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

[Lee Corbin]

gts writes

> 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.

Someone *deserves* punishment?  Why?  That is, following your
(in my view correct) notion that of Rehabilitation, Removal,
Deterrence, and Revenge, only the first three should be lofty
enough for us, why should anyone *deserve* anything bad?

A human being finds itself in a position where---for whatever
reasons---he or she is to be punished. For God's sake, why?
No one ever deserves anything bad, except in the weak sense
that, say, they should have expected a certain outcome.

I'm all in favor of blaming perpetrators and punishing offenders,
but only because at present Rehabilitation is not practical or
possible, because we don't know enough. Instead of executing
offenders, they ought to be frozen and kept for a time when
rehabilitation becomes possible (if indeed it ever can be in 
some cases without changing the offender into someone else).

You are really saying that if there were (in your eyes) a
"causally autonomous self"  then punishment for Revenge
is somehow justified, and the subject *deserves* punishment?

Lee