The Free Will Paradox: Why the US Legal System Punishes the Brain
Can criminal justice survive in a deterministic world?
Tejaswi Pandey
4/7/20262 min read
Criminal law rests on a simple assumption: that individuals could have chosen otherwise. Determinism denies this and places blame on prior causes rather than conscious choice. If no one could have acted differently, the foundation of responsibility and the justification of punishment both collapse. Despite its philosophical appeal, determinism leaves criminal justice without a foundation, and that is a problem no society can afford.
Determinism is a theory that challenges mens rea (guilty mind) and places the cause for all human actions on factors, such as genetics, upbringing, environment, and neurological conditions, rather than free choice. In the eyes of a hardcore determinist, a murderer’s actions are entirely determined by prior causes. According to this theory, a murderer will not be guilty because he is simply the last consequence of a chain he never held, and you cannot be guilty of a height you didn’t choose.
Determinism as an idea is not wrong, but it’s not viable in this current world. Determinism can only flourish in an ideal society, and the criminal justice system is very practical. In following its principles, criminal justice also requires intention and reason to punish a person and to see whether the defendant is guilty or not. This is reflected in the concept of mens rea, or guilty mind — the principle that a person can only be held criminally responsible if they acted with conscious intent.
Criminal law is not just about keeping innocent people safe and punishing those who do wrong. At its core, it is about reforming the offender. Punishment is meant not only to protect society but also to teach the offender about their duties toward others. Because humans are social beings, they must learn how to live and act within a shared system of rules, and criminal law is the mechanism that enforces the rules and guides people toward responsible behavior.
Determinism isn’t perfect, nor is criminal justice, but in this modern world, criminal justice, through its system, has proved that it is more practical and viable. But does that mean determinism is wrong? It is not wrong as a concept, but it is not practical. In this situation, criminal law and determinism are not opposites — they are two sides of the same coin. One is criminal justice, and the other is the theory of determinism. Criminal law has not disregarded the concept of determinism; in fact, the concept of mens rea, or “guilty mind,” is a modified version of determinism.