Posted on 11/16/2009 8:46:10 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Abstract:
This paper questions criminal law's strong presumption of free will. Part I assesses the ways in which environment, nurture, and society influence human action. Part II briefly surveys studies from the fields of genetics and neuroscience which call into question strong assumptions of free will and suggest explanations for propensities toward criminal activity. Part III discusses other "causes" of criminal activity including addiction, economic deprivation, gender, and culture. In light of Parts I through III, Part IV assesses criminal responsibility and the legitimacy of punishment. Part V considers the the possibility of determining propensity from criminal activity based on assessing causal factors and their effects on certain people. In this context, the concept of dangerous individuals and possible justifications for preventative detention of such individuals in order to protect society is assessed. The concluding section suggests that the law should take a broader view of factors that could have determinant effects on agents' actions.
Oh, no, you’re special. Didn’t you get to the “Domenad exception” at the end of the law? You (and all conservatives) are guilty of stuff even before you do anything.
Marxists are not materialists. Their God is the Collective and they are It's priest-class.
Thanks for the ping!
Doesn't that conflict with Sola Gratia?
In his controversy with Erasmus, who defended free will, (Martin) Luther frankly stated that free will is a fiction, a name which covers no reality, for it is not in man's power to think well or ill, since all events occur by necessity. In reply to Erasmus's "De Libero Arbitrio", he published his own work, "De Servo Arbitrio", glorying in emphasizing man's helplessness and slavery. The predestination of all future human acts by God is so interpreted as to shut out any possibility of freedom. An inflexible internal necessity turns man's will whithersoever God preordains.
I confess that this summary comes from the Catholics.
It may but since I don’t accept that the Scriptures support an idea of grace alone but rather salvation extended to those who show their faith by what they do, any conflict is not my concern.
I share your beliefs. I was simply pointing out a irony that some who are supporting the concept of free will with respect to criminal behavior reject it with respect to salvation. I can't see how one would or could separate the two.
The issue of “predestination” was originated by the Greeks.
There is in fact a story about a Greek philosopher who came home unexpectedly and found his slave stealing from him. Enraged, he got his whip and began whipping the slave.
The slave cried, “Master! Master! Wait. Do you not preach predestination?!?! I was destined to steal, so why do you whip me??”
The philosopher paused, then began flogging him again, and said: “You were predestined to steal, and I was predestined to flog you”.
I keep recalling Joshua’s speech near the end of his life in which he set forth the choices and consequences to be made.
I think you’re quite correct. We want credit for our good choices and proclaim we’re smart so we have have to take the lumps for our bad choices. And if others influence us then we’ll have to make choices about who we allow to do that too.
“I can’t see how one would or could separate the two”
Nor can I but I’m not clever that way mostly.
That’s right, liberals can’t be bothered too much with concepts of good and bad or judgment, so they stomp their feet, hijack the legal system to attack Christianity, God, Christians, conservatism and anyone and anything that threatens their senseless sensibilities.
And they vote hypocrat about 1137% of the time. ALong with their dead relatives and pets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.