The Puppet and the Strings: Rethinking Justice in a World Without Free Will
Imagine a time just 500 years in the past. Your village's most esteemed medical experts might diagnose someone's epileptic seizures as evidence of a pact with the devil. The prescribed "treatment"? A gruesome execution by burning. Now, jump to the present day. We recognize epilepsy for what it truly is: a neurological disorder, a hiccup in the brain's potassium channels, perhaps. We've moved from condemnation to care, focusing on therapies to lessen the suffering.
This shift begs the question: Should our approach to those who violate the law undergo a similar transformation? This is where the work of neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky becomes incredibly relevant. He argues, quite convincingly, that we have far less free will than we think – perhaps none at all.
The debate around "free will" is a thorny one. Do we genuinely possess it? And if we do, how do we even define it? Our answers profoundly influence our beliefs about moral culpability and, consequently, how we believe offenders should be held to account. If every decision is freely made, then individuals who commit crimes bear full moral responsibility. But what about decisions driven by forces beyond an individual's control, such as brain tumors or mental disorders? Here, our understanding of accountability shifts. We observe this reflected in legal systems that either exonerate such individuals or guide them toward treatment in mental health institutions.
Sapolsky's work highlights the biological underpinnings of behavior. He points out, for example, that certain genes can dramatically increase the probability of someone committing a violent crime. Individuals carrying these genes are statistically far more likely to engage in various criminal activities, from robbery to assault to murder. A vast majority of incarcerated individuals, especially those on death row, carry these genes. This strongly suggests that people are not all starting from the same baseline when it comes to their impulses and actions.
As Sapolsky eloquently explains, we are the sum of our biology and our environment, neither of which we choose. We are each a product of our genetic code, thrust into a world of circumstances we can't control, particularly in our early, most formative years. The intricate interplay between genes and environment results in each of us possessing unique perspectives, personalities, and decision-making capacities. The distinctive neural architecture within each of our brains isn't a matter of choice; it's the hand we're dealt, as predetermined as the color of our eyes.
Sapolsky emphasizes that if you could rewind the tape of your life to any given moment, with all the same neurons firing in the same way, and all the same environmental inputs, you would make the exact same decisions, every single time. This perspective challenges our notions of free will and personal responsibility. If our brains are shaped by forces beyond our control, is it truly meaningful to say someone made "bad choices"? Is it equitable to punish individuals for behaviors stemming from conditions like frontotemporal dementia or Parkinson's disease, or even for actions influenced by a lifetime of hardship and adversity?
It's tempting to imagine ourselves in the shoes of someone who has broken the law and assert, "I would never do that." But is that a fair assessment? If we haven't faced the same challenges – like in utero exposure to drugs, lead poisoning, or physical abuse – can we truly claim to be comparable? We can't genuinely understand their lived experience, as Sapolsky might say, our "neurons were firing differently."
Taking Sapolsky's ideas seriously, one could argue, as I do, that our current justice system rests upon a flawed, outdated understanding of human behavior, based on outdated scientific fact. If, as he suggests, free will is largely an illusion, then the very foundation of our legal system, built on the concept of individual responsibility, crumbles. Even when we think we've "changed our mind," it's actually the ever-shifting circumstances around and within us that have influenced that change, not some independent "will" of our own. This means our current approach to justice, with its focus on punishment and retribution, might need a radical overhaul. Perhaps a shift towards a more rehabilitative and preventative approach, acknowledging the complex interplay of factors that lead to criminal behavior, would be a more humane and effective path forward. We need a system that recognizes the puppet strings of biology and circumstance, a system that prioritizes understanding and healing over simple condemnation. Also, if a person is born into poverty, has drug addicted parents and was raised in a violent environment, it is much more probable that the person commits a crime. But if another person is born into a stable home environment with loving parents, it is much more probable that the person is successful. Who are we to punish the first person and praise the second one when neither one had control over the environment they were born into?
Sources and Further Reading:
Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky: This book is a comprehensive and engaging exploration of the biological factors that influence our behavior.
Robert Sapolsky's lectures on Human Behavioral Biology at Stanford University (available on YouTube): These lectures provide a fascinating introduction to Sapolsky's ideas and research. I highly recommend watching the one titled "Lecture 1: Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology"
Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will by Robert M. Sapolsky. This new book delves even deeper into the science of determinism and its far-reaching implications.
Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain by David Eagleman: Although Eagleman holds a slightly different view on free will than Sapolsky, this book provides an accessible overview of the unconscious processes that drive our actions.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker: This book offers a broader perspective on the nature vs. nurture debate, which is relevant to the discussion of free will and responsibility.
These resources will provide a deeper dive into the fascinating and complex world of neuroscience, behavior, and the implications for our understanding of justice and morality. They may challenge your assumptions and leave you pondering the very nature of human agency.
Also, if you like to explore even further, I recommend reading Justice Without Retribution by Bruce Waller.
{fullWidth}