[ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment

[Samantha Atkins]

On Aug 17, 2007, at 9:44 AM, gts wrote:

> Pure retributive justice is punishment for its own sake, considered
> separate from issues of deterrence and rehabilitation. Capital  
> punishment
> is motivated largely by belief in retributive justice.
>
> But for retributive justice to make sense, there must be a causally
> autonomous self who deserves punishment. If a prosecutor desires
> retributive justice then the burden of proof is on him to prove the
> defendant is a causally autonomous self.

Do you have the ability to choose whether to murder someone who  
annoys you or not?  If not then you are a very dangerous loose cannon  
that either should be disposed of or locked away. If you do and you  
murder someone that annoys you then you are subject to punishment for  
your choice.  Some impossible concept like "causal autonomy" in its  
fullest sense is not necessary or relevant.  Only a reasonable  
ability to choose between alternative action is.

> The defense needn't prove the
> truth of determinism. The prosecutor must prove the defendant had  
> absolute
> freedom to commit the crime or to not commit the crime and that he  
> was not
> driven by other factors (nature/nurture/whatever).

There is no such thing as absolute freedom this side of theological  
fantasy-land.  We will not think with any real insight as long as we  
think that such is required or even worth considering when we touch  
on such subjects.

- s