The criminal justice system in the US (and many other places) is centered around the idea of us having free will: basically, the idea that any of us are free to decide what we want to do. The idea usually being asserted is that if you or me were put into the bodies (with the same brain, mental state, and exact state of the universe at the time) of a violent criminal, we could have used our free will to decide that we didn't want to commit the crime.
I don't believe that this idea is compatible with modern scientific knowledge in the fields of biology (neuroscience), and physics. For example, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Methods"]one scientific experiment[/url] has possibly indicated that processes in the brain (which we are not aware of) are where our actions originate, not from a conscious choice we made. It showed that activity in the motor cortex of the brain (responsible for motion) preceded the subject's conscious awareness of the impulse to move. The deterministic interpretation of the experiment has been met with some skepticism by defenders of free will, though the findings are still interesting.
I want to know: if we are just acting a certain way because our neurons are sending electric impulses to one another (which we don't have conscious awareness of or control over), isn't it a bit ridiculous to say that if we had been in the violent criminal's body (again, same brain, past events, exact state of the universe at the time), that we could have had "free will" to act differently with the weapon in our hand, the victim right in front of us, and the exact same electrical signals going through our brain?
My argument here is that free will does not exist, that we are just (unimaginably complex) organic "robots" following the electrical impulses in our brain, and that maybe we should rethink the idea of judging people as if they could have acted differently in the same situation. I believe that thinking this way, focusing more on [i]why[/i] criminals act the way they do (by better understanding the human brain) and discovering what we can do to correct their behavior and rehabilitate them (rather than just purely taking revenge on them), could lead us to a better way of life in the future. Feel free to present counter-arguments if you disagree with me.
I think that "getting revenge" should be the least important purpose of the justice system, if it's a system at all. Justice systems should exist so that:
a) people choose not to break the law because they know it would bite them in the ass if/when they get caught
b) putting a killer in jail stops them from being a danger to others
c) to rehabilitate criminals
revenge should barely even come into it. I'm no expert, but from what I've seen the US has a much more revenge-based justice system than a lot of other countries, and I think europe follows closer to your ideals. I haven't researched it though, so I could be wrong.
When you look inside one's brain who has done some criminal act, I don't think you'll find any tangible reasons why there.
Also when people talk about genes defining people, like genes predetermining criminals/sickos, that's just plain wrong because it is the "environmental shit" that defines who you are ultimately, whether it's a criminal or whoever.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;35185709]Also when people talk about genes defining people, like genes predetermining criminals/sickos, that's just plain wrong because it is the "environmental shit" that defines who you are ultimately, whether it's a criminal or whoever.[/QUOTE]
Well I wouldn't say that only "environmental shit" defines who you are. Some people simply are born with mental deficits that makes them unfit for out society due to being a danger to their surrounding or to their self. Some of these things can be treated, some of them can not. I don't think we call anyone a sicko or a criminal before they actually commit (or attempt to commit) an act though.
[QUOTE=Simski;35187342]Well I wouldn't say that only "environmental shit" defines who you are. Some people simply are born with mental deficits that makes them unfit for out society due to being a danger to their surrounding or to their self. Some of these things can be treated, some of them can not. I don't think we call anyone a sicko or a criminal before they actually commit (or attempt to commit) an act though.[/QUOTE]
I would say that an individual born with mental deficits could potentially be a stable member of society as any other, its just the systems, processes and methods that help develop a individuals mind could in fact have an adverse affect on that person with the mental defect, so you could say that it is a product of the environment, its just we have no real current method of identifying the individuals and helping them develop correctly.
OP Said: "-- [b]focusing more on why criminals act the way they do[/b] ([b]by better understanding the human brain[/b])"
Trying to find reasons why criminals act the way they do by digging into their brains? Okay..
But what about the problems within our society such as poverty, drugs, obscure day routines involving drugs, petty crimes, withdrawals, pressures, being broke, etc things that TOTALLY contribute to criminals acting the way they do?
I'm doing this in Philosophy at school and there are quite a few (Mostly terrible) counters to Determinism.
You can claim that we have a mind and a soul, the soul being outside of the universe and therefore beyond universal causality. This is mostly a bad argument because it doesn't properly explain how the soul affects material events.
You can claim we have no proof of universal causality, we only have empirical evidence of constant conjunction of events and outcomes and we can therefore be sceptical of this. This explains universal causality as a conceptual scheme which humans use to explain the world but does not actually exist. This does not really explain how we then have free will, but it is probably one of the better counters of determinism.
Quantum uncertainty basically means that physical determinism couldn't actually work and therefore our actions are not determined by prior causes. However it does not prove the existence of Free will which actually needs cause and effect to some extent to operate.
You can argue that we are subject to universal causality but our minds use a "thermostat" to guide our actions. I personally got a bit pissed with this argument as it does not really address anything and is just unnecessary over complication which forces determinists to point out that the thermostat would be subject to universal causality also.
Some other wacko people decided that somehow brain states don't relate to mental states therefore physical determinism doesn't account for mental states. (This is more of a statement than an argument so can be disregarded fairly easily).
Some other dumb-ass thought that just because we were subject to physical determinism did not mean we were robots without control. Again like most of the arguments it's mostly just a statement.
Sartre is probably one of the smarter guys and in realising that disproving determinism is a dumb idea just redefines free will as making decisions where you are not forced by external influences, e.g. at gun point.
But yeah, Determinism makes the most sense you just have to explain some crap about how Determinism doesn't account for the feeling of free will (Which is a terrible argument in itself), basically breaks the justice system (According to my teacher redefining the justice system as problem solver rather than revenge isn't a convincing argument although I have not quite worked out why).
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;35185709]Also when people talk about genes defining people, like genes predetermining criminals/sickos, that's just plain wrong because it is the "environmental shit" that defines who you are ultimately, whether it's a criminal or whoever.[/QUOTE]
Around 70% of your personality (The exact number isn't particularly relevant the fact it's possible is more important) can be determined two hours after your birth. Genetics have a big influence on your personality, especially since they control a lot of the chemical balance in your brain. (From a talk given by a neurologist)
Yeah well I kind of just pushed aside the genetics because I believe that without really knowing anything about your genes (besides from the most obvious traits) it is the growing up process that.. matters, and makes who you are.
Like, adopt a child from way over somewhere else, then he/she would grow into somebody else were he/she not adopted. Right?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;35191751]Yeah well I kind of just pushed aside the genetics because I believe that without really knowing anything about your genes (besides from the most obvious traits) it is the growing up process that.. matters, and makes who you are.
Like, adopt a child from way over somewhere else, then he/she would grow into somebody else were he/she not adopted. Right?[/QUOTE]Indeed the person would be vastly different - but to claim that it is solely defined by the environment is a bold statement.
Genetics determine most of our phenotypes, although the field of epigenetics does propose that the environment could also influence genes, amplifying and silencing certain aspects.
Agreed
[QUOTE=Chippiewill00;35192055]Genetics determine most of our phenotypes, although the field of epigenetics does propose that the environment could also influence genes, amplifying and silencing certain aspects.[/QUOTE]
Field of epigenetics, huh? But yeah.. genes go deep, and they mutate, and they develop or evolve. Not too deeply educated myself :P
Assuming quantum theory is correct there can be no determinism, but that does not mean we have free will. We do not choose which of all possible paths each particle takes (free will), but nor can we predict it (determinism).
One thing that does interest me is that if a tougher penalty is imposed the rates of that particular crime being committed lower, although I guess this could be explained by the fact that it would be an influence on our eventual decision no matter whether or not we have free will.
Of course, there is another side to this, For anyone that's seen the movie Minority Report. [sp] yeah, that Tom Cruise one [/sp]
The entire justice system was biased around determinism, Punishing crimes that had not yet been committed.
[sp] My god, I'm using a movie in mass debate [/sp]
[IMG]http://lawandmedicine.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/dilbert.gif[/IMG]
just thought id drop this here.
The ultimate anti system would be centered around prevention, not retribution or punishment. Abhorrent behaviour is due to environment, a good example of this is how you can put a normal man who wouldn't murder within his own society into a military situation, where he would be willing to kill people he does not know personally for a country or organisation. Soldiers profile people for systematic murder, just like a serial killer does, yet one is profiled as an evil murderer and the other a hero.
Of course we have genetics that shape how we react to our environment, but there is no such thing as a gene that would give someone a personality attribute regardless of what environment they exist within. I reason that there are no good or bad people, only victims of environment (unless you are born with some form of mental illness).
A great book to read on this is "On evil" by Terry Eagleton.
[QUOTE=prooboo;35400338]A great book to read on this is "On evil" by Terry Eagleton.[/QUOTE]
I recommend you start making arguments of your own, insisting that other people research a topic to find out what your argument is is not debating.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35401128]I recommend you start making arguments of your own, insisting that other people research a topic to find out what your argument is is not debating.[/QUOTE]
nonono thats not what I'm saying. I'm not making an argument, just recommending a book
I might give it a read. Thanks.
it is true that physical determinism is denied by quantum theory. But quantum theory states that cause and effect is replaced by somewhat random things. if they are truly random, they cannot be decided by you. Unless you, yourself, are random. And if you are random, there is no purpose on blaming you for anything.
I have always disliked free will because it creates this infinite chain. I am not affected by the physical laws, so where do I live? Am i controlled by the laws of that plane of existence? if so, for free will to exist, I must have a second I. Unless the rules of the universe are dictated by you, it follows to infinity. But if that's so, that means you changed the laws of the plane or created the plane. But you couldn't have created or changed the plane withotu existing before hand. meaning, you'd need to be in another plane of existance. And on, and on, and on.
Now, this isn't to mean that law is futile. it just means that things like punishment or evil are false, because evil is choosing to do evil things and there can be no choice.
Hell, to choose to be evil, you need to be evil beforehand, making evil people forced into evil (birth or not) which makes them not evil.
Which makes law practical. You put someone in jail to stop the mfrom commiting crimes, not to punish them ,letc. etc.
pardon the iffy writing
[QUOTE=Noble;35183989]My argument here is that free will does not exist, that we are just (unimaginably complex) organic "robots" following the electrical impulses in our brain[/QUOTE]
I agree with that however you are programmed by the world around you (starting with the genetic potential). The risk of getting caught and punished is what programs people not to be a dick. And if someone is a dick he gets locked up so that he can't be a dick anymore. The system serves it's purpose. It's not about revenge.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
