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

[Lee Corbin]

Gordon writes

>> Maybe there is disagreement about what "causally autonomous agents"
>> could be or are?  Or perhaps misunderstanding?  Let's affirm instead
>> that we are all grown-ups here, and we do not in any way believe in
>> uncaused events. So there really cannot be any such thing as a causally
>> autonomous agent, right?
> 
> Right, or at least there is no evidence to prove such beasts exist. But  
> how do we explain this to the jury when the prosecutor is seeking the  
> death penalty instead of a life sentence on the grounds that he believes  
> the defendant was a causally autonomous agent who chose to do
> wrong when he could have chosen to do right and thus deserves to
> die to balance the scales of justice?

Well, I agree with the prosecutor!  The defendent *could* have chosen
to do other than he did.  I thought you were a compatibilist. Unless
someone was (in effect) holding a gun to his head, then the defendent
did indeed have a choice in the matter.

And it's obvious that people need to be punished for making bad choices
(when those choices break the law, for instance, or harm people).

> The prosecution cannot prove that the defendant could have chosen to do  
> right. It seems to me that people are dying in the electric chair for what  
> amounts to a religious belief.

Why emphasize capital punishment?  How do you feel about the millions
of people in prison for doing things that---according to you, in this email
---they had no choice about.

Lee