Law without free will

[makeshift]

I don't want this to be an argument about whether or not there is free will. I want this to be a discussion on how legal systems would have to change and adapt if somehow sometime in the future it became scientific and mainstream knowledge that there is no free will.

When looked at one way, it appears that free will is a very fundamental factor in our living and humanity, and thus, morality and law. We get blamed and incarcerated for making decisions that are deemed bad and selfish and sometimes rewarded for the opposite because we chose to do those things. The invisible, indelible part of beings interacted with the world and changed it in a way, and there will be consequences.

There are instances in which law will give a person a mulligan if it appears that the person wasn't acting out of free will or normal state of mind. Often this is dubbed as "temporary insanity".

People/beings who lack a sophisticated cognition similar to regular everyday people are often seen and treated as though they are without a free will. Beings such as animals and retarded people. The concept of free will is not applied to them, and so also, the concept of culpability.

But, say some day it has become ever apparent that there is no such thing as free will or culpability for anybody; not just retarded people and lower animals. What would that do to our laws? After all, if you're not choosing to do anything, then necessarily, you can't be blamed either. No choice, no blame.

However, I doubt that such an epiphany would cause much change to our legal system. It might make some superficial changes in a few areas, but overall, it would remain the same. It all has to do with incentives. Because even though we might not be making choices, we still respond and act according to our environments.

For example, it might seem unlawful for you to be jailed for murdering somebody when you had no choice. Your brain did what it did and is now awaiting the consequences. However, if you were not jailed and made an example of, that would change the actions and thinking of others about murder. There would be no reason to refrain from such impulses, which is something a person can still do in the absence of free will.

This is something we humans have no problem with. A person does something bad, he is punished. That's life. Is there another way? However, I think there might still be some conflict from liberals whom are sympathetic to murders and felons. After all, they are being punished for things they had no choice in doing.

What do you think?

 

[one_raven]

Perhaps then people would finally work towards addressing the causes rather than the results of unlawful actions.

If someone has a disease you can either:
Work to alleviate the symptoms and allow the disease to flourish.
Attack the disease.
Or do both, to relieve suffering while curing the disease.

Right now, most legislative and penal systems seem to simply attack the symptoms and all but ignore the disease.

 

[Oniw17]

Wouldn't that mean that no one could be jailed, because it wasn't their free will, nobody would commit a crime through their own free will. Therefore, there would be only a small chance that they would do it again. But that is untrue. So if by some erroneous conclusion, people began to believe that there was no free will, the government would be in a paradox. A better question is: why should anyone be punished for anything at all? Why shouldn't one simply kill a peson who has wronged them? Is this not how it is in nature?

 

[Absane]

Without free-will, it is meaningless to talk about morality. Hence, punishment is pointless. What we would have to focus on is rehabilitation: reprogramming the brain.

Even though it seems we are making a choice to switch from punishment to rehabilitation, when you think about it, that is what would have been done anyway.

If someone cannot rehabilitated, the role of jails and prisons would be to keep the "bad" people from the "good" people.

 

[one_raven]

Without free-will, it is meaningless to talk about morality. Hence, punishment is pointless. What we would have to focus on is rehabilitation: reprogramming the brain.

I disagree.
We would be better off to focus on prevention rather than rehabilitation by reprogramming society, rather than the brains of "criminals".

 

[Absane]

Well yea prevention is a good idea... but what I was talking about was "what do you do when someone commits a crime?"

BF Skinner wrote some book about this... I forgot what it is called. It was fiction and his idea of the perfect society (note: Skinner denied free-will, both in the book and his life)

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

there is only 2 kinds of law... contract and tort.

in contract law, free will means nothing.. only the contract matters.. and is issue.

in tort law, there is no contract between parties, and YET damages suffered.

in such case.. if there was no free will, then the ones to blame in any and all cases of tort law, and some contract cases in law, would be those who put out the influences to cause people to do what they do.

meaning the store who puts up an ad can be sued because the person who tripped on a crack in the parking lot, was looking at it, when falling.

it would be such a big can of worms, i dont think the courts can allow the idea of no free will into court... for then murderers and rapist could blame their schools or parents or gov't for their crimes, and such would lead to madness.

-MT

 

[Absane]

MT... you are looking at it wrong. If no one has free-will, then why should we look at the chain of events that caused the "crime" to happen and punish all those people involved in it? It does not make sense.

And being that there is no free-will, it would mean that humans are just part of the deterministic universe. Why not blame the super-nova that happened billions of years ago for your inability to control your bladder? Or for your choosing of a hamburger over a hotdog?

 

[one_raven]

meaning the store who puts up an ad can be sued because the person who tripped on a crack in the parking lot, was looking at it, when falling.

You can't blame the store owner either, because HE didn't put the sign up by his own free will either.
No nody did anything by their own free will because (in this scenario) there is no such thing as free will.

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

the problem with 'NO FREE WILL'... is who gets the blame???

not the rapist... not the murderer... not the cannable..... not the SUICIDE BOMBER....

by your logic... they are all victums, and shouldnt be prosecuted for their crimes.


that is why the courts wont allow a 'no-free will' defence.

because if it were true... anyone of us, could rob, kill, rape and murder freely..

and there would be no punsihement for it... since no one is really to blame.


im sorry, but if you rape, and kill, and steal... you knew better, you had options.

you made your choice... and you must be punished for it, if you did it.


there is no other way... and yes... there is free will.

-MT

 

[makeshift]

The whole idea is that with such a radical new idea ingrained in the imagined contemporary consciousness would likely change the attitudes and behaviors of many people in ways we can't easily predict or understand.

Yes, it would be unfair to imprison a person for murder because it wasn't the person's choice. However, it would be accepted as by most people as a necessity -- a mere byproduct of living in an cruel, imperfect universe. Think what the consequences would be if people weren't punished.

 

[Oli]

"In your defence you have proven that there is no free will - therefore it was inevitable that you would commit this crime, and not your own volition."
"And I have no choice but to decide that you should serve a custodial period of not less than 5 years for the safety of others."
If there were no free will then criminals could be punished because "not punishing" them may not be a choice.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If there is no free will, then this discussion is pointless. Everything is predetermined. The laws will be what they will be and life will be how it is. Nobody needs to take an interest in anything. Of course, if they do, it was because it was predetermined for them to do so.

You'll see a sharp rise in recreational drug use. If it is predetermined to be that way, of course.

 

[issuishman]

how (would) legal systems ... have to change and adapt if somehow sometime in the future it became scientific and mainstream knowledge that there is no free will. (?)

We would be less concentrated on why someone did something and more concerned about the effect of their actions.

We would also remove arguments based on "Intent". The Intent Argument is often used as evidence when there is no evidence linking a person and a crime. It's a lazy man's argument. Removing it would make our courtrooms more science based and less psuedo-science based.

Where there is clear evidence linking a person and damages...

If the act was a rational response and the act caused damages, their would be leniency on the person to have to pay those damages and society would in general would pay the damages.

If the act was an irrational response and the act caused damages, the person would be mostly responsible and society less responsible (or not responsible at all).

 

[issuishman]

Wouldn't that mean that no one could be jailed, because it wasn't their free will, nobody would commit a crime through their own free will. Therefore, there would be only a small chance that they would do it again.

If the action were a rational response and it caused damages, then it would be a good chance that it would happen again. But they shouldn't be jailed.

If the action were a irrational response and it caused damages, well, we can't say any thing follows because it's irrational. Therefore, we might find that person capable of making damages again without reason. Yes they may need to be jailed, depending on the amount of damages.

Free will has very little to do with rational response. Free will operates on a psychotic concept that you become disconnected from the physics of the world and come back with a totally arbitrary non-influenced trajectory which affects the world around you. It's an insane concept.

Free will is a concept for the ignorant and lazy. They don't remember or care to find causes. It's all free thinking for them.

But don't be insulted free-willers, I used lazy, and it implies choice.

 

[Absane]

If there is no free will, then this discussion is pointless. Everything is predetermined. The laws will be what they will be and life will be how it is. Nobody needs to take an interest in anything. Of course, if they do, it was because it was predetermined for them to do so.

You'll see a sharp rise in recreational drug use. If it is predetermined to be that way, of course.

It would be. Humans seem to have this idea that "if it is not my fault, then I cannot get in trouble." Through a complex set of reasoning (logical or not), we would murder more often, take more drugs, ect..

Right and wrong are irrelevent when there is no free-will.