue signalling, and that defence is not relevant to those considerations. So most crimes that caused serious harm to others would still result in a custodial sentence.

I would like retribution to be completely removed from consideration in sentencing, partly for the reasons you outline. But while it plays a relatively small role in most Western countries (perhaps not the US), there are unfortunately plenty of populist politicians that lobby to increase its influence.

So, Mr. Wallows, I am judge Crank and I demand that you provide this court with evidence in support of your claim that deterministic factors overrode your free will. For instance, why did you choose to rob that particular store? Was it because you were aware that Saturday was their biggest day, and that at closing time they would have a maximum amount of cash on hand? You could have robbed any number of other stores. Was determinism just lucky?

According to the store owner, you bagged about $1800 in cash. At the time of your arrest on Sunday, you had almost no cash on you. There were several delivery boxes from up-scale restaurants in your kitchen garbage. Did your unfortunate history drive you order food from high end restaurants? You could have gotten more food at Aldi Foods had you elected to go there for food. Why didn't you just go to White Castle or Wendy's? Not good enough for you?

Did you seek assistance from the county welfare office, Mr. Wallows? If your unfortunate history is true, then you would have qualified for an emergency payment so that you could buy food. Since you grew up poor in this city, you surely were aware that county services existed, were you not?

In your arrest statement you stated that you had taken a college class in the summer. Did circumstances force you to register for the class and study, or did you freely choose to take the class -- in Philosophy, I believe. Poverty doesn't normally drive people into philosophy classes.

The defendant may be speaking truthfully, that circumstances compelled him against his better judgement to steal money for food; but we expect that he can cite numerous instances where circumstances compelled him to act against his own wishes. Perhaps Mr. Wallows didn't really want to attend class last summer; what deterministic winds pushed him into that class?

Mr. Wallows, you can't have it both ways: Either you are unable to make any decisions on your own, and thus should be deemed a permanent ward of the state, or you are merely a criminal and are responsible for what you do. Which category do you think we should put you into?

I don't see free will as necessary for culpability. I see it as similar to say, a cliff over a roadway that tends to have rockslides. The rocks aren't choosing to slide, but nevertheless, they're causally responsible for problems on the roadway, and we're justified in removing or restraining them so that they don't cause more problems.

The person might not have chosen to commit whatever crime, but nevertheless, they're causally responsible and they're the sort of person who'll commit that sort of act, so that's sufficient to control their opportunities to continue to commit the act(s) in question.

So, Mr. Wallows, I am judge Crank and I demand that you provide this court with evidence in support of your claim that deterministic factors overrode your free will. — Bitter Crank

Science says.

Did you seek assistance from the county welfare office, Mr. Wallows? — Bitter Crank

There is no welfare. It's every man for himself. So says Darwin!

In your arrest statement you stated that you had taken a college class in the summer. Did circumstances force you to register for the class and study, or did you freely choose to take the class -- in Philosophy, I believe. Poverty doesn't normally drive people into philosophy classes. — Bitter Crank

Philosophy made me cynical. I digress.

Mr. Wallows, you can't have it both ways: Either you are unable to make any decisions on your own, and thus should be deemed a permanent ward of the state, or you are merely a criminal and are responsible for what you do. Which category do you think we should put you into? — Bitter Crank

No hemlock?

I don't see free will as necessary for culpability. — Terrapin Station

Why not? If I claim that I had no free will, then that's that. I'm no longer culpable.

We are all programmed through public education or private religious education to follow the social norms of our society. The judge would consider limiting liability in the sentencing, but the guilt of the person is considered by an objective viewpoint or standard of whether a sane person should have known better.

deterrence — andrewk

Isn't deterrence grouped together with retribution in law. Or at least that's how it appears in practice? I mean if you boil it down, then they appear to be indistinguishable from another...

No hemlock? — Wallows

No hemlock for you.

This court feels revulsion and disgust towards your lame attempt to explain your criminal actions by a not even half baked defense of determinism. You are sentenced to 1 year in prison, suspended, while you prepare a convincing argument for both free will and determinism. If your defense for the opposing positions is not satisfactory, then this court will exercise its free will and send you to the county jail where you can discuss free will and determinate behavior with your fellow inmates till hell freezes over.

By the way... Keep your explication of free and determined behavior short and to the point. Excess words will add to your sentence.

I object! It's not fair to blame me for something I had no control over. I'm just another statistic ending up in jail due to the negligence of our leaders to look after us and OUR welfare.

I'm outraged. It's wrong!

Why blame us? We were not compelled by circumstances to look after you. It's not our problem. Sucker.

What kind of society do you live in? I request the hemlock now. It is the fiduciary duty to God, our nation, and the people to ensure that people don't go about stealing for food in our prosperous land.

This is unjust.

I don't see it that way. Sometimes they can look similar, because they are both about causing harm, or at least fear. But the harm is not always to the convicted criminal. Consider for instance the policy that I have heard is pursued by the Israeli government of demolishing the family homes of suicide bombers (Caveat - I don't know whether that is an actual policy. It's just something I heard somewhere). That is not retribution, as it cannot harm the culprit who is already dead. Rather it is deterrence against potential future suicide bombers.

Another example is house training a puppy. One doesn't scold or punish it for messes out of retribution, but out of an aim to deter it from making messes in future.

Here's the determinist position summarized in song and dance

That was something beautiful.

That is not retribution, as it cannot harm the culprit who is already dead. Rather it is deterrence against potential future suicide bombers. — andrewk

I don't know. I feel like it's the same thing. Just that the scope is broadened in this case.

I don't see how a polar position on determinism vs. free will is tenable.

Everything I have experienced tells me that something -- "nature" -- determined my homosexuality. Once I gained executive agency, decisions on how, when, where, and with whom to experience homosexual relationships were freely willed. I wasn't compelled to enter a gay bar for the first time; I made the decision to go there, open the door, and walk in.

It isn't determinism vs. free will; it's determinism AND free will. Determinism isn't so complete that individual will has no part to play. We are a mosaic of determination and freely chosen actions. People who are raised in very adverse settings can not help but be at least somewhat damaged. But the damage does not govern the whole life. There remain fields in which voluntary decisions are required.

Only in the cases of the most severe abnormality (severe mental illness, mental retardation, etc.) is no field of voluntary action left.

It seems like some courts recognize both determinism and free will as joint players, but where retribution is the goal, it really makes no different to courts whether the accused had extenuating circumstances or not. Lock 'em up and lose the key.

Reasons are not an excuse.

but, could if the judge accepted the fact that they had a limited liability in committing the crime due to deterministic factors, what then? — Wallows

*Judge* __" I have no free will either; five years."

It is a necessary assumption in making a judgement or a decision, that the result is not pre-determined. And this applies to making a defence argument - that the judge can be swayed - that the judgement is not fixed already, but open.

But if your claim is that the judge is capable of acting justly, but you are not, then it stops being an argument for the defence, and becomes one for the prosecution. "Wallows is un-reformable, and therefore we deserve to be protected from him with the maximum sentence."

None of which is to deny that there may on occasion be mitigating circumstances, or even a defence of incapacity to do otherwise. "I was at the firing range, and heard a commotion behind me, and as I turned round, the police tazered me and my finger involuntarily spasmed and the gun went off, killing the officer."

Why not? — Wallows

The rest of the post in question already answered why not.

So, if someone were to plead with a judge in the court of law that they had no free will, and the crime was due to their upbringing and social factors that ultimately led them to steal money for food, then what then? This wouldn't fly nowadays; but, could if the judge accepted the fact that they had a limited liability in committing the crime due to deterministic factors, what then? — Wallows

In the 1840s, the House of Lords arrived at the McNaughten Rule, which states as follows:

"the jurors ought to be told in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction; and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_rules#Alternative_rules

This rule was adopted in the US for some time, although it has been replaced with the ALI rule in many jurisdictions:

The ALI rule is:

"(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease of defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
"(2) As used in this Article, the terms "mental disease or defect" do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct [Section 4.01]."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALI_rule

These rules presume free will unless it can be shown that the person in question lacks the ability to understand or appreciate the wrongfulness of their act. So, there is in fact a "lack of free will" defense for adults as it relates to an inability to appreciate right from wrong. This isn't limited to just the insane, but also to children and the mentally handicapped. It is a viable defense. Insanity isn't a particularly good defense in practice because once declared insane, your sentence is likely to be very lengthy because they can't release you from the state mental hospital until you're better, which is likely never.

The judge has no choice, he also is without free will and determined to send you away to life time of jail , full of other people who thru no willful act of their own are there as well. Sadly for you many of these are also predetermined to commit heinous ( if something that is determined can actually be called heinous) acts on there fellow free will-less inmates.

If there is any comfort to be taken in this future existence or yours, it is that it was always to be as such and there was nothing you could have done to prevent it.

Of course, the judge also had no free will in sentencing you.

Doubtless this was mentioned before.

If a dog attacks people, it is put into a cage, deprived of its freedom; it might be even sacrificed for failing to respect the rights of humans. The dog is not to blame; it has no free will and only acts upon instinct and experiences. But it is still caged so as to avoid harm.
With people is no different in a deterministic universe as the one we seem to inhabit and rely on when we go to the doctor, put something in the oven or kiss our soulmate. People are not guilty of their actions, that in truth just happens to them; but they are still responsible. They are responsible because what they are, their rights, their salary, their love relationships can not be separated from what they do, including what they do wrong. So to claim ownership for the good stuff, the bad stuff needs to be accepted too. So we are not to blame, but we are to be held responsible. We are self-aware causal chains, and society needs to take us as a whole.

"If there is any comfort to be taken in this future existence or yours, it is that it was always to be as such and there was nothing you could have done to prevent it." Yes Rank Amateur, but even more so. If we live in a deterministic world, one in which you can expect the aspirin to relieve your pain just because you swallowed it, it´s not just that your bad choices or unlucky days were unavoidable. It goes beyond that: it means that you do not exist in a universe were those events did not happen. You could not exist in the reality where you don´t say a stupid thing at that girl; because the causal chains leading up to that bad move did not begin when you went into the pub, or when you were born, but when the Big Bang happened or even before that. You are the guy that we get in the universe where 14 millions people were killed in the Nazi camps, and even if only one of them had been spared, say poor Anna Frank, you would not be here at all, because the causal network creating those historical events is the very same that gives you and me.

What do you think? Is my reasoning sound?

Well I was going to argue your point, then I thought I am not sure I understand it well enough to, so, I said to myself let it go, then I typed this. All along wondering if I was actually deciding anything or actually thinking anything at all. Was just about to delete this - but think I will hit " post comment" anyway - I feel like I have no choice.

In some seriousness - and admittedly, I am very unread on the concept at hand, but I can't stop thinking that this issue of determinism is just a regression of acts of free will.

I am A, because of a series of experiences/act of others B1 ......Bx, which in turn are because of a series of experiences/act of other C1 ...... Cx and so on an so on back to some point of man's becoming aware of himself and becoming aware of a shared conscientiousness with others.

So if you buy into this line of, I hope, logic. It leads, like all regressions, to what was first. Was there a first act, ever. Was it an act of free will ? Or was it predetermined - and if yes - by what ?

the moral factor in how we deal with antisocial behaviour is very important. Some acts are minimized or even considered fair by reason of different versions of "society made me do so". Left-wing thinking, as it is derived from Catholic and Jewish thought, is abundant in these arguments. In Spain at least, it´s not only the Left, but the Conservatives too who buy and sell this reasoning: gipsies are poor because they are discriminated, not because most of them refuse to study even in Primary and only 2 out of 100 goes to University (which is free in Spain under a level of rent); murderers had a poor upbringing; violent rioters were pushed by capitalism to behave like beasts; and so on. Curiously enough, these justifications do not apply to corrupt politicians or rich bankers, that are super-free and unconditioned so that they can take all the blame.
I think this has to stop. Last week the horrible kidnap, rape, torture and killing of a young beautiful Spanish teacher was committed by a man who was a serial killer but was not in prison. Most parties follow the Progressive view that even monsters like this guy (or his twin brother, also a rapist and killer himself) can not be kept in jail permanently, not even to keep innocent people safe, not even if it is obvious that this gipsy man can not improve or refrain from commiting crimes and even his family wants him in jail. Feminists, that are very powerful in the Parliament, are strongly against life sentences in Spain, and they blame a patriarcal education or insufficient indoctrination in early years in feminist ideology for the development of these human monsters. It all goes back to the morality argument and the stupid debate about "who´s to blame", and the Catholic idea that everybody can be saved if they are announced the good gospel.

I would like to know what "a free will act" is really like. What are the conditions for an act to be truly free?I can not think of motions without causes. Yes, there is also pure chance, like the pure chance of Reality existing in the first place; but that is not free-will either, is luck. What do you mean by a free will act? It might be that I don´t understand free will at all

It's true that we're not ultimately responsible for our own actions given we lack free will, but we are usually approximately or practically/pragmatically responsible.

Consider the following:

A child of 3 throws a rock and breaks a window: Do we hold them responsible? If so, to what extent? And what do we do about it?

The child has done a bad thing, but we may not wish to blame the child on normative grounds. We do, however, still need to take corrective action to prevent the child from continuing to misbehave. At the same time, the child is not morally responsible and must also experience some form of rehabilitative consequence.

From a legal perspective, if a person is sufficiently free from external coercion (such as brain disease or severe extortion), then we tend to hold them responsible in the sense that corrective actions must be done upon them. If there is an addressable external factor, such as addiction then a judge will consider to what extent the external coercive forces "mitigate" the culpability of the offender, and may sentence them accordingly (example: they might sentence someone to AA and community service instead of prison if the judge thinks correcting the addiction will also correct the offending behavior).

Formally, the law assumes that people have free will (or at least, can/should/must be held accountable for their own actions), unless it is demonstrated otherwise. It may presently be the case that prosecutors have to demonstrate defendants are mentally fit to stand trial in the first place (I'm not sure, other posters would know), but the take-away is that if you can indeed demonstrate that your actions were not authored by your normal self, it can mitigate or completely excuse criminal actions.

----

While it's true that the human mind is inexorably not its own (we all seem to lack hard free will), we just don't have access to or control over the root systems/abstract programming that actually generates it. When computers themselves misbehave, we look for the easy to address problems that might be causing the behavior, but sometimes the problem has developed deep within the complex architecture of the system, in which case there's nothing we can do to "fix" the computer.

Essentially, we imprison people for the same reason to throw away broken computers: they're a problem and we don't know what to do with them.

The ancient thrust of imprisonment is that locking people up is enough of a spanking and enough of a threat to everyone else that it corrects criminal behavior by force. While that's definitely somewhat true (fear and pain are highly operant human motives), it's no solution to crime. Old criminals die, young naive criminals repeat their mistakes, and prisons stay full.

Thus, from a moral perspective, mere imprisonment is an ethical stop-gap; in a perfect world, the judge would be able to press a button and instantly alter the brain/mind and behavior of the offender, and would immediately set them free because they no longer pose a reasonable threat to anyone (if they never had free will in the first place, it's not such a pity to "alter" someone's will with sufficient justification)...

Thanks for the responses, everyone. This has been an interesting thread to read. :blush: