Does society and the law need to catch up with science?

[Curiouspaul]

If free will does not exist then why does society and the justice system persist with punishments base on revenge if a person is no more in control of their actions than they are the colour of their hair?

It seems out justice system is based on morals that are belief based and not science based, which seems to be no better than believing in witchcraft and burning "witches".

So why is there not a big push from the science based community to change out justice system to fit the science? people are being tortured and sent to prison for life when what they did was always going to happen

Of course people should be punished and locked up if they are a threat to the public but we need to get over the hate against people who do bad, because they are not evil, they are just a chemical reaction.

[Sy Borg]

Alas, even as children, time and again it's been found that leaders tend to be of average, rather than high, intelligence. Leadership comes from social connections, not quality, (as we all know too well) and the intelligence Bell Curve suggests what we know as commonsense - that those with average intelligence have the most peers, the most people who can understand them and, thus, the most allies.

So there is always a significant leadership lag between societies' exemplars and leadership. Consider the times in Salem when witches were being bought. You can be sure that the "intelligentsia" of the time could see witch burning for the cruel absurdity that it was but it always takes time for the cutting edge of thought to filter up to the leadership.

Further, the Murdoch media and others have long worked to damage the credibility of science due to their fossil fuel interests, so the authority of scientists in many parts of the community is not just absent; there is active contempt and hatred of scientists amongst fundamentalist Christians. Richard Dawkins could not be more hated by them if he ate babies. It is also the media that largely drives pre-election "law and order auctions" and pushes for revenge-based punishment.

I would normally suggest that the leadership will catch up but, in a world where there are too many people and unsustainable resource depletion I suspect that the east Asian approach to human life will become ever more prevalent; after all, in terms of population they are decades ahead and, I suspect, a window into the short to medium term future, unfortunately.

[LuckyR]

If free will does not exist then why does society and the justice system persist with punishments base on revenge if a person is no more in control of their actions than they are the colour of their hair?

It seems out justice system is based on morals that are belief based and not science based, which seems to be no better than believing in witchcraft and burning "witches".

So why is there not a big push from the science based community to change out justice system to fit the science? people are being tortured and sent to prison for life when what they did was always going to happen

Of course people should be punished and locked up if they are a threat to the public but we need to get over the hate against people who do bad, because they are not evil, they are just a chemical reaction.

Uummm... if you believe in predetermination, then the advent of a justice system was preordained at the Big Bang. As was your creating this thread (as well as my reply)

Assuming you believe in that sort of thing...

[Quotidian]

If free will does not exist then why does society and the justice system persist with punishments base on revenge if a person is no more in control of their actions than they are the colour of their hair?

It seems out justice system is based on morals that are belief based and not science based, which seems to be no better than believing in witchcraft and burning "witches".

So why is there not a big push from the science based community to change out justice system to fit the science? people are being tortured and sent to prison for life when what they did was always going to happen

Of course people should be punished and locked up if they are a threat to the public but we need to get over the hate against people who do bad, because they are not evil, they are just a chemical reaction.

Science certainly has never proved that there is no free will. You're actually just reciting a popular myth, which originates with the French scientist, Pierre LaPlace, who said:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

The thing is, that was written in 1814! Even if it were true, and it has never really been taken seriously as a theory, it would have been forever torpedoed by Heisenberg's discovery of the uncertainty principle.

So my recommendation is, get over that idea, it is going nowhere.

[Curiouspaul]

If free will does not exist then why does society and the justice system persist with punishments base on revenge if a person is no more in control of their actions than they are the colour of their hair?

It seems out justice system is based on morals that are belief based and not science based, which seems to be no better than believing in witchcraft and burning "witches".

So why is there not a big push from the science based community to change out justice system to fit the science? people are being tortured and sent to prison for life when what they did was always going to happen

Of course people should be punished and locked up if they are a threat to the public but we need to get over the hate against people who do bad, because they are not evil, they are just a chemical reaction.

Science certainly has never proved that there is no free will. You're actually just reciting a popular myth, which originates with the French scientist, Pierre LaPlace, who said:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

The thing is, that was written in 1814! Even if it were true, and it has never really been taken seriously as a theory, it would have been forever torpedoed by Heisenberg's discovery of the uncertainty principle.

So my recommendation is, get over that idea, it is going nowhere.

I never said science has proved there is no will but there is more evidence against free will than for it and I've yet to hear from a prominent physicists who believe in it, so why is out justice system guided by something that is hard to define, has little to know evidence for and is not supported by the majority of scientists and philosophers.

[Dan_1985]

As is said in Buddhism: Illusory beings accrue illusory karma. Cause and effect don't actually exist, but the notion "saves the apparent phenomena".

At some point, in order for society to function, don't we need to collapse the uncertainties behind our theories and just accept an apparent nature of things? If you witness a murder take place, isn't it apparent that the murderer is the one who murdered? That's all that the law needs to be concerned with, as on no other bases can it be claimed that a murder has taken place. And so the punishment fits the crime.

[Quotidian]

What does is matter what 'prominent physicists believe' with respect to anything other than physics? Physics doesn't have anything to do with the subject of free will. Might as well ask them what they think about ornthithology or animal husbandry.

[Curiouspaul]

As is said in Buddhism: Illusory beings accrue illusory karma. Cause and effect don't actually exist, but the notion "saves the apparent phenomena".

At some point, in order for society to function, don't we need to collapse the uncertainties behind our theories and just accept an apparent nature of things? If you witness a murder take place, isn't it apparent that the murderer is the one who murdered? That's all that the law needs to be concerned with, as on no other bases can it be claimed that a murder has taken place. And so the punishment fits the crime.

Depend who it is apparent to.

I'd prefer society to be built from the truth and not what we believe, what illusions nature throws at us.

If the punishment is help the murderer learn from his/her mistake so they are safe to enter society again then fine. But if it's just an act of vengeance then what is the point of that? why would you seek vengeance against a biological robot?

I've always found it funny how people (myself included) get angry with inanimate objects, like kicking a car when it breaks down, as though you expect it to respond to your act of vengeance some how.

[Curiouspaul]

What does is matter what 'prominent physicists believe' with respect to anything other than physics? Physics doesn't have anything to do with the subject of free will. Might as well ask them what they think about ornthithology or animal husbandry.

Well everything starts with physics.

They say free will goes against the laws of physics.


What do you think free will is?

If you are gay can you choose to be straight?

If you're an alcoholic then you don't have the choice to not like beer, but you may believe you have the choice to not drink the beer.

You don't have the choice to not love your family, but you may believe you have the choice to leave your family.

So free will there seems quite restricted - not "free".

But brain scanners have shown that we decide to make a choice (drink the beer) sometimes up to 10 seconds before we become conscious of our choice and make it.

[Wilson]

Of course people should be punished and locked up if they are a threat to the public but we need to get over the hate against people who do bad, because they are not evil, they are just a chemical reaction.

Our hate is also a chemical reaction. Our decision to lock up offenders partially out of vengeance is also a chemical reaction.

You are trying to argue that we shouldn't judge people, since all the decisions that people make are the result of chemical and electrical reactions in their brains. I agree with the premise that at microscopic level we are all just colonies of cells, and our brains are a kind of computer. But why does it follow that that fact means that we shouldn't judge? You seem to be saying that criminals shouldn't be judged, but anyone who wants to punish them should be judged. In fact, you are implying that we have a choice as to our opinions on the subject .. but if we have the power to have opinions, then criminals have the power to decide to offend or not. Can't have one without the other.

The answer, of course, is that for all practical purposes, in every real sense, we do have free will. It is probably true that at the quantum/microscopic level, everything could be predicted if we had a powerful enough computer and all the information as to the states of the neurons. But at the human level, we clearly make decisions all day long. You're simply overthinking it and drawing false conclusions, as so many others here and elsewhere do.

In the real world, we couldn't form civil societies if there weren't consequences for antisocial behavior. A modest degree of vengeance is probably helpful in making our communities safer and more pleasant.

[Sy Borg]

But why does it follow that that fact means that we shouldn't judge? You seem to be saying that criminals shouldn't be judged, but anyone who wants to punish them should be judged.

I think he's saying that none of us need be judged, just that some people need to be isolated for safety's sake.

Judging crims is a chemical visceral response, as you say, but the advantage of being human is we are able to override destructive impulses to some extent for the sake of our best interests. So we can choose anger or we can accept that we are all different and that the law of averages means it's inevitable some people's brains will be wired in a way that leads to antisocial behaviour. Lock 'em away, make us safe. Revenge is not necessary, just deterrence and isolation of dangerous people.

[Wilson]

Greta, yours is the compassionate approach. My belief is that we all have limits to our compassion. If someone was trying to hurt you or yours, I assume that you would feel angry at him, and wish him harm, at least while the assault was going on, and probably after. My own compassion extends only so far; maybe yours is more inclusive. Someone who, for whatever reason, decides to hurt someone else or steal from an innocent person - even if that innocent person is not known to me - that individual is beyond my reach of empathy for the most part and I feel no shame is wishing bad for him or her. I don't want that perp to be beaten or treated cruelly, but I do take a certain pleasure in his suffering through isolation from society. I'm happy that Bernie Madoff and OJ Simpson are living crap lives in jail. Aren't you?

I believe that compassion and empathy are the most beautiful qualities a person can have, but I also believe that there's nothing wrong with setting reasonable limits to that compassion. Too much sympathy for wrongdoers can lead a society to make itself vulnerable. My point is that there's no way to prove logically that universal compassion is best, in an absolute sense, or that vengeance is always bad.

[Supine]

Science certainly has never proved that there is no free will. You're actually just reciting a popular myth, which originates with the French scientist, Pierre LaPlace, who said:

I remember a neuroscientist pointing that out online on a discussion board. It's the prevailing opinion, prevailing hypothesis, but free will among homo sapiens has not been disproved. One might argue--like C.S. Lewis did--that the more intelligent the man the more morally culpable he is. So, when the police in X American city enter a home and stumble upon a child locked in a backroom, thin, short, having been starved by the child's mother and her boyfriend, the two parental units having only a high school education might be argued to have less culpability in their decision making and actions than if they both were Harvard educated and working for prestigious accounting firms.

Varying degrees of culpability does not negate a freedom of your will to do x, y, z thing.

I never said science has proved there is no will but there is more evidence against free will than for it and I've yet to hear from a prominent physicists who believe in it, so why is out justice system guided by something that is hard to define, has little to know evidence for and is not supported by the majority of scientists and philosophers.

Free will is supported by reason. And life experience tends to help nurture reasoning as one ages.

Biological determinism was widely celebrated by Western scientists throughout the early 20th Century. The Americans pretty much taught Nazi Germany its biological determinism through the American Eugenics Movement. Due to WWII and the Nazi enthusiasm for eugenics and killing 6 million Jews biological determinism fell out of favor among biologists. Physicist are not biologists. Chemistry, physics, astronomy are part of the physical sciences. Biology and neurosciences are part of the life sciences. Life and physical sciences are all part of the natural sciences. Natural sciences being differentiated from the social sciences. Anthropology which is the specific study of humans crosses lines between the social and natural sciences. Physical (biological) anthropologist study more of the biological dimension of human beings but that crosses over into behavioral aspects such hunting, cooked meat consumption (growth of the human brains), tool culture and so on.

Today neuroscientists are the ones championing the idea that free will does not exist.

If prisons are used for rehabilitative purposes--rather than merely as means of punishment--then the concept of free will takes on charity were determinism lacks it wholly. For the guy living in a Brazilian favela who stabs several people in a Rio Olympics with the motive of robbing them can in theory change. In determinism the guy--outside of pharmaceutical prescribed drugs or surgical methods--has no way of changing.

I don't know how much you know about contract law but just in that legal field alone you no party could be held liable for dishonesty, fraud, indeed no contract could ever beheld binding if we absolved people based upon they never had a choice freely to make. Currently, in the USA at least, considering degrees of culpability through intellectual capacity and/or educational attainment, some judges have used what is termed "judicial activism" to relieve defendants of responsibility when they are the "little guy" being sued by the big guy corporations (such as "rent-to-own" furnishing, electronics companies).

Judicial activism is controversial itself. However, it is not entirely right to suggest the courts never consider a defendants background or level or capacity of intent to harm or defraud.

But there are universities now giving out dual science and law degrees. UW-Madison being one of them.

law.wisc.edu/news/Articles/UW_Madison_S ... 2011-06-20

UW-Madison Starts New Dual-Degree Program In Neuroscience and Law

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has established an integrated dual-degree program in neuroscience and law that offers students the opportunity to earn a Ph.D. in neuroscience and a J.D. in law.

Despite the national and international interest in activity at the intersection between neuroscience and the law, there have been very few opportunities in the country to educate students in neuroscience and in the law. To address this shortcoming, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has established the integrated program.

"The Program in Neuroscience and Law will train neuroscientists who also are competent in the law and prepare them to address the many important legal, scientific and public policy issues at the intersection of neuroscience and law," says Ronald Kalil, director of the UW-Madison Neuroscience and Public Policy Program, which will administer the new dual-degree option.

To read the full press release, click here.

To read a State Bar of Wisconsin article on the new program, click here.

Submitted by UW Law News on May 6, 2013

This article appears in the categories: Articles

The United States also has something called probation, parole, and deferred prosecution agreement.

I've separately been on both probation and deferred prosecution agreement. The probation came and was required after a short stint in jail. For a misdemeanor.

Speaking of the USA the legal system is made up in three main branches of: (1) armed police. (2) Courts presided over by judges. (3) Jails and prisons staffed by guards--sometimes armed.

Those are the three main branches but there are other sub-branches or groups interacting with those three major branches. They are probation and parole officers and believe it or not social workers who report back to the courts with their typed reports. Psychologists and psychiatrist are contracted at times too and report back to the courts with typed reports, or in some cases provide expert witness testimony on the stand in court.

Truthfully, in the USA most felony crimes, if sentenced to prison, are mainly about punishment. But most crimes in the USA are misdemeanors and those are usually plead out because in misdemeanor cases the defendant is assumed guilty before innocent and to plead innocent is highly likely to be found guilty and as punishment for wasting the courts time they'll give you a stiffer penalty. So, most Americans are advised by their public defender to plead guilty or at least plead no-contest. This is more a bureaucratic aspect of law and the legal system.

-- Updated August 9th, 2016, 2:49 pm to add the following --

Depend who it is apparent to.

Just to point out: the term "apparent" in physics, astronomy, or any natural science basically means "not what is actually but what looks like to as we perceive it." Basically, it's another way of saying, "the appearance of something."

I'd prefer society to be built from the truth and not what we believe, what illusions nature throws at us.

The natural sciences don't really deal with "truths" as much as facts. Humans then subjectively infer from one, more, or a collection of facts.

If the punishment is help the murderer learn from his/her mistake so they are safe to enter society again then fine. But if it's just an act of vengeance then what is the point of that? why would you seek vengeance against a biological robot?

Help learn? Only those under free will can be helped to learn, can strike conversion.

Under determinism there is no choice, albeit, a brain is said to be able to be reprogrammed in its architectural structure as to providing new pathways for thoughts to travel down. In that sense conversion can take place--via reprogramming methods. Those methods might include pain, electric shocks, hard labor etc. to diminish reward functions in the brain when a person does socially or legally unacceptable thing Y.

I've always found it funny how people (myself included) get angry with inanimate objects, like kicking a car when it breaks down, as though you expect it to respond to your act of vengeance some how.

You may not realize this but left-wing, socialist Nazis in Germany might agree with you that humans are like cars, therefore the Nazis set out to produce the best brand of cars on earth through artificial selection of genetic traits and ridding the German national gene pool of "undesirable" genetic traits.

To be fair to the old Nazis of Germany they were more coherent in their views than modern leftists who contradict themselves a million times over in a day.

I'm not a conservative but I don't like some of the incoherent mumbo jumbo that comes out of the left. Just like they fake being pacifist but then are the biggest warhawks that want wage war on most nations of planet earth if they don't bow before their supreme pontifical glory and holiness.

In terms of Black Lives Matter and the once teenage boy who shot at a rival gang member, missing him as he fled, he turned his gun on the guys pregnant female friend who witnesses said begged for her life, but he shot her multiple times. She died her baby was saved by medical professional but due to loss of oxygen from his mother he suffered severe brain damage to be an infant vegetable. So, he had zero choice, zero free will so pontificates the holy left. But why stop with him, why not broaden this zero free will to all of academic life? Why not give out A's to everyone no matter if they get 9 out of 10 questions wrong on a quiz? If one student studies hard six nights out of a week and answers questions correctly, shouldn't the student who parties six night out of the week neglecting his studies, answering questions incorrectly then be given the same high grade as that committed student? We can apply it to professional life too. Make the hard worker do the work of five people but pay him or her the same wage as your employees that don't pull their own weight fully let alone that of a second person.

-- Updated August 9th, 2016, 2:55 pm to add the following --

The caveat I should point out, being a healthy brain is required for free will. The example of tics not being willed freely by the person with the neurological Tourette's Syndrome.

[Belinda]

If free will does not exist then why does society and the justice system persist with punishments base on revenge if a person is no more in control of their actions than they are the colour of their hair?

It seems out justice system is based on morals that are belief based and not science based, which seems to be no better than believing in witchcraft and burning "witches".

So why is there not a big push from the science based community to change out justice system to fit the science? people are being tortured and sent to prison for life when what they did was always going to happen

Of course people should be punished and locked up if they are a threat to the public but we need to get over the hate against people who do bad, because they are not evil, they are just a chemical reaction.

A socialist regarding crimes tends much to believe that people are victims of circumstances soa socialist is not punitive, whereas a Conservative tends much more towards Free Will and personal guilt .

Criminals have to be dealt with, and a socialist would prefer more money and attention to be paid to rehabilitation of criminals and prevention of crime, whereas a Conservative tends to prefer that criminals should be punished whether or not the punishment , typically detention in prison, deters others.

Both left and right wing people believe that personal responsibility is a positive good. Socialist people tend to believe that liberal education tends to increase personal responsibility, whereas a right-wing person, or a Stalinist, tends to believe that personal responsibility comes from underlings doing and believing as they are told by their betters.

I agree that science tends towards left-wing views. Many scientists have to flee for their lives from despotic regimes.

CuriousPaul wrote:

I'd prefer society to be built from the truth and not what we believe, what illusions nature throws at us.

So would all nice people. Unfortunately we have to accept politicians and other assorted elites who are sometimes not very nice people. Democracies allow the electorate to decide who is fit to make laws, and who will make just laws. One disadvantage of democracy is that the electorate contains people who are superstitious or who are scientifically illiterate.

[Felix]

Curiouspaul said: It seems out justice system is based on morals that are belief based and not science based.

What is a "science based" moral? Please give me an example.