FREE WILL
How can we interpret the scientific findings that contradict it?
Robert Sapolsky: Questions About Free Will That Undermine the Prison System as We Know it
Determinism, or the doubt of free will, operates on the idea that all conscious decisions are manipulated by biological (genetic, neuroscientific, hormonal) and social factors, rather than a truly rational agent.
Robert Sapolsky, a renowned biologist at Stanford University, is one of the biggest names in the free will question. His book ‘Determined’ has shaken the field with its scientific breakdown of human behavior and all of its predeterminants.
Read the full Brein in Actie article for more info
-
In a study by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, participants were told to press a button at any moment of their choosing, and note the precise timing they were aware of their decision (to the millisecond) on a clock next to them. While doing this task, the participants were hooked up to EEG (electroencephalogram) equipment which could read the electrical activity of their brain, and therefore assess when their neural networks actually made the decision to move and press the button. Libet found that the “readiness potential", electrical activity signifying the activation of neural connections, occurred about 300-500 milliseconds before most people claimed to be conscious of their decision. There are a variety of ways to interpret this evidence: Many claim that this study completely disproves free will by demonstrating the subconscious nature of decisions, while many claim the timing could have been off, or that we still have the ability to “veto” these subconscious decisions up to the last moment.
The question of agency is a direct threat to the fundamental assumptions of the justice system. If the people around us may not be in control of their own actions, how much does blame really make sense? Determinism, therefore, completely disrupts accountability, forcing our attention to the existential question of justice and how it is interpreted in the law.
The court already acknowledges the ambiguity of free will and the potential of diminished responsibility, like these examples:
George Zimmerman
Zimmerman was found not guilty after killing Trayvon Martin by reason of self defense. The jury controversially believed he truly had no choice in his actions.
John Hinckley Jr.
After Hinckley’s assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, he was sent to a psychiatric institution as opposed to jail, by reason of the insanity defense; the jury believed he did understand his actions in the moment, and was therefore not responsible for them.
Miller v Alabama/
Jackson v Hobbs
Children and teenagers are unable to act as responsibly as adults, and therefore don’t hold the same amount of responsibility; in 2012, the Supreme Court made a joint ruling to ban life without parole for juveniles.
Sapolsky’s scientific reasoning is research-backed and difficult to refute. However, there are a many interpretations on varying levels of extremity:
Consider…
