The context for this discussion regarding free will and responsibilityisthehypotheticalcaseofa man possessing a genetic or otherwise external disposition for violence who has committed a homicide and the circumstances around his punishment I will investigate themitigatingcircumstancesofthiscase through the lens of free will and responsibility and use the various perspectives to understand each situation Finally,Iwillprovidemystanceonthecasebasedonthediscussion
Before addressing the mitigating circumstances, we must first touch upon the various ways to interpret the situation within the realm of free will and responsibility Our perspectiveregardingthecase will either follow a deterministic or indeterministic view Determinism is defined as each event being determined by previous events andwithinthelawsofnature Anexampleofadeterministiccircumstance is a group of blind people playing snooker Once the first ball is hit, the rest of the balls have no say in their journey and ultimate destination and can only obey the laws of physics within the environment. Indeterminism states that determinism is false and that the opportunity for an uninfluenced outcome lies within the present. An example of indeterminism istheflippingofacoin,wheretheoretically,thechance forthecointolandonheadsortailsisequalandcannotbeinfluencedbypreviousevents.
When addressing real-world situations, I firmlybelievethatthinkingmodelscannotbeappliedin a binaryfashion.Inthiscase,thepersonwouldbepunishedwithlifewithoutparole,butweshoulddevise a different punishment given the individual’s disposition. I believe that in this case, mitigating circumstances should be considered. The circumstance that we should consider is the disposition for violence within the individual. Given that the individual’s disposition is either childhood trauma or a genetic deviation, a more effective punishment would be rehabilitation. In modern society, clinical psychology and medical treatment have reached the point where such biological impairments can be overcome, whether by medicine or therapy. Therefore, I still endorse the individual’s imprisonment, but heshouldbesecuredinalocationwiththeavailabilityforrenewal
My approach to this case leans deterministic, as I believe that the person was not entirely responsible for his actions, given that there has beenmuchresearchbetweenthenegativedispositionand the increased probability of potential violence It must also be noted that I am opting for a utilitarian perspective ratherthanadeontologicalperspectivewhenconsideringthiscase However,thatisnottosay that the individual is utterly independent of his actions In this sense, it is partially indeterministic My solution reflects this belief, as by allowing the opportunity for rehabilitation, I am partially allowing the individualtobeabsolvedfromhisillicitdeeds
Nevertheless, the individual is still punished and will face the consequences of his crimes. I sincerely think that jail for life without parole is not conducive to the individual or society. It is more likely that the individual would internally suffer more if left unchecked, eradicating the opportunity for redemption
To those who object to appealing for mitigating circumstances citing the compromise of deterrence, there are a few additional factors to consider within my case Firstly,althoughtheseverityof the punishment has decreased, it isstillsignificant Theindividualisremovedfromsocietyandwillcarry the weight of the crime socially for the remainder of his life However,themancandifferentiatehimself from his disposition with the help of medical personnel and resources, which gives the potential for the man to make reparations and help end the disposition’s vicious cycle Secondly, although the effect of deterrence is slightly compromised, it is crucial to keep in mind that this man is a unique case from the rest The intellectual disposition means that he cannot be treated the same as the restofsociety Ifaman of sound mind commits the samecrimewithmaliciousintent,byallmeans,imprisonhimforlifewithout parole. However, excessively punishing an individual who is medically proven not to be entirely responsibleforhisactionstodeterhealthymembersofsocietyisfoolishanddestructive.
In conclusion, although the case is unfortunate, the most effective solution comes from considering the mitigating circumstances. In this case, the mitigating circumstance is the genetic or otherwise external disposition for violence possessed by the criminal. If the mitigating circumstances were not considered, the punishment would be excessive and of no use to anybody. The alternative punishment is slightly less intensive and would yield far more positive results. I agree that myproposed solution produces less deterrence than the original. But my solution’s long-term benefits outweigh the originalsociallydeterringeffectoflifetimeimprisonmentwithoutparole.Ifpunishmentwerenotadjusted for differing cases, then there would be no need for the modern juridical system. By considering the mitigating circumstances, the punishment becomes proportionate and humane, and the criminal and societycanturntragedyintohope.