sapphi_snake said:
But did he have free will in this case? |
I don't think free will needs to be asserted for a legal system to work. If a person is a danger to people then they need to be separated from society, if its possible for reform through psychological treatment and/or psychiatric drugs, ethics classes, anger management clases etc then fine. Freewill doesn't really have to come into it. If the brain is only a combination of hardware and software then any attempts to reform the sofware and hardware should of course be taken, if a person cannot be reformed due to extreme natural causes or nurture causes then regardless of free will, they are a danger to other and need to be separated from society.
I don't see why asserting free will needs to come into it. A denial of freedom of movement seems punishment enough. If you have logical and emotional components of your brain that function within normal parameters then you can way up actions, put yourself in other peoples shoes, feel regret etc, this is not the same as a person that has uncontrollable urgers or lacks empathy regardless of free will.
We all know that treating criminals poorly in gaol just makes them worse on average. Sure, some people rise above it and improve their lives, but on the balance I don't think that happens most of the time. The move to limit the systems punishment factors and move towards more positive reformation is already underway. Of course complete denial of such a system may cause problems for the family of people that have been affected by the criminal so a balance will have to be found that takes into account the criminals and those that suffered unter their actions.
Furthermore there are significant psychological factors that show that law enforcement is essential to reducing crime, I think from what I've read its more to do with the consistent application of laws and not so much to do with the severity of said laws. But I read about it a long time ago, so I might be spouting nonsense.