so on the one hand your saying only a free will justice system would use punishment but then you say that a determinist justice system should use punishment as a deterrant to crime. ie as prevention. so doesnt it seem completely cruel to punish someone even though they had the deterrant of prison or a death sentence in their mind whilst they had the illusion that they were making a decision yet they could not help doing the crime anyway?
I said a determinist justice system should use rehabilitation and deterrence. This is opposed to punishment for it's own sake or revenge. I accidentally equivocated punishment there, I should have been more careful with that word. Deterrence can be threat of punishment, community stigmatization, and education. It is not cruel to use punishment to deter future offenses. Also we have recitivism laws to deal with those whose criminality is too deply ingrained for them to function as members of society.
if there is no free will there is no morality and no resonsibility for ones actions which you acknowledged in your post about the printer.
Whoa Whoa whoa! I never conceded there is no morality. Morality doesn't need free will or ultimate responsibility. Morality exists a system of judgement, regardless matter is re-definitions amongst different schools of thought that is constant. One can still judge and evaluate actions without there being a free will. SO I don't concede this point and don't see where you came to the conclusion that I did.
Let's keep in mind that any argument further down predicated on a rejection of morality is not entirely applicable to my stance of determinism as a whole.
so then having punishment as a deterrant will simply act as some kind of utilitarian means to an end. in this case the end is to create less crime by programming robots, oops, people, with the information that undesirable things will occur to them if they dont "control" their actions. sorry that i keeps speaking in free will terms but its a somewhat hard not to.
It's very hard when it's done intentionally but not so difficult in casual conversation. There's nothing inherently utilitarian about determinism or determinist retributive justice. Means and ends are concepts without a school, so to invoke them to try and pinhole determinism to a school of thought that is not popular here does nothing but show a certain skill in rhetoric.
so anyway, for those whom it does not deter you still cannot hold them responsible since the programming that made their brain tell their body to commit the crime was not overridden by the program called "the desire not to end up in prison". none of this is the persons fault of course so the only reason you would be throwing him into the institutionalised rape rooms we call prisons is to try and influence the actions of others.
We would toss the criminal in humane prisons, a far cry from what we have now, to deter others, deter from repeat offending, to rehabilitate, and to protect others from harm.
this seems very unjust and open to all sorts of abuse by those in charge or determining the harshness of the deterring punishment. especially if their programming has caused them to be somewhat sadistic, at no fault of their own of course.
You are assumuing that deterence is flogging and public humiliation, it's a loaded question. Also it's textbook Argumentum ad consequentiam. The pleasantness or unpleasantness of the consequences of a proposition's truth does not have any impact on the veracity of the proposition.
hell, if no morality exists (since it cant) and the punishment for some poor bastard who had no choice in the matter is just a means to an end then why not put him on the rack in front of a large crowd or on TV and make sure the "deterrant" is as gruesome as possible. this type of social engineering would certainly cause less crimes to be commited since the fear programming might outweigh the desire to kill or rape in the next guy who considers it.
Are you here to actually discuss my position or run for office? Obfuscation, argument from emotive language, and strawmen (see above) will not carry the day. If you have an actual argument here I would love to hear it.
How mature of you.
despite the fact that deterministic factors are always at play, at some point someone has to be held solely responsible for making the decision to commit a crime if there is to be any reason for punishing them.
This assume what it's trying t prove that people could have chosen otherwise. Also no, sole responsibility is not necessary and is in fact rather counter productive. By identifying abuse and moving to counter-act it, by education, by punishment, and by understanding the factors that make a criminal you can reduce crime. Free-Will justice says that we should attack criminals as willfully evil, deterministic justice says we should attack crime and the roots of crime because it produces people who commit evil actions. It is free-will that says we should put the man on the rack attacking the criminal, it is determinism that says we should try to attack the roots of his criminality and rehabilitate.
im sure a justice system that recognised free will (like all the ones we have now but better) would take into account deterministic factors as to what made the person commit the crime when it came to deciding on a sentence and a process of rehabiliation.
That would be a compatibalist based justice system as traditional free-will posits an agency free of deterministic factors.
Against other factors in my head that tell me this is a bad idea (yes determinism doesn't say there is only one factor involved in decision making) I will answer the gist of your why not torture people questions. One, morality does exist even without free will (you should really check what my premises are before constructing an argument around something I never advocated). Two, torture is not effective at anything. Three, what is effective is humane punishment, rehabilitation (Like we have now? No, actual rehabilitation), and a society that discourages crime (discourages as in makes crime both less necessary and highly risky, one without the other is useless as we've seen). Determinism looks at the causes of crime in addition to the act of the criminal and acts in both societies and the criminals best interests (which is to take in a criminal and pump out a well adjusted member of society).
Now, if you would like to ask some real questions in place of the three redacted paragraphs of hysterical rhetoric then I would be happy to answer them. If however you are only interested in preaching then I ask you to please do so elsewhere.