New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 23, 2005

Reporting from the intersection of neuroscience and criminal law, Ronald Bailey concludes that we have to believe in free will—we have no choice.

Comments

|3.23.05 @ 12:21PM|#

"After all, it's not as though the young murderer in the case the Supreme Court considered got off scot-free. He's likely to be imprisoned for the rest of his life."

It'd be cheaper to fry the fuck. The average 17 year old (hell, the average 12 year old) knows better than to kill in cold blood. The murderer in question was a sick fuck who said he figured he'd get off because he was a minor.

And to those who doesn't think the state has the moral authority to end anyone's life, does it have the authority to spend millions of (our) dollars on a twisted individual that most people would agree should die anyway?

|3.23.05 @ 12:27PM|#

I guess this blows my argument that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, since (if they work) they have to pay taxes.

|3.23.05 @ 1:14PM|#

andy - No. The gov't shouldn't have the authority to take the lives of its citizens. it's too much and too final a power.

I don't really want a gov't composed of the same highly fallible (to put it mildly!) type of knuckleheads who can't balance the budget operating an apparatus that easily can wrongly convict someone and then wrongly execute them.

There's no going back if it's discovered that - woops! - the evidence was good enough to convince a jury but the guy was innocent after all.

|3.23.05 @ 1:30PM|#

"There's no going back if it's discovered that - woops! - the evidence was good enough to convince a jury but the guy was innocent after all."

Same goes for any life punishment. What if someone gets convicted, spends their life in prison, dies, and is then exonerated a year later by DNA evidence. I see your point about the finality of the DP, but, this is all relative to the time scales involved.

Would you support the DP if we found a 100% scientifically foolproof to prove guilt or innocence?

Vache Folle|3.23.05 @ 1:35PM|#

We don't have to believe in free will, we just have to act as if we had it.

|3.23.05 @ 2:04PM|#

I don't agree with the death penalty. One of the main reason's is the same as rob's. But in the end, I just don't believe anyone should have that authority. So you can imagine that I was happy with the Supreme's decision.

After reading Ron's article, however, I see, once again, how things can seem to be positive but carry a lot of excess baggage. Excellent article, Ron.

|3.23.05 @ 2:12PM|#

There is no mysterious `free will' anyone needs to believe in, only that people have enough brain-power to expect certain kinds of consequences (usually not legal, but still aversive to most of us) for behaving badly. The presumption that it is up to you to behave acceptablly says nothing about how you manage it. Given the prominent place of larceny and violence in the standard human heart, that's a complex skill. For most of us, it involves deliberately avoiding temptations, not just restraining ourselves when they are present.

wrt. DP: I agree that nobody's conscience should be at ease because potentially innocent folks are living in hellish jails rather than being killed by the state. We need a big national debate about how best to determime the truth in court, and how best to handle people who do bad stuff.

|3.23.05 @ 2:33PM|#

"There's no going back if it's discovered that - woops! - the evidence was good enough to convince a jury but the guy was innocent after all."

I'm talking indisputable evidence... or when the person admits to it. Could they be lying? Only if they're dumb, or crazy, in which case a reduction in public mental health expenditures occurs.

|3.23.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Basically this is a long essay on whether the hypothetical "reasonable man" merits the sort of serious consideration it gets in the courts. Talk about a repeat of first semester torts! :)

|3.23.05 @ 5:03PM|#

Already the immature teen brain argument has been used by legislators to impose various restrictions on teenage drivers

It's about damn time. Sixteen-year-olds are not mature enough to drive safely. I believed it when I was sixteen, and I believe it now.

might not be so happy when conservatives turn around and use that decision to justify imposing more parental consent laws on teenage women who are seeking an abortion.

I have no problem with such parental consent.

if teenagers aren't responsible for their actions with regard to violence, driving, or sex, how can they be expected to cast their ballots responsibly in elections?

The minimum voting age is eighteen, the last time I checked - the same as the cut-off age in this decision.

For that matter, how can teenagers responsibly sign up for military service?

Again, the minimum age is eighteen.

shouldn't the culpability of adults whose prefrontal cortexes are similarly underdeveloped be reduced?

That's a much better question that all the ones raised so far. I don't know one way or the other, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if violent crime is associated with some sort of physical abnormality. It would help explain why our system of punishment doesn't seem to deter very much criminal behavior, nor especially rehabilitate.

|3.23.05 @ 5:07PM|#

Good article. I think that the decision to end executions of children was correct, but was done for the wrong reason. Bailey clearly shows how doing something for the wrong reason is not a reason to cheer, even if the short-term end is what a person wants.

|3.23.05 @ 6:43PM|#

phil: I agree. Here, and in Schiavo, people are becoming more aware of the present law and feel strongly that it must be changed to achieved a desired result in a single (or few) dramatic cases. Jiggering for a result seems more likely to produce unintended consequences requiring further rejiggering. Underlying principles of self-determination and responsibility are sacrificed to situational preference. Accepting that law sometimes produces a detestable result seems more reasonable than customizing law for each person's situation.

A series or group of detestable results would be more likely to persuade a supermajority of citizens to amend the Constitution and thereby democratically overturn the ineffective law.

|3.23.05 @ 8:44PM|#

I also agree that it was the right decision for the wrong reasons. Full Disclosure: I oppose the death penalty. For one, it's too final-no way to retract mistakes.

So, what are the right reasons for banning the death penalty, only for minors? I don't think that you can agree with Ron's points in this piece and arrive at a position which supports such a blanket ban. There are certainly an abundance of minors who do know right from wrong, are there not?

Hey, I just thought of a good justification for a proscription against the death penalty for minors: The courts will too often look at minors the way they look at adults in capital crime cases. After all, the vast majority of capital crime cases involve adult defendants. The courts will tend to error on the side of assuming that minors grasp the right/wrong delineation with the same frequency as adults, which they do not. The chances of putting a minor to death who didn't understand the difference are just too high to permit the death penalty for minors.