Free will is an illusion.

[WafflesFTW]

Think about it. Assuming our brains are computers, they simply take in input and provide output based off of that input. Simple enough? Well then it is easy to say that the development of "life" is based off of input and output devices and the initial programming. Nature and nurture DEFINE life. Why is Osama bin laden evil? He was born under particular circumstances and influenced by them as well. By induction we can prove that these influences caused his particular path in life. Any other "soul" would bear the same brain, the same information in that brain, and the same reactions. Since one cannot, in reality, "control" one's actions he/she is incapable of being good or evil. Why? Because the actions that an individual takes is all based off of circumstance. Then would it be possible to predict the future? Perhaps. But such a machine designed to predict the future can not ever come into contact with the beings it will influence. It would have to be programmed with everything about everything. If the future is ever attempted to be unveiled, by induction it wouldn't be since the computer would figure it out and crash because of an infinite loop. Hence the future would remain a mystery to think about. If you think about it it makes sense. We are but carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. Theists scoff and say when did "life" occur. I'm arguing that it never occurred. Particular configurations of atoms survived and could replicate, eventually leading to the stage today. Just look at the concept of a lobotomy theists. One cut and a personality is completely changed. The being is the same, but "nature, physical change" resulted in a completely different attitude. It is unreasonable to assume that such attributes are the mark of "evil" opposed to a different structure of the brain.

[Sjoerd]

All of those are merely emotional responses. From a pragmatic viewpoint, it doesn't matter what rational you put behind the actions. The important part is that the safeguard of the rest of society is done. How this is accomplished might change how you emotionally deal with the issue, but the prinicple behind it is purely practical.

Sure, they are emotional responses. That's why I would like to see a rational reason to reject it, although I fear that there is none.
I most definitely don't like "safeguard of the rest of society" as rationale for a legal system. This leads all too easily to reasoning like "the people are upset about this crime, to prevent riots it is imperative that someone is arrested", leading to, forgive me the expression, finding a scapegoat.

[McCulloch]

It fails to satisfy some urge for justice or revenge.

Justice is an important concept, developed by humans useful in the smooth operation of society. Dealing with criminals does satisfy, as far as it is possible, the concept of justice. Revenge is not particularly useful, but is a common enough feeling. One goal of a penal system would be to ensure the smooth operation of society by minimizing the temptation for revenge by those who are affected by criminal behaviour.

It somehow makes criminals less human, as if they were rabid dogs that need to be shot down, rather than responsible moral agents.

I don't know that responsible moral agency can be adequately defined in law. Does it make any difference whether the murderous psychopath is morally responsible or whether he is possessed by an uncontrollable urge?

[Goat]

All of those are merely emotional responses. From a pragmatic viewpoint, it doesn't matter what rational you put behind the actions. The important part is that the safeguard of the rest of society is done. How this is accomplished might change how you emotionally deal with the issue, but the prinicple behind it is purely practical.

Sure, they are emotional responses. That's why I would like to see a rational reason to reject it, although I fear that there is none.
I most definitely don't like "safeguard of the rest of society" as rationale for a legal system. This leads all too easily to reasoning like "the people are upset about this crime, to prevent riots it is imperative that someone is arrested", leading to, forgive me the expression, finding a scapegoat.

The need for a scapegoat IS an emotional response. As such, that is not fitting with the rational.

[Thought Criminal]

To my understanding, blame is a pointless exercise. I do not think that we should punish murderers because they deserve it. We should take action against murderers to promote and ensure a safe society, to prevent further criminal actions and to safeguard other humans. Osama bin Laden should not be necessarily blamed for his actions, but he should be dealt with severely because he is dangerous.

Blame just means holding people responsible for their actions. If you crash your car into my parked car, I blame you for this, which is to say that I hold you financially responsible for the damages and fully expect you, with the help of your insurance, to pay for the repairs or even replacement. With criminal law, it's trickier, because the remedy is not as clear. We can't ask you to unmurder someone, but we can at least lock you up to keep people safe from you and perhaps remediate your behavior. At the very least, since you don't want to be imprisoned, the risk of jail time might act as deterrent before you commit the crime.

If someone claims they're not responsible for their actions, that's fine, too. We just put them under the forced supervision of someone who is willing to take responsibility for them. So if you want your freedom, all you have to do is take responsibility for yourself.

TC

[Sjoerd]

This is a wonderful opportunity for a four-sided debate. McCulloch and goat have the opinion that blame is not justifiable (in terms of accountability), nor desirable (for a legal system). TC has the opinion that it is both justifiable and desirable. I have the opinion that it is desirable, but not justifiable. All we need now is a Christian who strongly believes in free will and in turning the other cheek, to state that blame is justifiable but not desirable.

[Goat]

This is a wonderful opportunity for a four-sided debate. McCulloch and goat have the opinion that blame is not justifiable (in terms of accountability), nor desirable (for a legal system). TC has the opinion that it is both justifiable and desirable. I have the opinion that it is desirable, but not justifiable. All we need now is a Christian who strongly believes in free will and in turning the other cheek, to state that blame is justifiable but not desirable.

No.. I said that the removing of a disruptive force from society is justifiable. and that the concepts of revenge and justice are emotional responses to the requirement. Blame or not blame is not a subject I addressed. Blame or not blame is just a rationalization. The important thing is the removal of the person from being able to do harm. It is impossible to say that 'he was programed' that way.. because if he was, we as a society are programed to protect ourselves. He either has free will, or the illusion of free will.. and we have the free will or the illusion of free will to respond to his actions

[Sjoerd]

No.. I said that the removing of a disruptive force from society is justifiable. and that the concepts of revenge and justice are emotional responses to the requirement. Blame or not blame is not a subject I addressed. Blame or not blame is just a rationalization. The important thing is the removal of the person from being able to do harm. It is impossible to say that 'he was programed' that way.. because if he was, we as a society are programed to protect ourselves. He either has free will, or the illusion of free will.. and we have the free will or the illusion of free will to respond to his actions

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Nevertheless, I feel that "blame" is an important implicit concept in our current legal system. If you kill a man because of greed, you go to jail. If you kill him because he pointed a gun at you, you walk free. If you kill him because the little voices in your head told you to, you go to a sanitarium. The larger interests of society are never considered there. Conversely, it is most definitely illegal for a judge to appease the bloodthirst of society by sentencing an innocent man who is nevertheless thought to be guilty by the general public. Even although it may benefit social stability and happiness by preventing riots and frustration.

[Goat]

No.. I said that the removing of a disruptive force from society is justifiable. and that the concepts of revenge and justice are emotional responses to the requirement. Blame or not blame is not a subject I addressed. Blame or not blame is just a rationalization. The important thing is the removal of the person from being able to do harm. It is impossible to say that 'he was programed' that way.. because if he was, we as a society are programed to protect ourselves. He either has free will, or the illusion of free will.. and we have the free will or the illusion of free will to respond to his actions

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Nevertheless, I feel that "blame" is an important implicit concept in our current legal system. If you kill a man because of greed, you go to jail. If you kill him because he pointed a gun at you, you walk free. If you kill him because the little voices in your head told you to, you go to a sanitarium. The larger interests of society are never considered there. Conversely, it is most definitely illegal for a judge to appease the bloodthirst of society by sentencing an innocent man who is nevertheless thought to be guilty by the general public. Even although it may benefit social stability and happiness by preventing riots and frustration.

"Blame" is merely the acknowledgment that we, as a society hold the individual responsible for their own actions. It does not matter if there is 'free will' or there is only the illusion of free will. We react as if there was free will, and society as a whole attempts to protect itself.

[McCulloch]

Nevertheless, I feel that "blame" is an important implicit concept in our current legal system. If you kill a man because of greed, you go to jail. If you kill him because he pointed a gun at you, you walk free. If you kill him because the little voices in your head told you to, you go to a sanitarium. The larger interests of society are never considered there.

I disagree. The larger interests of society are paramount here. We send a person to jail for killing for greed why? Because a person who did that might do it again, because allowing that to happen, for this person or for any other, is a major disruption of society. If we all had to live with the fear that someone might kill us for our possessions, then we, as a society, would spend excessive amounts of resources protecting our possessions and ourselves. The very strong taboo against killing allows us to divert those resources to more productive efforts.
If you kill him because you are psychotic, then you are incarcerated in a different way. Why? For almost the same reason as killing for greed. The one difference is that we pretend that we can treat psychoses but not criminal behaviour. I am not convinced that there is as much of a difference as the legal system recognizes. If you are willing to kill for greed, then you have set aside the norms and values that make society work, in order to better your own position in that self-same society, thereby contributing to the break-down of societal order. This is a self-defeating kind of behaviour. So how can one say that the person hearing voices in his head is mentally ill, yet the one who does not see himself as part of the society that he lives in is not.