Quote:
Originally Posted by Zankou
Why is some concept of "free will" required for punishment?
It's enough to make punishment meaningful if it punishes illicit action. The point of punishment is not deterrence per se, it's justice -- preventing people from getting ahead by wrongful actions, regardless of whether they "freely choose" to commit them or not.
In ancient legal systems, the impetus towards justice was so strong that inanimate objects, animals, and the dead were commonly put on trial and condemned. Think of Xerxes scourging the Hellespont, for example. Another example, one of the things that Mohammed forbade was the common practice in Arabia of trying and punishing the dead. Over time, the coercive and deterrent aspects of punishment became predominant in more advanced civilizations, and the impulse for justice was dispersed and minimized. Nowadays we hardly think about punishing the dead, but you can imagine the appeal of such a concept -- even in death, you won't get away with it, everything and everyone you care about will pay a price for your sins.
|
I find that very interesting. I would counter that the "illicit desire" should not be punished if it is not voluntary (not the product of free will). And if we are nothing more than genetics+experience, then the desire is indeed involuntary. Surely, involuntary acts/desires should not be "punished." (Again, incapacitation is fine, as is deterrence, but retribution is another matter.)