[radiojosh]

I came to a very different conclusion on criminality in the absence of free will: compassion and understanding.

How often do children do shitty things, and then say "I don't know" when asked why they did it? I have personally had problems lashing out in anger and not even understanding why. Our brains put a lot of effort into keeping us away from painful thoughts and memories. All of that is to say that you don't have to invoke determinism or quantum mechanics to demonstrate that people aren't always consciously in control of their actions.

Some people are far more capable of compassion and forgiveness in the face of tragedy when they can see that a genuine accident occurred, or when they understand the generational trauma that laid the ground work for unthinkable choices. Why not take it one step further and recognize that we're all stuck on this involuntary ride and we all deserve a little grace because none of us could have chosen any differently?

Does this mean we expect the aggrieved to forgive the perpetrator? No. Does that mean we cease handing out jail sentences for dangerous crimes? No again. But if there is no free will in the choices we make, what's the point of punishing people? I get that people who hurt other people should feel remorse, and people who are dangerous should be isolated, but how can you say anyone deserves punishment when their actions are predetermined?

[mewpmewp2]

> But if there is no free will in the choices we make, what's the point of punishing people

What's the point of hitting a ball to score a goal if the ball had no free will and it was moving deterministically?

You punish people in order to provide incentives for people that would align with society's goals.

Human being, having the input and knowledge that they would get punished, would make them avoid doing certain things.

"Deserves" is just a way to provide some idea of a framework on what is the behaviour expected from people for society to perform at its best, together.

[radiojosh]

We still enjoy things even if we aren't ultimately the prime mover of our own actions.

And I think the argument for punishment as deterence falls down in a few ways:

1) Absence of punishment does not mean absence of consequences. I'm still in favor of incarceration for violent offenders to protect society, but I think that people should be treated with dignity and respect while inside. I think incarceration is deterrence enough.

2) Disenfranchisement plays a role in why people commit crimes. If they distrust or resent the system, punishment only serves to reinforce their perception that the system isn't designed to help them, so why should they help the system?

3) People need to be led by example. What example does it set when COs use violence to control or punish, or turn a blind eye to violence between inmates?

I always find it funny the way people see leadership and authority as license to put people in their place and punish those who do wrong, and then they are surprised when the subjects of said leadership aren't pleasant, peaceful people. People raise their kids to thank their parents, but then they never thank their children. They say things like "I'm not going to thank someone for doing their job" and then wonder why their kids never say "thank you". It's because they weren't leading by example, they were just barking orders.

The point is, punishment is almost always misguided, free will or no. It is a bad motivator and a bad example. The less charitable among us could still reason that "bad" people still "deserve" punishment, but realizing that we aren't ultimately in control of our own actions just underscores the point that nobody actually "deserves" anything other than understanding and compassion for being on a ride that none of us actually asked for.

[pshirshov]

> You punish people in order to provide incentives for people that would align with society's goals.

If everything is determenistic, there is no "you" and "you" aren't doing anything.

What happened always was the only possible outcome. There is nothing to worry about. If someone eats someone else it was predetermined. If we don't punish the cannibal - well, that was predetermined as well.

[mewpmewp2]

Yes, but this type of behaviour occurred logically from emergent behaviour because it performed well throughout evolution. Groups who were able to keep their members in check were the groups who won out. So we have the inherent motivation and desire to punish others to keep them in check.

There's ever lasting power balance within a group, where group will perform well if everyone does well for the group, leading to this prisoner's dilemma situation where a sole bad actor could still outperform everyone in the group that otherwise works together, so these incentives must be set in such a way that it wouldn't be beneficial for bad actors to take advantage of the rest of the group.

[pshirshov]

You can't have desires or motivation in a determenistic world.

[mewpmewp2]

You can. It's just chemicals and signals that you "feel".

[kybernetikos]

I am not a huge fan of justice-as-punishment, but the argument for punishment is straight-forward:

The deterrent effect of punishment does not require free will to work.

[n4r9]

That's assuming that the deterrent effect is a major cause of crime reduction, which is questionable.

[sonicanatidae]

This is a grand idea and I wish the world was capable of it, but it isn't.

With humans specifically, there is ALWAYS an asshole. Always.

There is always someone that will see a community, think those people are idiots, marks, suckers, etc. and will do whatever they can to take things from them, like their property, or their lives, because they look different, worship a different god, talk differently, etc. In other cases, it's a power thing. They will lie about whatever they need to, so assume control, then shit on everyone around them, for their own "betterment".

Humans will always be the absolute worst enemy of humans.

Again, I wish we lived in a world where your idea could work. It would be a much, much better place.