APR 19

24: APR 19

Please review the candidates for final readings / resources. Think also about any resources you are bringing into your work from outside the course resources.

Works through traditional non-naturalist positions.
Identifies as a "hard incompatibilist" (note the pairing of a quasi-libertarian view of FW with determinism. That's how you get a "hard landing". The "problem / solution set" for FW MR skeptics is pretty traditional.)

Pereboom basic argument. Analogy bt crime and public health. Based on self-defense and defense of others. (note Bradley also) not utility. Avoids some objections to utility. Principle of least infringement. Identifies with public health ethics. Recent book on SDH and SDPH.
Includes social justice - understood in terms of capabilities approach of Nussbaum and Sen. Health, reasoning, self-determination, attachment, personal security and respect. Substantive freedom (Sen)
[This looks oddly like Dennett's conception of freedom.]
"It is a mistake to hold that the criteria of ind. accountability can be settled apart from considerations of social justice and the social determinants of criminal behavior."

Retributivists might argue that treating people as "broken things" undermines their dignity.
Cites empirical evidence suggesting that retributive CJ systems like US appear pretty disproportional. Seems more likely that punishment systems are responding to beliefs about MR and self-determination than proportional fitting of penality to crime.
Skeptic of the coherence of proportionality. Comparing different things vs. incarceration typically.
American supermax prisons are horrible places. Overuse of solitary confinement. [Note this applies to policing in the US as well. ]
Cardinal and ordinal proportionality.
Argues that the PH model protects dignity better. Principle of proportionality and least infringement.

[This section reminded me of Greene and Cohen's prediction.]
Alliance for Safety and Justice data -- what victim's want
Even if they wanted "vengence" it's not clear that would be morally ok. Retribs need a distinction.
Restorative justice.

Let’s take some time today to discuss the final paper prompt. It could be as brief as, “In light of your course readings and other knowledge and commitments that you have, provide your own theory of moral responsibility and free will (freedom). Then show what implications your theory has for how we should think about praise, blame, and punishment on both the interpersonal and social (criminal justice) levels.”