The idiocy of "Free Will" in jail.

[scribble]

Inane rather than weak. Have you compared it to Incompatibilism? Both were ideas discussed by the pre 20th century clockwork-world determinists, and/or indeterminists, to obscure the problem that people should be morally accountable for their actions, but why hold an automaton accountable.


This quote got me thinking about crime and punishment. In our world, too many people get off for crimes because of ******** about how they "weren't themselves." Take for example the infamous twinkie defense; I was hopped up on sugar from eating twinkies, I was insane.

To me, insanity is a ******** plea.

Anyhow, that's not the point. This is.

Whether free will exists or not, you still have to hold people"morally accountable." If free will exists, the action is seen as punishing a person for a decision they made so that next time they might choose to avoid the punishment.

If you take free will to not exist, the action is seen as trying to recondition the person by attaching a heavier negative weight to the action.

Either way, the same actions are necessary. I have yet to see any argument applicable to the real-world that can be made or unmade by the presumption of free will.

[El Greco]

This is very difficult... What is 'insanity' in the eyes of the law ? I think that the following apply:

1) A criminal may be 'insane' if he can't function "normally" most of the time. If he has led a 'normal' life up to the point of an 'insane' crime then he is usually deemed 'sane'.

2) A criminal may be 'insane' if he acted without premeditation. Proven premeditation is sometimes enough to discredit his plea.

3) A criminal may be 'insane' if he has been diagnosed with one of several types of psychiatric diseases in the past, or can be positively diagnosed at the time of the trial.

With the above criteria, Marc Dutroux will probably not be deemed 'insane'. But isn't it 'insane' to repeatedly kidnap, rape and kill young girls ? Can we consider him 'normal' ? Well, by the psychiatric books maybe we can. He is most probably 'insane' but we haven't described his disease yet, not in any way that we can diagnose it. In fact, in these cases, law is the hostage of the weaknesses of psychiatry.

Maybe 'insanity' should be left out of the equation and judge by the estimated danger that the criminal poses to the society in the future. But this is a difficult decision for the diseases that can be held in remission with drugs. Especially as psychiatry and gene therapy will keep progressing.

Mark Twain felt really bad about the insanity plea (http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Twain/Twain-on-Insanity-Defense.html), too.