Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

[Belindi]

LuckyR wrote:



But choosing is what animals do so there is no such thing as "true choice". However I know what you mean .

1.Let's aside my minor objection. I think what you are calling "true choice" I call "Free Will".True, the capital letters are eccentric but I use those because Free Will was originally a religious doctrine.The religious doctrine of Free Will is needed for the administration of justice. Unless an individual can be blamed he, she, or it cannot be blamed and hence punished . Unless he, she, or it can be blamed and punished there can be no deterrent.

In modern times we know from science that human moral development goes through the stage of obedience through fear of reprisals. Obviously some individuals never progress beyond this stage, never attain the stage of autonomously caring for all others. Political regimes vary between helping all individuals towards moral autonomy , and remaining at the stage of obedience through fear of blame. Maybe you meant "totally eliminate" sociopathy to which I agree.

2. Free Will can't exist because we know people cannot help their involuntary behaviours. We also know that so-called mental or emotional illnesses are caused behaviours i.e. these illnesses are involuntary.
So we know that immoral and/or criminal behaviour is caused by preceding and contemporary events. Unless a behaviour is involuntary e.g. digestion , or so-so such as tardive dyskinaesia, the behaviour is voluntary. It's unsafe to claim volition (choosing)is proof of the existence of Free Will, as there are causes of voluntary behaviours . These are causes that are outwith the subject's control such as early years training and education, material poverty, emotional poverty, and subsequent life events that impact on learning. Willed behaviour is willed due to predisposing or contemporaneous causes and even laws of nature.There is no minute gap in the vast chaos of events where ghostly Free Will can exist and exert power.

A couple of things:

You cite the role of science in understanding the influence of known factors on behavior, which is true... for groups, not for individuals.

Bottom line, are folks (criminally) responsible for their actions? I am asking philosophically, not legally.

What I cited was actually findings of science which are true for individuals. An individual child may be examined by an educational psychologist who finds her lack of progress in the school system is due to her mother's alcoholism while pregnant; plus the unkindness of parents ;plus poor provision for homework in an overcrowded slum.There's nothing to be discovered that the individual child is responsible for and plenty of causes for her behaviours none of which are attributable to her putative 'Free Will'. A causally -linked narrative may be told about any criminal, hero, or saint.

Your second question does not make enough sense for me to answer it. I'd rather you had asked "Bottom line, ought folks to be held to be (criminally) responsible for their actions?"Sadly they ought to be held to be criminally responsible: social control is good: we seem to be unable to get rid of the causes of crime .

Getting rid of the causes of crime is causally linked to reduction of criminality in individuals and in a society.
That claim applies to a liberal democracy. The American prison system shows that the USA is not a liberal democracy. I hope that President Biden will get rid of many causes of crime.

Well the reason I mentioned groups and not individuals is that while psychologist A can evaluate a child and list maternal alcoholism, psychologist B might cite lead paint on the walls of the apartment. Who's correct? No one knows. That is not science determining the cause, that is science describing what is. However if you repeat the exercise thousands of times a statistician can accurately tell you the relative influence of alcoholism vs lead pain vs genetics for the group.

I agree with you that folks ought to be criminally responsible. As we all know no one can eliminate sociopathy, which is a major contributor to criminal behavior.

I believe social sciences are different from natural sciences because it's not ethically possible to design social science experiments followed by results with high statistical significance, so I accept social science findings have to rely on statistics alone , and that this means in social science attribution of causes to effects is description not explanation.

Can sociopathy of population or individual not be alleviated by removing the social/environmental causes of it? For instance an adult whose moral development is habitually stuck at the stage of obedience can be taught how to move on to personal autonomy. If you mean totally eliminate then I agree that isn't possible.

[Sculptor1]

LuckyR wrote:



But choosing is what animals do so there is no such thing as "true choice". However I know what you mean .

1.Let's aside my minor objection. I think what you are calling "true choice" I call "Free Will".True, the capital letters are eccentric but I use those because Free Will was originally a religious doctrine.The religious doctrine of Free Will is needed for the administration of justice. Unless an individual can be blamed he, she, or it cannot be blamed and hence punished . Unless he, she, or it can be blamed and punished there can be no deterrent.

In modern times we know from science that human moral development goes through the stage of obedience through fear of reprisals. Obviously some individuals never progress beyond this stage, never attain the stage of autonomously caring for all others. Political regimes vary between helping all individuals towards moral autonomy , and remaining at the stage of obedience through fear of blame.

2. Free Will can't exist because we know people cannot help their involuntary behaviours. We also know that so-called mental or emotional illnesses are caused behaviours i.e. these illnesses are involuntary.
So we know that immoral and/or criminal behaviour is caused by preceding and contemporary events. Unless a behaviour is involuntary e.g. digestion , or so-so such as tardive dyskinaesia, the behaviour is voluntary. It's unsafe to claim volition (choosing)is proof of the existence of Free Will, as there are causes of voluntary behaviours . These are causes that are outwith the subject's control such as early years training and education, material poverty, emotional poverty, and subsequent life events that impact on learning. Willed behaviour is willed due to predisposing or contemporaneous causes and even laws of nature.There is no minute gap in the vast chaos of events where ghostly Free Will can exist and exert power.

A couple of things:

You cite the role of science in understanding the influence of known factors on behavior, which is true... for groups, not for individuals.

Bottom line, are folks (criminally) responsible for their actions? I am asking philosophically, not legally.

I've never understood the objection about responsibility.
You can happily eject free will and still prosecute and punish, for the simply reason that the mechanisms of the law are designed to change behaviour. That is why prisons were called "correctional" since it was thought that incarceration would CAUSE a change in behaviour.
When you punish a person, you are punishing them for who they are, and not so much what they have done.
Free will or determinism, the mind makes a choice. A mind that does not ignore the consequences, does not do the crime.
If the world were really a free will world then punishment would not make a difference; it would be useless if, despite the threat of punishment people were free to commit crime.
Personally I think that the penal system would work much better if policy makers were determinists since they would be likely to make more efforts to rehabilitate.
Perhaps the reason why American prisons are the worst in the western world is because the US seems to fetishise free will and think that nothing good can every come of a person who freely choose to commit crime.
The Scandinavian model works much better because prisons are more than just a cage.

You accurately point out one true thing: the US penal system is an extremely easy punching bag to hit.

Scandinavian prisons have the advantage of being full of scandanavians. Apples and oranges.

That is not valid.
The penal system refelects the society. All you are saying is that the US is dredful on several countts
It's a silly excuse to pretend the system cannot change.
Maybe of the US were not so cavalier in the treament of its citizens; maybe if the US supported its people; rather than treat them like slaves they would incarcerate fewer.
Mybe if the US privatised less, and took responsibility for what it does to its own people, and rather than treat them like yet another way to make money off them whilst business looted the public purse..
None of which is relavant to the point I was making.
The fact is that rehabiliatative and corectional prisons have lower residivism rates. That goes for any country.

I whole-heartedly agree with you that we all and for the purposes of this thread, criminals (or potential criminals) make choices, thus I believe in responsibility and punishment.

Are you willing to accept that this is govererned by circumstances? Inequality tends to make criminality?

I am glad to hear you believe in choices as well as changing future behavior since that too involves decision making (choice).

I believe all choices are determined.
And that is why I think prisons need to be more than cages designed for private enterprise to make money by looting the public purse.

[LuckyR]

A couple of things:

You cite the role of science in understanding the influence of known factors on behavior, which is true... for groups, not for individuals.

Bottom line, are folks (criminally) responsible for their actions? I am asking philosophically, not legally.

I've never understood the objection about responsibility.
You can happily eject free will and still prosecute and punish, for the simply reason that the mechanisms of the law are designed to change behaviour. That is why prisons were called "correctional" since it was thought that incarceration would CAUSE a change in behaviour.
When you punish a person, you are punishing them for who they are, and not so much what they have done.
Free will or determinism, the mind makes a choice. A mind that does not ignore the consequences, does not do the crime.
If the world were really a free will world then punishment would not make a difference; it would be useless if, despite the threat of punishment people were free to commit crime.
Personally I think that the penal system would work much better if policy makers were determinists since they would be likely to make more efforts to rehabilitate.
Perhaps the reason why American prisons are the worst in the western world is because the US seems to fetishise free will and think that nothing good can every come of a person who freely choose to commit crime.
The Scandinavian model works much better because prisons are more than just a cage.

You accurately point out one true thing: the US penal system is an extremely easy punching bag to hit.

Scandinavian prisons have the advantage of being full of scandanavians. Apples and oranges.

That is not valid.
The penal system refelects the society. All you are saying is that the US is dredful on several countts
It's a silly excuse to pretend the system cannot change.
Maybe of the US were not so cavalier in the treament of its citizens; maybe if the US supported its people; rather than treat them like slaves they would incarcerate fewer.
Mybe if the US privatised less, and took responsibility for what it does to its own people, and rather than treat them like yet another way to make money off them whilst business looted the public purse..
None of which is relavant to the point I was making.
The fact is that rehabiliatative and corectional prisons have lower residivism rates. That goes for any country.

I whole-heartedly agree with you that we all and for the purposes of this thread, criminals (or potential criminals) make choices, thus I believe in responsibility and punishment.

Are you willing to accept that this is govererned by circumstances? Inequality tends to make criminality?

I am glad to hear you believe in choices as well as changing future behavior since that too involves decision making (choice).

I believe all choices are determined.
And that is why I think prisons need to be more than cages designed for private enterprise to make money by looting the public purse.

Well it depends how far upstream you want to start. I guarantee that if you took the US prison population and transferred them to Sweden for incarceration, what resulted would be way worse than Swedish prisons are today.

OTOH if you propose taking US babies destined to be incarcerated and brought them up in Sweden then incarcerated them in a Swedish prison if they broke the law, then I would agree with you. However, at that point they're Swedish which brings me to my original point.

[Belindi]

Sculptor wrote:

Personally I think that the penal system would work much better if policy makers were determinists since they would be likely to make more efforts to rehabilitate.
Perhaps the reason why American prisons are the worst in the western world is because the US seems to fetishise free will and think that nothing good can every come of a person who freely choose to commit crime.

Largely, I agree.

But policy makers can't be thorough-going determinists because only a policy maker who knows all the causes of a crime can avoid blaming the criminal (as if the criminal possessed some mysterious essence that originated the crime).It is an anomaly that can be ameliorated by removing the visible causes of crimes; and some systems are better at this than others.

I suspect it is a popular American** belief that individualism includes origination. 'Freely' is imprecise and emotive. Of course we all want to be free and freedom is a good thing! But origination is not freedom: freedom is actually freedom as related to causal restrictions.One example of real freedom is how wheels can turn only where there is friction. Another example of real freedom is animals' anatomical joints where effective movement is possible only where bones restrict some movement.


**not only American. It' s typical of the political right to believe individuals originate their own actions. This is an easy(if simplistic) means of social control.

[Terrapin Station]

Determinism does not imply prediction.
The FreeWill debate boils down to "is nature an ordered affair or not?" If nature is an ordered affair then it is impossible for there to be any uncaused event such as a so-called Freewill event. You may as well believe in ghosts as believe in uncaused events.

And you might as well believe in God as believe that every event is caused, because that's purely a faith-based belief.

With free will, it's not so much that there would be uncaused events (although that's certainly possible in general), but that there's not only one possible consequent event after an immediately preceding antecedent event. In other words, directly after some event, A, either B or C are possible, where B and C are incompatible, with no intervening events or differences in A. Volition could bias the probability of one possibility over other possibilities until it biases one completely (100% probability) and thus causes that event rather than alternatives.

So in other words, determinism is only the case if, consequent to some state of affairs A, there's only one immediately subsequent state of affairs which has a 100% probability of occurring, and no other state of affairs has a non-zero probability of occurring.

If following some state of affairs, A, immediately subsequent state of affairs B has a 99.9 % probability of occurring, while C has a 0.1% probability of occurring, then determinism isn't the case.

If the second scenario is sometimes how the world works, then re free will, we might be able to volitionally bias the probabilities of events that initially have some non-zero, non-100% probability of occurring, until eventually only one has a 100% probability of occurring via our actions.

That has nothing to do with the willed event not being caused. But it's also not deterministic.

[Sculptor1]

I've never understood the objection about responsibility.
You can happily eject free will and still prosecute and punish, for the simply reason that the mechanisms of the law are designed to change behaviour. That is why prisons were called "correctional" since it was thought that incarceration would CAUSE a change in behaviour.
When you punish a person, you are punishing them for who they are, and not so much what they have done.
Free will or determinism, the mind makes a choice. A mind that does not ignore the consequences, does not do the crime.
If the world were really a free will world then punishment would not make a difference; it would be useless if, despite the threat of punishment people were free to commit crime.
Personally I think that the penal system would work much better if policy makers were determinists since they would be likely to make more efforts to rehabilitate.
Perhaps the reason why American prisons are the worst in the western world is because the US seems to fetishise free will and think that nothing good can every come of a person who freely choose to commit crime.
The Scandinavian model works much better because prisons are more than just a cage.

You accurately point out one true thing: the US penal system is an extremely easy punching bag to hit.

Scandinavian prisons have the advantage of being full of scandanavians. Apples and oranges.

That is not valid.
The penal system refelects the society. All you are saying is that the US is dredful on several countts
It's a silly excuse to pretend the system cannot change.
Maybe of the US were not so cavalier in the treament of its citizens; maybe if the US supported its people; rather than treat them like slaves they would incarcerate fewer.
Mybe if the US privatised less, and took responsibility for what it does to its own people, and rather than treat them like yet another way to make money off them whilst business looted the public purse..
None of which is relavant to the point I was making.
The fact is that rehabiliatative and corectional prisons have lower residivism rates. That goes for any country.

I whole-heartedly agree with you that we all and for the purposes of this thread, criminals (or potential criminals) make choices, thus I believe in responsibility and punishment.

Are you willing to accept that this is govererned by circumstances? Inequality tends to make criminality?

I am glad to hear you believe in choices as well as changing future behavior since that too involves decision making (choice).

I believe all choices are determined.
And that is why I think prisons need to be more than cages designed for private enterprise to make money by looting the public purse.

Well it depends how far upstream you want to start. I guarantee that if you took the US prison population and transferred them to Sweden for incarceration, what resulted would be way worse than Swedish prisons are today.

OTOH if you propose taking US babies destined to be incarcerated and brought them up in Sweden then incarcerated them in a Swedish prison if they broke the law, then I would agree with you. However, at that point they're Swedish which brings me to my original point.

Did you have an original point? Babies are generally the product of their treatment. I do not think US babies are desitined to be criminals, unless you are saying that Americans have a higher than usual percentage of psychopaths?
I think there is a fundemental mistake you are making. First timers in prison are not unredeemable. You could easily transform the US penal system. It would have massive benefits for society. Once they has been put in a cage and had to fend for themselves in a US prison then I think it might be too late.
American is unique for having more prisoners that anywhere on earth and the costs for incarceration are as high or higher than anywhere else - something is going wrong. Privatisation is one part of the problem.

[Belindi]

Terrapin Station wrote:

And you might as well believe in God as believe that every event is caused, because that's purely a faith-based belief.

It is not! It is based on a theory of existence which is reasoned metaphysics, not blind faith.

For example, popular belief in existence of God is based on theistic cartesianism, whether or not believers know the terminology or the complex reasoning.

[Belindi]

Determinism does not imply prediction.
The FreeWill debate boils down to "is nature an ordered affair or not?" If nature is an ordered affair then it is impossible for there to be any uncaused event such as a so-called Freewill event. You may as well believe in ghosts as believe in uncaused events.

And you might as well believe in God as believe that every event is caused, because that's purely a faith-based belief.

With free will, it's not so much that there would be uncaused events (although that's certainly possible in general), but that there's not only one possible consequent event after an immediately preceding antecedent event. In other words, directly after some event, A, either B or C are possible, where B and C are incompatible, with no intervening events or differences in A. Volition could bias the probability of one possibility over other possibilities until it biases one completely (100% probability) and thus causes that event rather than alternatives.

So in other words, determinism is only the case if, consequent to some state of affairs A, there's only one immediately subsequent state of affairs which has a 100% probability of occurring, and no other state of affairs has a non-zero probability of occurring.

If following some state of affairs, A, immediately subsequent state of affairs B has a 99.9 % probability of occurring, while C has a 0.1% probability of occurring, then determinism isn't the case.

If the second scenario is sometimes how the world works, then re free will, we might be able to volitionally bias the probabilities of events that initially have some non-zero, non-100% probability of occurring, until eventually only one has a 100% probability of occurring via our actions.

That has nothing to do with the willed event not being caused. But it's also not deterministic.

But one event has a enormous , infinite, complex of effects.You can design an experiment where effects are very tightly controlled but real life is not a scientific experiment.It is chaotic.

Statistical probability is a means of predicting that is better than common sense.However statistical probability is still prediction: determinism does not imply prediction, except of course for God Who knows all.

Volition is a cause that is firmly linked to the material world of brains and physical environments.Only if your theory is cartesian can you believe volition is limited to minds.

[Belindi]

Sculptor wrote:

You could easily transform the US penal system.

Can the US do without the cheap labour provided by prisoners?

[Terrapin Station]

I don't quite understand how any of this has anything to do with my comment, really. Start with this:

But one event has a enormous , infinite, complex of effects.

What do you see that as countering re my comment?

[LuckyR]

You accurately point out one true thing: the US penal system is an extremely easy punching bag to hit.

Scandinavian prisons have the advantage of being full of scandanavians. Apples and oranges.

That is not valid.
The penal system refelects the society. All you are saying is that the US is dredful on several countts
It's a silly excuse to pretend the system cannot change.
Maybe of the US were not so cavalier in the treament of its citizens; maybe if the US supported its people; rather than treat them like slaves they would incarcerate fewer.
Mybe if the US privatised less, and took responsibility for what it does to its own people, and rather than treat them like yet another way to make money off them whilst business looted the public purse..
None of which is relavant to the point I was making.
The fact is that rehabiliatative and corectional prisons have lower residivism rates. That goes for any country.

I whole-heartedly agree with you that we all and for the purposes of this thread, criminals (or potential criminals) make choices, thus I believe in responsibility and punishment.

Are you willing to accept that this is govererned by circumstances? Inequality tends to make criminality?

I am glad to hear you believe in choices as well as changing future behavior since that too involves decision making (choice).

I believe all choices are determined.
And that is why I think prisons need to be more than cages designed for private enterprise to make money by looting the public purse.

Well it depends how far upstream you want to start. I guarantee that if you took the US prison population and transferred them to Sweden for incarceration, what resulted would be way worse than Swedish prisons are today.

OTOH if you propose taking US babies destined to be incarcerated and brought them up in Sweden then incarcerated them in a Swedish prison if they broke the law, then I would agree with you. However, at that point they're Swedish which brings me to my original point.

Did you have an original point? Babies are generally the product of their treatment. I do not think US babies are desitined to be criminals, unless you are saying that Americans have a higher than usual percentage of psychopaths?
I think there is a fundemental mistake you are making. First timers in prison are not unredeemable. You could easily transform the US penal system. It would have massive benefits for society. Once they has been put in a cage and had to fend for themselves in a US prison then I think it might be too late.
American is unique for having more prisoners that anywhere on earth and the costs for incarceration are as high or higher than anywhere else - something is going wrong. Privatisation is one part of the problem.

Privatisation is a small part of the problem.

My point is that at this moment the American prison population consists of a number of very bad individuals. You can try to describe how they got that way and I'm not saying you're wrong, but the fact remains that putting those individuals in a Scandinavian prison system will not change who they are and what they do. It might actually put the Scandinavian guards at some risk.

However as a thought experiment (not an actual viable plan) if you could draw a line in the sand and decide that from now on, future first time US prisoners are going to be incarcerated in a Scandinavian system, that would have some improvements with less increased risk (though it would involve some increased risk, since first time US prisoners are a worse lot than average than a Swedish first time offender).

I was not saying that Americans in infancy are more prone to criminal behavior, in fact my point was the opposite, that growing up in the US, regardless of genetics, on average produces criminals who are more "hardened". For a similar reason that you cite for US prisons turning out more hardened criminals.

[Belindi]

I don't quite understand how any of this has anything to do with my comment, really. Start with this:

But one event has a enormous , infinite, complex of effects.

What do you see that as countering re my comment?

Because your comment partly seemed to be that each event had only one consequent effect ,in a causal chain.

but that there's not only one possible consequent event after an immediately preceding antecedent event.

Sorry I misread it. I missed the "not".

[Sculptor1]

That is not valid.
The penal system refelects the society. All you are saying is that the US is dredful on several countts
It's a silly excuse to pretend the system cannot change.
Maybe of the US were not so cavalier in the treament of its citizens; maybe if the US supported its people; rather than treat them like slaves they would incarcerate fewer.
Mybe if the US privatised less, and took responsibility for what it does to its own people, and rather than treat them like yet another way to make money off them whilst business looted the public purse..
None of which is relavant to the point I was making.
The fact is that rehabiliatative and corectional prisons have lower residivism rates. That goes for any country.

Are you willing to accept that this is govererned by circumstances? Inequality tends to make criminality?


I believe all choices are determined.
And that is why I think prisons need to be more than cages designed for private enterprise to make money by looting the public purse.

Well it depends how far upstream you want to start. I guarantee that if you took the US prison population and transferred them to Sweden for incarceration, what resulted would be way worse than Swedish prisons are today.

OTOH if you propose taking US babies destined to be incarcerated and brought them up in Sweden then incarcerated them in a Swedish prison if they broke the law, then I would agree with you. However, at that point they're Swedish which brings me to my original point.

Did you have an original point? Babies are generally the product of their treatment. I do not think US babies are desitined to be criminals, unless you are saying that Americans have a higher than usual percentage of psychopaths?
I think there is a fundemental mistake you are making. First timers in prison are not unredeemable. You could easily transform the US penal system. It would have massive benefits for society. Once they has been put in a cage and had to fend for themselves in a US prison then I think it might be too late.
American is unique for having more prisoners that anywhere on earth and the costs for incarceration are as high or higher than anywhere else - something is going wrong. Privatisation is one part of the problem.

Privatisation is a small part of the problem.

My point is that at this moment the American prison population consists of a number of very bad individuals.
You can try to describe how they got that way and I'm not saying you're wrong, but the fact remains that putting those individuals in a Scandinavian prison system will not change who they are and what they do. It might actually put the Scandinavian guards at some risk.

THe media only reports on the psychos, mobsters, and serial killers - I doubt and they are easy to spot and not likley to respond to rehab in any event. Percetpions are screwed.
The vast majority of inmates are just ordinary people; great candidates for improvement.
Privatisation means minimal provision for the maximum amount of money.
You can't expect a prisoner to come out a better person when they are just seen as cash cows. It works well for business if they return to prison so there is ZERO incentive to help.

However as a thought experiment (not an actual viable plan) if you could draw a line in the sand and decide that from now on, future first time US prisoners are going to be incarcerated in a Scandinavian system, that would have some improvements with less increased risk (though it would involve some increased risk, since first time US prisoners are a worse lot than average than a Swedish first time offender).

I was not saying that Americans in infancy are more prone to criminal behavior, in fact my point was the opposite, that growing up in the US, regardless of genetics, on average produces criminals who are more "hardened". For a similar reason that you cite for US prisons turning out more hardened criminals.

I'm not sure you can divide the two. It may well be that the US, being a country whose ancestors were fleeing might well have a higher proportion of psychopaths. IN the 17thC- 19thC is you were a criminal in Europe on the run, the first place you would think of going would be the USA. IN that way, although most would be law abiding, the rate of criminality would be higher. So to the extent criminality is inheritable - or at least the traits that might lead to it is inheritable, would result in further generations.
We know that cultural criminality such as the Mafia and the Tongs did translate well to the US.

[Terrapin Station]

Because your comment partly seemed to be that each event had only one consequent effect ,in a causal chain.

Ah, thanks. The idea there is rather just to make the simplest distinction between determinism and (ontological) freedom, to make the cleavage between the concepts clear.

[Gertie]

Arjand

The basis for the growing influence of psychiatry in the criminal justice system is the idea that there is no free will. This makes it an interesting case for philosophical consideration (i.e. to watch real world implications of a deterministic perspective on reality).

No it isn't.

Forensic psychiatry has no philosophical position on determinism and free will. In a courtroom its purpose can vary, from helping a judge to assess whether someone is fit to stand trial at a particular time (do they understand what's going on, can they contribute to their own defence), to helping a jury assess whether a mental health issue might have affected their ability to know right from or wrong, or the reason for committing the crime in relation to the criminal definition of 'insanity'. And to provide treatment to offenders in prisons and psychiatric facilities, with the intention of helping them as patients, and preventing further offending.

If you want to make a philosophical argument about determinism or free will, go ahead. You can then state what implications you think your position might have for psychiatry.