Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by psyreporter »

In the Netherlands I have invested in reporting about psychiatry from a critical outsider's perspective (non expert, simply theory based and no links with business, religion or politics).

Hundreds of honest professors and scholars were raising the alarm about practices within psychiatry. One aspect that appeared to give psychiatry and edge was their increasing role in the criminal justice system since it enabled them to scare people away.

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).

Selective prosecution on the basis of a deterministic view

In the Netherlands and Belgium (Europe) people can be prosecuted differently on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis. When given the "TBS" measure (forensic psychiatric imprisonment), criminals can be imprisoned for life and their release is completely dependent on the opinion of a psychiatrist.

Psychiatry has a rapidly growing influence in criminal prosecution. There is a growing movement that believes that human behaviour can be reduced to accidental chemistry in the brains and that there is no free will or guilt. According to this movement, criminal law should ideally be replaced by psychiatric treatment and preventive psychiatric measures.

An example of a tactic that they use. Prominent professors in the Netherlands have proposed to replace criminal prosecution for yong adults (<21 y/o) in which they argue that young criminals should not be punished but instead be transferred to the care of forensic psychiatry. The idea: "The criminals are not yet fully grown mentally and deserve psychiatric help.".

Psychiatry (and Big Pharma with it) stands to win a trillion dollar business. It is therefore interesting the explore the validity of the ideas that allow psychiatry to grow within the criminal justice system.

The Human Rights Counsel of the United Nations has declared selective criminal prosecution on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis a form of discrimination which makes it a contentious practice.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights accepted our demand put forth in our statutes article 2.(B) h. to abolich the UN resolution 46/119 of December 17, 1991 on the treatment of “mental patients”: In a report to the General assembly of UN of “on enhancing awareness and understanding of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” the High Commissioner definitly states, that
  • the Insanity defense “must be abolished” (see Article 47 below)
  • and that the “Convention radically departs ” from the UN resolution …on treatment of “mental patients” (see Article 48 below)
  • that all mental health laws using the pretext “as the likelihood of them posing a danger to themselves or others” “must be abolished” (see Article 49 below)
“47. In the area of criminal law, recognition of the legal capacity of persons with disabilities requires abolishing a defence based on the negation of criminal responsibility because of the existence of a mental or intellectual disability.41
Psychiatric diagnoses are demonstrably controversial. It leads to a situation of arbitrariness that authoritative lawyers in the Netherlands have been resisting for years with, among other things, a boycott of the psychiatric "TBS" measure (forensic psychiatric imprisonment).

Psychiatry's influence leads to absurd situations in which dozens of psychiatrists are debating in the media whether a perpetrator is diagnosed with schizophrenia or not.

An example case is that of the Belgian child murderer Kim de G. in which case 12 psychiatrists ultimately made conflicting diagnoses, with one psychiatrist boldly stating that Kim de G. was "a healthy boy" and that his mother should seek help herself if she believed that her boy was ill.

Also in a Dutch case nicknamed "Bijenkorf mother case" the arbitrariness became visible, in which the mother who killed her child by throwing her of the balustrade in a shopping mall was diagnosed with a 'one-off psychosis' back in time so that she received no punishment and no psychiatric treatment, and was simply released after the crime. The OM (public prosecutor) spoke of a "defective psychiatric examination".

The German postman Gert Postel, after a disastrous treatment of his mother, wanted to show that psychiatry is a scam and successfully infiltrated the forensic psychiatric establishment and was almost appointed professor of forensic psychiatry and director of a forensic clinic using self-made diagnoses.
"Even a performing monkey can become a psychiatrist!"

Postel: "In psychiatry one can explain everything, but then everything in a plausible way: as a psychiatrist you can claim the opposite, but also the opposite of the opposite. Those who master the psychiatric vocabulary, can endlessly continue to debit nonsense and thereby pack graduates. "

Postel: "It is a matter of psychiatric speech acrobatics and a little staging." Postel: "I thought to myself: who is the scammer here: they or me?" [More]

Source: Skepsis.nl (skeptic magazine): Postman becomes a court psychiatrist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gert_Postel
Questioning the end result

Essentially, the "wet finger" of a psychiatrist determines whether a person can be jailed for life while they can also release convicts with a life sentence. At question is what the effect would be of such a practice on individual criminals, and on society.

An example case to get an insight is the story of a 14-year-old boy from The Hague, the Netherlands who, in a quarrel with peers, threatened them with a pocket knife. He was sentenced with youth TBS (forensic psychiatric imprisonment) and on his 18th birthday he had to "pray" to be free again (no sight on a date for release, his life essentially in the hands of arbitrariness of psychiatrists).

In the meantime, life-long convicts have the prospect of being released through TBS. An example is a mass murderer who in 2009, despite an imposed life sentence, was released for years and had founded a family through psychiatric leave.

A TV report by crime reporter Peter R. de Vries regarding child murderer Koos H. who was sentenced to life imprisonment and tried to "silently return to society" through TBS, also revealed the situation.

Loss of basic human respect before a crime is committed

The influence of psychiatry within the legal system logically has the effect that people have already lost the basic respect as a human being before they have committed a crime, with as a result that they will commit a crime faster. The basic respect that people share is an emotional threshold that ensures that someone has something to lose and that encourages humanity.

Oxford: Small risk of violence in schizophrenia

A large study by the University of Oxford into the link between the diagnosis of schizophrenia and criminal behavior among 96,000 people has shown that the risk of violent crimes is barely 1.2x as high compared to the "normal" population. This means that there is no scientific basis for selective prosecution of people on the basis of a psychiatric diagnosis. The risk of crime is almost the same for "normal" people.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2009-05-20-sma ... e-involved

Many people with severe mental problems are good-natured people who would sooner harm themselves than others.

It may be something else that makes someone a good-natured and sincere person, and perhaps the only way to ensure that people do not want to commit crimes is to lead by example.

In Russia they have a saying that is applicable: "The fish rots from the top down". By that they mean that if the government / legal system is corrupt, then everyone will be corrupted.

In my opinion it is impossible that the human mind is the result of accidental chemistry because of the logic that the physical cannot be the origin of itself. That would mean that the idea that man is a meaningless accidental chemical process that psychiatry can master as a science is absurd.

The questions:

1) Is the Presumption of innocence essential? If so, why?

2) Is it just to exclude a group of people from the Presumption of innocence?

3) Considering the successful growth of psychiatry within the criminal justice system, does it imply anything about the validity of the idea that there is no Free Will? (i.e. did it result in a confirmation of the validity of a deterministic view on reality?)
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by LuckyR »

Sorry to hear about this state of affairs. Sounds like some greedy Psych folks hooked up with some overly ambitious politicians. Not a good combo.

This sort of thing makes some superficial sense but has not practical value based on a few obvious realities, that have somehow escaped the minds of various northern European decision makers. Namely, that philosophy and psychology are both soft sciences with quite low reproducibility rates. Nowhere near high enough to be used in their realms of human behavior. That is, no one can reliably know enough of the potential variables to speak confidently on the "whys" of this experiment on determinism. Coupled with the inability of the Psych folks to treat behavioral problems, makes the situation you describe a double loser: Don't reliably know why a perp did the crime and can't reliably do anything about it even if you did.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by psyreporter »

I noticed the following on Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews:
Free Will Skepticism in Law and Society: Challenging Retributive Justice.

Elizabeth Shaw, Derk Pereboom, and Gregg D. Caruso have compiled a volume that centralizes a question of great philosophical and practical importance -- what is the relationship between skeptical views about free will and criminal punishment? It provides an excellent new resource for anyone who finds some variety of free will skepticism appealing (or troubling), and thus feels a looming threat to retributive justification for our modern criminal justice system.

...

While there are a variety of ways that we might understand the motivation for free will skepticism and its ultimate scope, the majority of contributors here accept something akin to Pereboom's version. For those unfamiliar with the position, it is a relatively cautious variety of skepticism. According to Pereboom, the troubles for traditional success theories of free will and moral responsibility suggest that, at best, we have no good reason to think that we ever have the kind of freedom needed to make us morally responsible and deserving of praise and blame in the basic (non-consequentialist) sense. In other words, the assumption that we sometimes genuinely deserve backward-looking, retributive blame for our actions is unfounded. And, in light of the significant harms associated with this kind of blame and its attendant practices (perhaps foremost among them, punishment) we ought to take seriously the skeptical position that they are in fact never truly deserved.
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/free-will-skep ... e-justice/

Book: Cambridge University Press, 2019
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/fr ... AF7E270760

It appears to be something actual in the USA and the UK as well.

Considering the trillion USD business potential involved when the criminal justice system is replaced by preventative measures (e.g. Big Pharma tied psychiatric care), it may be important to notice that fact when considering arguments by Free Will Skepticists. Are their intentions honest or may there be financial motives at play, backed by a contentious science of which it can be stated that it attempts to maintain itself against reason?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by psyreporter »

LuckyR wrote: March 4th, 2020, 5:36 pm Sorry to hear about this state of affairs. Sounds like some greedy Psych folks hooked up with some overly ambitious politicians. Not a good combo.

This sort of thing makes some superficial sense but has not practical value based on a few obvious realities, that have somehow escaped the minds of various northern European decision makers. Namely, that philosophy and psychology are both soft sciences with quite low reproducibility rates. Nowhere near high enough to be used in their realms of human behavior. That is, no one can reliably know enough of the potential variables to speak confidently on the "whys" of this experiment on determinism. Coupled with the inability of the Psych folks to treat behavioral problems, makes the situation you describe a double loser: Don't reliably know why a perp did the crime and can't reliably do anything about it even if you did.
Psychiatry is different from psychology in that it presupposes that it is (or will become) an objective science that will master the human mind.

Law makers and society with them just need to buy in to the claims provided by prominent professors and lobbyists. This may explain the success of psychiatry to grow rapidly on the basis of Free Will Skepticism.

The article on Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews provides example reasoning:
With a clearer picture of the dark side of the belief in free will in hand, Caruso then defends a public-health quarantine model of criminal justice. This model places heavy emphasis on how inequities such as poverty, pre-existing medical conditions, mental illness, educational inequalities, and environmental health can causally contribute to criminal behavior. Identifying these inequities suggests a variety of potential opportunities for crime prevention
If a law maker is provided with the idea that crime can be prevented, and when that idea is substantiated and promoted by a science-field in general, there appears to be little argumentative ability to resist a proposition to replace the criminal justice system with preventative measures.

Despite the financial interests of Big Law, Big Pharma + psychiatry + the idea of the ability to prevent crime may be able to gain the upper hand. There is simply much more money involved for them and they can paint a picture of a better world.

As it appears, it will come down to the ability to defend free will. And if that defense is impossible (for an individual) they will likely simply put their trust in a science-field. It is a non-risk choice versus taking responsibility for defending free will. It may explain why psychiatry has been winning so easily, while from the outlook, Free Will Skepticism may appear questionable.

Why would one want to defend free will? If it cannot be said to be objective, why would ones belief in free will weigh more than the opinion of a science in general?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by chewybrian »

arjand wrote: March 5th, 2020, 3:56 am Why would one want to defend free will? If it cannot be said to be objective, why would ones belief in free will weigh more than the opinion of a science in general?
Because all experience and human existence is subjective. 'Objective' is an opinion. What we label 'facts' are merely opinions with broad agreement, and sometimes with justification for the agreement. But, the ability to choose is an undeniable component of everyone's subjective reality. It is as fundamental as sight or hearing or hunger. We are "condemned to be free", and the pull or influence of external causes does not fully negate this freedom. If you accept as fact that it does, then your life loses all meaning. You should kill yourself as soon as you are convinced you can never really choose. Nobody does (for this reason), because nobody is convinced that they can never alter their situation by choosing. The determinist wishes to avoid responsibility for their own choices, or to appear wise for accepting determinism, yet none of them really believes.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: March 4th, 2020, 6:48 am The basis for the growing influence of psychiatry in the criminal justice system is the idea that there is no free will.
Say what?
There is a growing movement that believes that human behaviour can be reduced to accidental chemistry in the brains and that there is no free will or guilt. According to this movement, criminal law should ideally be replaced by psychiatric treatment and preventive psychiatric measures.
If there's no free will, then the notion of "preventative psychiatric measures" doesn't make sense, since it seems to suggest that we can intentionally change what will obtain.
"The criminals are not yet fully grown mentally and deserve psychiatric help.".
That doesn't imply that they do not believe that free will obtains. (Unless you're withholding statements to that effect.)
The questions:

1) Is the Presumption of innocence essential? If so, why?
In my opinion, yes. It's ridiculous to presume that someone is guilty and then make then "prove their innocence." If we're going to claim that someone did something, then we'd better have good evidence that they did it, and people simply claiming that they did it shouldn't be good enough evidence, by the way.
2) Is it just to exclude a group of people from the Presumption of innocence?
Not in my view.
3) Considering the successful growth of psychiatry within the criminal justice system, does it imply anything about the validity of the idea that there is no Free Will? (i.e. did it result in a confirmation of the validity of a deterministic view on reality?)
No, that has nothing to do with the notion of free will.

It's also not anything new. Psychiatry has been important in the criminal justice system for the entire lifespan of everyone posting here, for example.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: March 5th, 2020, 3:56 am Psychiatry is different from psychology in that it presupposes that it is (or will become) an objective science that will master the human mind.
Psychiatry is different from psychology in that psychiatrists are qualified as medical doctors and they can prescribe medications. Psychology doesn't require medical school, and psychologists can't prescribe medications. Psychologists treat patients purely via "behavioral therapy."

The difference doesn't have anything to do with only one of the disciplines being an "objective science" of the mind.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by LuckyR »

arjand wrote: March 5th, 2020, 3:56 am
LuckyR wrote: March 4th, 2020, 5:36 pm Sorry to hear about this state of affairs. Sounds like some greedy Psych folks hooked up with some overly ambitious politicians. Not a good combo.

This sort of thing makes some superficial sense but has not practical value based on a few obvious realities, that have somehow escaped the minds of various northern European decision makers. Namely, that philosophy and psychology are both soft sciences with quite low reproducibility rates. Nowhere near high enough to be used in their realms of human behavior. That is, no one can reliably know enough of the potential variables to speak confidently on the "whys" of this experiment on determinism. Coupled with the inability of the Psych folks to treat behavioral problems, makes the situation you describe a double loser: Don't reliably know why a perp did the crime and can't reliably do anything about it even if you did.
Psychiatry is different from psychology in that it presupposes that it is (or will become) an objective science that will master the human mind.

Law makers and society with them just need to buy in to the claims provided by prominent professors and lobbyists. This may explain the success of psychiatry to grow rapidly on the basis of Free Will Skepticism.

The article on Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews provides example reasoning:
With a clearer picture of the dark side of the belief in free will in hand, Caruso then defends a public-health quarantine model of criminal justice. This model places heavy emphasis on how inequities such as poverty, pre-existing medical conditions, mental illness, educational inequalities, and environmental health can causally contribute to criminal behavior. Identifying these inequities suggests a variety of potential opportunities for crime prevention
If a law maker is provided with the idea that crime can be prevented, and when that idea is substantiated and promoted by a science-field in general, there appears to be little argumentative ability to resist a proposition to replace the criminal justice system with preventative measures.

Despite the financial interests of Big Law, Big Pharma + psychiatry + the idea of the ability to prevent crime may be able to gain the upper hand. There is simply much more money involved for them and they can paint a picture of a better world.

As it appears, it will come down to the ability to defend free will. And if that defense is impossible (for an individual) they will likely simply put their trust in a science-field. It is a non-risk choice versus taking responsibility for defending free will. It may explain why psychiatry has been winning so easily, while from the outlook, Free Will Skepticism may appear questionable.

Why would one want to defend free will? If it cannot be said to be objective, why would ones belief in free will weigh more than the opinion of a science in general?
Regardless of the hopes and aspirations of this or that branch of the behavioral sciences, they currently cannot promise the sort of insight and treatment that would be required to do the jobs they are being asked to perform in the OP. Therefore they should be a major driver of the criminal justice system (as claimed in the OP). The seemingly (to Northern European sensibilities) draconian system of the old criminal justice system is therefore better equipped to fulfill that role.

The entire (old school) justice system is based on Free Will, of course and since there is not a single shred of evidence to the contrary (Determinism being wholly theoretical), there is less than no basis for this change, it too is wholly theoretical and if the OP is to be believed is showing the error of this experiment.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 8:46 am
arjand wrote: March 4th, 2020, 6:48 am The basis for the growing influence of psychiatry in the criminal justice system is the idea that there is no free will.
Say what?
Free Will Skepticism lays at the basis. Essentially, even from the earliest beginning, it has been the vision that one day psychiatry will master the human mind using objective science is what has fueled the growth of its influence.

Medicalization of the human mind is based on a idea. The idea that the human mind can be reduced to chemical processes in the brain.
Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 8:46 am
There is a growing movement that believes that human behaviour can be reduced to accidental chemistry in the brains and that there is no free will or guilt. According to this movement, criminal law should ideally be replaced by psychiatric treatment and preventive psychiatric measures.
If there's no free will, then the notion of "preventative psychiatric measures" doesn't make sense, since it seems to suggest that we can intentionally change what will obtain.
One could argue that the world exists and that the use of a science to shape the world is evidently possible, so that while one poses that free will does not exist, a science would still be able to modify the environment to prevent bad behaviour.
Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 8:46 am
"The criminals are not yet fully grown mentally and deserve psychiatric help.".
That doesn't imply that they do not believe that free will obtains. (Unless you're withholding statements to that effect.)
It doesn't imply it. It serves as an argument in favor of care instead of punishment. The people who make the decisions (law makers and people who work in the criminal justice system) will likely be required to make their decisions on the basis of an evaluation of the validity of a belief in free will.

Why would the interest of a criminal weigh higher than for example a desire by victims for retribution, or to set an example for society with regard to good and bad behaviour?

It will ultimately come down to abolishing a denoted belief in free will.
Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 8:46 am
The questions:

1) Is the Presumption of innocence essential? If so, why?
In my opinion, yes. It's ridiculous to presume that someone is guilty and then make then "prove their innocence." If we're going to claim that someone did something, then we'd better have good evidence that they did it, and people simply claiming that they did it shouldn't be good enough evidence, by the way.
What would happen when people start to believe that there is no guilt, and that people are not responsible for crime, and that criminals instead should be submitted to psychiatric care?

It will effectuate something in human interaction.

Preventive psychiatric measures are by definition about prosecuting people on the basis of vague suspicions and not on the basis of facts. It will cause people to lose the basic dignity as a human being (the Presumption of innocence) before they have committed a crime, so that they will commit a crime faster.

When vague suspicion based prosecution becomes effective in society it will put some people at risk while they did not commit a crime. In a conflict situation, it is logical that the opposing party can concretize the requirement for preventive psychiatric measures by which the person affected has lost a reason to not commit a crime. The measure for a crime that he did not commit has been determined beforehand. The dignity as a human was already gone. (psychiatric disorders/treatments are highly stigmatizing)

Criminal behavior is a potential, so when people come to believe that it is caused by a brain disease that they themselves cannot be blamed for, they will commit a crime faster.

Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 8:46 am
3) Considering the successful growth of psychiatry within the criminal justice system, does it imply anything about the validity of the idea that there is no Free Will? (i.e. did it result in a confirmation of the validity of a deterministic view on reality?)
No, that has nothing to do with the notion of free will.

It's also not anything new. Psychiatry has been important in the criminal justice system for the entire lifespan of everyone posting here, for example.
Mental care and psychiatry are often confused with each other. What is specifically denoted is that psychiatry as a science is taking over control, i.e. that it could replace the criminal justice system.

Law makers and people who work in the criminal justice system (e.g. judges) are giving in because they ultimately have only a "belief" in free will as a foundation for their practice, opposed to a presumed "objective science".
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: March 5th, 2020, 12:48 pm Medicalization of the human mind is based on a idea. The idea that the human mind can be reduced to chemical processes in the brain.
So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

The two are not necessarily connected.
Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 8:46 am
One could argue that the world exists and that the use of a science to shape the world is evidently possible, so that while one poses that free will does not exist, a science would still be able to modify the environment to prevent bad behaviour.
If determinism is true, we can't do anything other than what was basically predetermined to happen. We can't really change anything.

Of course, that includes that we have beliefs that we can change things--that would be an upshot of deterministic forces, but we can't actually change anything, prevent anything, etc.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pm
arjand wrote: March 5th, 2020, 12:48 pm Medicalization of the human mind is based on a idea. The idea that the human mind can be reduced to chemical processes in the brain.
So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

I don't at all buy determinism.

The two are not necessarily connected.
If the mind originates from brain processes, that implies that something that is physical determines who someone is (i.e. his/her thoughts and behaviour). From such a perspective it does not appear logical to maintain a belief in free will.

Why should one hold a belief in anything if one argues that the physical, something that can be defined, is the origin of the believing itself? It appears that such a conviction should naturally result in the abolishing of any form of believing, which includes the belief in free will.
Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 4:30 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: March 5th, 2020, 8:46 am
One could argue that the world exists and that the use of a science to shape the world is evidently possible, so that while one poses that free will does not exist, a science would still be able to modify the environment to prevent bad behaviour.
If determinism is true, we can't do anything other than what was basically predetermined to happen. We can't really change anything.

Of course, that includes that we have beliefs that we can change things--that would be an upshot of deterministic forces, but we can't actually change anything, prevent anything, etc.
It may not matter if Free Will Skepticists can make a strong case against free will. It is more easy to simply question the validity of a belief in free will.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by Terrapin Station »

arjand wrote: March 6th, 2020, 7:59 am If the mind originates from brain processes, that implies that something that is physical determines who someone is (i.e. his/her thoughts and behaviour). From such a perspective it does not appear logical to maintain a belief in free will.

Why should one hold a belief in anything if one argues that the physical, something that can be defined, is the origin of the believing itself? It appears that such a conviction should naturally result in the abolishing of any form of believing, which includes the belief in free will.
So, simply put, I don't buy that the physical world (which on my view is identical to "the world," period) is thoroughly deterministic. In connection with this, I'm also not a realist on physical laws. I'm not a realist on any sort of abstracts at all. (Physical laws, if they were to actually exist, rather than simply being ways that we think about the phenomena we observe, would have to exist as real abstracts.)

I use "free will," by the way, to refer to the ability to make a choice, where at least two options were genuinely available--that is, so that it was really possible for one to choose A OR B from an immediately preceding state of affairs. That's all that I use it for--it's a relatively "narrow" sense of free will.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by psyreporter »

chewybrian wrote: March 5th, 2020, 5:47 amBecause all experience and human existence is subjective. 'Objective' is an opinion. What we label 'facts' are merely opinions with broad agreement, and sometimes with justification for the agreement. But, the ability to choose is an undeniable component of everyone's subjective reality. It is as fundamental as sight or hearing or hunger. We are "condemned to be free", and the pull or influence of external causes does not fully negate this freedom. If you accept as fact that it does, then your life loses all meaning. You should kill yourself as soon as you are convinced you can never really choose. Nobody does (for this reason), because nobody is convinced that they can never alter their situation by choosing. The determinist wishes to avoid responsibility for their own choices, or to appear wise for accepting determinism, yet none of them really believes.
According to the article on Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, there are gradations of Free Will Skepticism. It is of course possible to find causal relationships for crime in the environment, such as poverty or mental problems, by which can be stated that at least at some level evidence can be provided for determinism. With such gradually increasing argumentative persuasion put in motion, it will then turn to the question what would make it valid to hold on to a belief in free will. It will be increasingly difficult for individuals to maintain a conviction that a belief in free will is valid.

The denotation of a belief in free will as a dogma can be recognized in the article:
The authors appeal to empirical support for thinking that belief in free will has a "dark side," and correlates with other independently problematic beliefs.
Would a strong (objective) defense be possible against the claim that a belief in free will is a dogma?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by chewybrian »

arjand wrote: March 7th, 2020, 8:20 am Would a strong (objective) defense be possible against the claim that a belief in free will is a dogma?
Dogma is a moral belief taken as fact, usually because it comes from a perceived authority, like the church. Your argument would hold weight if it were against many religious beliefs. In that case, the believer arguably must swim against the tide of his actual experience in the world and create the belief on his own at all moments. He can not directly access God for proof of his belief, in the way I could prove to myself that my dog exists, by interacting with her, or the way I could validate my own free will, by making a choice.

So, in the case of free will, dogma more clearly represents the case of the believer in determinism. They must swim against the tide of all their experience. At every moment, they are forced to choose with no chance of avoiding the choice, and they know their choices have consequences, so they will naturally take care to make good choices most of the time (if they are thinking clearly). If they wish to continue believing in determinism, they must deny their experience, even as they live what they claim is a lie at all times. They are choosing the theory over their experience, and arguably just as far in denial as many religious believers.

Why would I need an objective defense against reality? If I choose, as most people do, to accept that my experience of choosing in the world is real, I can access this experience at any moment to validate my belief. It's quite obvious, since we all have this experience, that the burden of proof is on the determinist to show that all human experience is an illusion. Influences or mechanical problems do not suffice. I have the power of sight. Some people are color blind, some are totally blind, sometimes it's dark and I can't see well... Yet, the fact remains that healthy people under the right conditions have the ability to see. Similarly, healthy people under normal conditions can freely choose. To believe this is as rational as any possible belief I might hold. To believe in dogma would be to accept something that was not self-evident; this is.

You seem to be assuming that belief in free will is going to diminish over time to a trickle, as perhaps religious belief might. I disagree. If, in the case of religion, people had direct access to God, one should not expect belief to dry up. In the case of free will, we have this direct access. If you denied God while we were standing right next to God, I would say you were mad. I say we are, in effect, standing right next to free will at this moment, and you are mad if you don't see and acknowledge it. You are using your free will at all waking moments, like it or not. Any attempt to deny this will only diminish your effectiveness at putting it to use.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Criminal Prosecution and Free Will

Post by psyreporter »

Terrapin Station wrote: March 6th, 2020, 11:19 amSo, simply put, I don't buy that the physical world (which on my view is identical to "the world," period) is thoroughly deterministic. In connection with this, I'm also not a realist on physical laws. I'm not a realist on any sort of abstracts at all. (Physical laws, if they were to actually exist, rather than simply being ways that we think about the phenomena we observe, would have to exist as real abstracts.)

I use "free will," by the way, to refer to the ability to make a choice, where at least two options were genuinely available--that is, so that it was really possible for one to choose A OR B from an immediately preceding state of affairs. That's all that I use it for--it's a relatively "narrow" sense of free will.
Why would it not be possible that the available choices are limited, and thus that the choices can be considered to have been determined beforehand?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021