Six examples of free will
Here are six cases of people who committed crimes under arguably mitigating circumstances. Read the descriptions of their behaviour, and think about the following questions.
- Which of these people would you judge to have acted with the greatest amount of freedom? Which of them acted with the least?
- What are the most important factors in these cases for limiting people's freedom?
- Should the law only punish people for actions that were freely performed?
1. Aaron. Aaron was born to an affluent home in suburban DC. He went to an expensive private school, had a generous allowance, and all his material needs were catered for. But even before he was a teenager, he became increasingly aggressive, disruptive, and self-destructive behaviour. He was repeatedly penalized at school for behavioural problems and for using and selling marijuana, and was finally expelled at 13 after assaulting another student. Aaron’s behaviour deteriorated and he started to claim that his father was spying on him and trying to kill him. A few months later, he murdered his father with a knife and was arrested by police. Investigators found journals filled with elaborate claims of weird conspiracies involving Aaron’s father and evidence of a complete mental breakdown. He was diagnosed with delusional schizophrenia, a disease with a strong genetic component but known to be linked to drug use in early life. He was detained in a mental institution indefinitely.
2. Bernadette. Bernadette, or Bernie to her friends, was a successful career woman from a working class background in Chicago. In her late teens, she had had a severe drinking problem, which she had managed to overcome thanks to therapy. But following a bad break up in her late 20s, her problem returned. She started drinking very heavily and lost her job after showing up late one too many times. Her friends became concerned about her, but she refused to see them, claiming she was “worthless” and “beyond help”. She started to run up debts and pawned many of her possession to pay the bills. One night, she showed up at her ex-boyfriend’s house drunk and began to aggressively berate him. He stepped outside to try to calm her down, but after the argument intensified, she pushed him down some steps. He fell, fracturing his skull, and died of a brain haemorrhage. Bernie claims that she didn’t intend to hurt him, and would never have acted so irresponsibly if she had been sober. Subsequent genetic testing indicated that Bernie had a gene very strongly correlated with alcohol abuse.
3. Frankie. Frankie was born in rural Virginia to a single mother. It was clear that from an early age that he was developmentally subnormal, and scored 60 on IQ tests, meaning that he had to be educated at a special school. He never learned to read or write and had difficulty in understanding other people, but felt very affectionately for his mother, and when he was 18, with her help managed to get a part time job stacking shelves at a local mall. One time, Frankie was woken by his mother’s shouts and found her having an argument with her new boyfriend. When Frankie saw the boyfriend slap his mom, he immediately started attacking him with an iron kettle. Frankie continued hitting him for more than a minute and killed him by repeated blows to the head. Frankie was subsequently arrested, but seemed highly traumatized and confused by events.
4. Bryan. Bryan was a high school principal in his mid-40s. He was a devoted family man and a much-admired teacher who had never had any legal problems. Then one day, his wife noticed that he had started collecting child pornography and propositioning children online. When confronted with the behaviour, he made no effort to hide or deny it, and refused to stop. Eventually, in despair, his wife contacted the police, and he was arrested and convicted for possessing indecent images. On the day before he was due to be sentenced to prison for his crimes, he had his brain scanned. He had a tumour. It was subsequently removed in an operation, and his paedophilic tendencies stopped immediately. He expressed horror and contrition at his previous behaviour. Things were well for five years, but his wife, logging onto the computer one day, saw with horror that Bryan had started viewing child pornography again. She immediately asked her husband to have another brain scan, and it was discovered that the tumour had returned.
5. Steven. Steven was born in a poor area of Flint to a sexually and physically abusive father. His father was a bullying megalomaniac who had a severe drinking problem and would severely beat Steven and his mother most evenings, hospitalizing him on more than one occasion. His mother was distant and scared, and was addicted to prescription drugs. When he was seven years old, Steven’s father was incarcerated. (His two older brothers were already in jail). His mother, unable to pay bills, turned to prostitution to help pay the rent and to fund her addiction to downers. Within a few years, Steven had dropped out of school and was using cocaine and methamphetamine recreationally. He became involved in selling drugs and in gang violence, and at the age of sixteen was arrested for fatally stabbing another teenager in an argument about a drug deal.
6. Angela. Angela was a quiet, shy, and kind person. She worked in an administration assistant in a business office in Scranton. She was liked by her neighbours and was a regular churchgoer, but had only a few close friends, and felt somewhat awkward in clubs and bars. She had difficulty meeting men, but finally met a man called Doug, to whom she was engaged to be married. It was at this point Angela was transferred to a new department in her firm, where she started being verbally bullied by her coworkers. She was teased, taunted, and mocked on a daily basis. She was too scared to do anything about it or report what was happening. The bullying intensified – the bullies started defacing and damaging Angela’s property, and on one occasion, Angela was pushed over and had her hair pulled. A little later, Doug broke off their engagement. When Angela’s co-workers discovered this, they started taunting her about it incessantly. Finally, one day, Angela lost it, and seriously assaulted one of her antagonists, knocking out a number of her teeth, and causing lacerations requiring more than thirty stitches.
Hello, David Alter here.
ReplyDeleteI would say Angela acted with the greatest amount of freedom while Aaron acted with the least.
The greatest mitigating factors in these cases would have to be the brain chemistry of these people. While even somebody who we would refer to as normal, without drugs in their system or any mental illnesses, arguably has no freedom over their own brain's function, most of these people are less capable of functioning in society than most people.
Whether or not people should be punished for crimes they did not freely perform depends on how they were forced to perform them. If a force other than the individual forced them to commit a crime, then we can't really blame them. However, if they committed a crime because their minds do not work like those of other people, then they should not be allowed to get away with it, since they are still mentally unwell and therefore dangerous. However, this does not mean they must be punished. If there is some way to control their dysfunction, such as medication, then rehabilitation makes much more sense.
I found it very difficult to say who had acted with the greatest amount of freedom, on account of all the individuals having different influences that effected their decisions and actions. Thus, making it very difficult to somehow place a qualitative measurement that I believe would be required to come to an appropriate conclusion. That being said, I think Bryan acted with the least freedom given the fact we can assume his behavior changes in direct correlation to him having a brain tumor.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the greatest influence on how some of these individuals freedoms was limited was via genetic predisposition; certain genetic traits or characteristics, that influenced the circumstances that led to their crimes. I don't believe I am versed well enough at the topic at hand to say if or how an individual should be punished if a crime they committed was impart due or involving their genetics. Maybe future human generations would have the scientific capability to remove problematic genes, but our capability only allows us to practice eugenics which most find highly ethically unsound.
I believe that Bernadette acted with the greatest amount of freedom, and that Aaron acted with the least. Bernadette knew she had a problem, and the conscious understanding of that danger and her lack of regard to her condition was her free choice to pick up a drink again. A break up is not an excuse to do something you understand will lead to bad choices in your life, and obviously affect those around her. Aaron being diagnosed with mental break down, had little conscious understanding of what he was doing. He was not able to make a free choice to decide what he believed was the truth, in the same way that Brian had the tumor. They both were unable to make a connection to the world because of psychological problems in their brain.
ReplyDeleteThe way their brain functions worked was the biggest factor in deciding their levels of freedom. For those who had social, behavioral, economical and family problems they may have been serious issues, however not enough to claim lack of freedom. Some may have it harder than others, but who is able to judge how hard someone else had it and was able to over come it. Subsequently allow others who simply did not have the will power or want it badly enough to make sure they kept away from problems go free or not be condemned.
I do not think we should punish those with whom physiological problems arise in the same way we do those who are simply exposed to evil or problems in the world. Those with mental problems need to be dealt with in institutions, and unless completely safe to be around, they should not be able to interact the same way in society as we do. Other examples like Bernadettes and Steven need to be dealt with fairly and in the same manor any other punishment would be dealt. The reason we punish people is to avoid future issues like this arising, who is to say that both of them are similar to a hundred people who were able to overcome their obstacles, and face the problems that life dealt them. If others can do it, they should not go un-punished because they were not able to face their problems. Not to say that their issues were not real or extreme, this is simply not an excuse.
the Voice of Imani Davidson:
ReplyDelete- Which of these people would you judge to have acted with the greatest amount of freedom?
I would say Angela acted with the greatest amount of freedom. she seemed to just reach her limit and consciously did something about it. it was like she spent her whole life quiet and content. which was fine because she never needed to defend herself but when everything went wrong she had had enough.
-Which of them acted with the least?
I believe Steven acted with the least freedom. Genes are just as important as the environment. Steven was exposed to so much drugs alcohol and abuse from the very beggining. His later decisions in life werent surprising because its all he knew. And his reaction to a drug issue with another person wasn't surprising either because drugs meant a lot to him it was his environment and all he knew.
- What are the most important factors in these cases for limiting people's freedom?
Most of these cases were deemed to be caused by a brain disorder of some sort. the best example of it would be Bryan. the decisions everyone made while intoxicated or with a brain illness werre caused solely by those illnesses. decisions happen before you think you decided, as H. Kornhuber studied the brain activity happens first.
- Should the law only punish people for actions that were freely performed?
honestly i think the law should punish events that were freely performed. but the idea of freedom would have to be that only people without brain illness are making free decisions. i dont think drugs or alcohol would count because people know what those substances do to them and they still do it , then afterwards its an excuse for their actions. environmental and genes should be punished because there are so many people with those same issues, we cant walk around and feel safe in the world because someone lived or grew up in a worse situation than us.
This is Hong Hong Tang.(sorry, I have to submit three answers seperately because of maximum characters allowed)
ReplyDeleteWhich of these people would you judge to have acted with the greatest amount of freedom? Which of them acted with the least?
People whom I think acted with the greatest amount of freedom: Bernadette;
People whom I think acted with the least amount of freedom: Frankie; Bryan; Steven; Angela
Aaron is a special case; I think he had the greatest amount of freedom when he was young before the deterioration, so he was responsible for using and selling marijuana. But he had the least amount when he murdered his father, because the schizophrenia limited his freedom.
1. Aaron’s Case: “a disease with a strong genetic component but known to be linked to drug use in early life” indicates that Aaron’s delusional schizophrenia would not deteriorate to the extent that he killed his father if he didn’t use and sell marijuana. Selling and using marijuana was largely a free choice of Aaron because that was before his mental disease’s deterioration and was a major cause of deterioration, which led to Aaron’s crime. While Aaron didn’t have too much freedom in murdering his father due to inability in distinguishing what is real and imagined, he had a lot of freedom when he chose drug abuse, so I think Aaron is at least largely responsible for his crime.
ReplyDelete2. Bernadette’s Case: “In her late teens, she had had a severe drinking problem” so alcohol abuse was a bad habit developed by herself. The fact that Bernadette overcame the abuse for some years but her problem returned was because she didn’t control her emotions well when she broke up with boyfriend. It is true that gene is important in determining our personalities (50%), which in turn heavily influence what we do. However, gene doesn’t explain everything, most of time we need to control ourselves and our emotions so that we don’t do harmful things. In this case, I think Bernadette was totally responsible for what she did. Even if it was true that she didn’t intend to hurt her ex-boyfriend, and would never have acted so irresponsibly if she had been sober, she was still responsible for the death because the ultimate reason was her alcohol abuse. As long as Bernadette was not born with alcohol abuse, i.e. it was not a part of her nature, she was fully responsible for what she did.
3. Frankie’s Case: I think Frankie didn’t have too much freedom in his behavior due to his abnormally low IQ, that is to say, his mentality was underdeveloped and he couldn’t do many things that normal adults can do, including judging situations appropriately. The fact that “he had difficulty in understanding other people, but felt very affectionately for his mother” & “seemed highly traumatized and confused by events” indicate that very likely, Frankie didn’t understand what was happening but his mother, whom he felt very affectionately, was hurt (slapped) by someone else, so it was almost by the light of nature that Frankie attacking the man who was hurting his mother to protect her. The fact that Frankie hurt the man until he died was very likely due to his fear (Frankie afraid the man might hurt his mother again) rather than intention to do so. Overall, I think Frankie had mental problem and he was incapable of judging, so he didn’t have freedom but was driven by unconditional instinct to act. It is human beings nature to protect people we love, so Frankie was naturally protecting his mum. Frankie lost control when attacking the man was because his inability in controlling himself, he never knew how to control, his freedom was limited by his mental problem.
4. Bryan’s Case: based on the facts that Bryan’s criminal behavior was presented at the same time as tumor and disappeared when tumor was removed, it was very likely that Bryan’s criminal behavior was highly correlated to (we can even say was resulted from) his tumor, which was out of his control. Furthermore, “he was a devoted family man and a much-admired teacher who had never had any legal problems” & “things were well for five years” indicate that his overall personality was good and he wouldn’t do criminal things when the tumor was absent. So I think Bryan didn’t have too much freedom in choosing committing the crime or not, because his tumor leads him to commit. Bryan’s freedom was limited by his tumor.
ReplyDelete5. Steven’s Case: Although I feel sorry for Steven’s bad fortune of being born in an unhealthy family environment, I believe he has full freedom to choose what to do, more specifically, obeying or breaking the law was Steven’s own choice. The fact that his father was sexually and physically abusive, and his mother turned to prostitution could negatively influenced Steven’s life, but these facts didn’t decide his life. So, Steve had enough freedom to act without influence from others, and thus he was responsible for the crime he committed
6. Angela’s Case: I think Angela was an introversive person, and this led to the fact she being bullied by her coworkers in the new department. Like Steven’s experience, Angela’s experience deserves some sympathies, but her behavior was not excusable, because she had freedom in choosing what to do in response to other’s unkind actions. For example, she could apply to transfer to another department or even quit job and get a new job in a new company rather than hurting others. So Angela was fully responsible for her behavior.
Should the law only punish people for actions that were freely performed?
ReplyDeleteFreedom in actions is a matter of degree rather than a simple “yes or no” answer, that is to say, we have more freedoms in some situations than the others, but it is not the two extremes of “have freedom” or “have no freedom”. More freedom comes with more responsibility while less freedom means less responsibility. I think “punishment” is more or less equivalently to “taking away one’s freedom on a corresponding degree.” For example, when a murder is punished to death, he loses all of his freedom because he freely chooses to kill people, then he has no choice but die; but when a person killed another person due to his schizophrenia, he is punished to be detained in a mental institution indefinitely rather than die because he couldn’t have full control (freedom) in his action, he loses his freedom in “being controlled by schizophrenia” but he still has freedom in sleeping, eating, and drinking etc. as a human being. So I think instead of saying “the law should only punish people for actions that were freely performed” we should say “the law should punish people with corresponding punishments for their actions based on their degree of freedom in acting”. “Degree of freedom” here is not a hard number that we can get by checking statistical tables but a subjective judgment that is based on a specific background.
The person who I felt that had the most freedom was probably Aaron, due to the fact that he did what ever he wanted to when he was young, not until he turned 13 where he got expelled from school. He then turned around and blamed things on his father claiming that he had been spying on him and trying to kill him.Therefore he took the matter into his own hands and had to do what he felt was best for him, and that was to kill his father first.
ReplyDeleteThe person who I felt that had the least freedom was Angela. Angela was the shy girl who was scared to answer back to anyone and took all the bullying she can.
I feel like the most important factor in limiting people's freedom, is the person themselves. Each person has to think on whats right and whats wrong. Any person who does anything wrong should be punished no matter what. People are responsible for their own actions and cannot blame it on other factors.
I think Bernadette had the most freedom. Considering the fact that she is an alcoholic but then went sober for a couple of years, she did decide to pick up a bottle again and begin drinking, it was her choice and freedom.
ReplyDeleteI think the person with the least freedom was Angela. Like she didn't take advantage of her freedom by standing up and defending herself. Yeah, she's shy, but sometimes you need to break out of your shell.
I think the law should not punish only actions that were freely performed. People are responsible for their own actions and there are consequences to that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey, this is Sayed Mohammed Shahmeer. I would say that Angela acted with the greatest amount of freedom. I would say so because I think her actions were over her own control and conscious. It was on her hands to choose the right actions and act responsibly. She was the only example among others who didn’t have a drug/ alcohol or other abnormal/ health issues. I think she could have acted responsibly instead of losing her temper. She could have complained or changed her workplace instead of assaulting the bullies herself.
ReplyDeleteI think all others except Angela had least freedom on their actions. In the case of Aaron, his disease caused his mental disorder characterized by delusions and hallucinations. Although he had freedom not to choose drug but we learn that free will doesn’t work with addiction. Science shows that drug or alcohol addiction is often pre-conscious in the addict’s brain. Drug-seeking behavior is often launched in the nucleus accumbens located in an evolutionary primitive part of the brain which is the pleasure center that kicks off the craving for a drug or a drink. This pleasure center is the same part of human brain from where the need of thirst or hunger derives. So, often times this are caused pre-conscious for which human have less or no free will against it. Same was the case with Bernadette and Steven.
Besides, Frankie and Bryan also had least freedom on their actions resulting from abnormal health issues. Was Bryan acting under his own free will or not? What about someone who doesn’t have a brain tumor? Is he acting under his own free will? If Bryan isn’t and the other is, what is the noticeable difference between the two? This logical question suggests that the level of free will we have isn’t as clear as we might normally like to think. It also suggests that free will is wholly physical in nature. On the other hand, since Bryans brain tumor simply released urges that he previously had, does that mean he was a bad person? Or he was an especially good person as he had urges that he was able to resist before his tumor. Arguably, I think there is more credit to resist temptation than in never being tempted at all.
However, the law should punish all the people whose actions were freely performed side by side with people whose actions are obligated by drug/ alcohol or other abnormal/ health issues. I think people who have control over their conscious and yet perform harmful acts despite of having other alternatives like Angela are considerably harmful for the society. And, people whose actions are pre-conscious and influenced by drug/ alcohol or other abnormal/ health issues are also harmful since they themselves have no control over their actions.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThis is Siddikur Rahman
I think Angela acted with the greatest amount of freedom and Bryan acted with the least because Angela appeared violent and did something consciously wrong even though she was quiet all the time. She also had the other options to resolve the issue.
The most important factors that identified are brain disorder and mental illness in some sort. There are also some serious social and family problems have been identified too.
People in general are rational agents who choose their own actions, and should therefore be held responsible them for their actions. It’s also important to recognize that when an action is not the result of a deliberate decision, whether it’s due to brain disorder or mental illness or other serious causes, than we can’t really punish or blame them. Yet it still offends our sense of fairness, and Thomas Nagel has coined a term for this “moral luck”.
I strongly believe that Bernadette had the most amount of freedom. Although she had a drinking problem in her late teens, she was able to rehab and get through it. She then had the freedom to either return to her old ways and abuse alcohol or to continue living an alcohol-free life. After a bad break up with her boyfriend, she returned to using alcohol and eventually killed her ex-boyfriend. She had the choice to make and decided to make the wrong one, which led to her committing a crime. I believe that Steven had the least amount of freedom. Steven was born in a hostile and abusive family. Steven was beat by his father many times. When a person is continuously abused at a young age, there is a strong chance he/she would be abusive to others in the future. In this case, Steven had his father and 2 brothers in jail. He didn’t have much freedom to do what he wanted to do, which led him to be the same way his father and brothers were. This led Steven to commit a crime involving assault in a drug deal. Steven didn’t have much freedom to get out of it because of the violent way he was raised.
ReplyDeleteMost of the cases were caused by some kind of brain disorder, family issues, and drugs. I believe that a person without these problems would function a lot better and would lead to them making better decisions.
The law should only punish people for laws that are freely performed. People with psychological issues such as Steven should be sent to the appropriate institutions to help solve the problem before it gets too late and the crime has already been committed. There is an unfair advantage to people that brains function perfectly normal to those that their brain does not function up to par due to some kind of issue. The law should recognize this and act accordingly.
-Ariel Hakimi
I agree with Ariel that Bernadette did act irresponsibly so even though she did have some restraints she could have worked through them and make better decisions. She can serve as an example to other people who act impulsively; without extra caution and control they can easily make a bad decision that they will have to live with, one that can ruin their lives.
DeleteIt’s extremely difficult to assign any order of most limited to least limited freedom because each crime was committed under arguably mitigating conditions, with each situation being unique to the individual. However, based on my personal reasoning and beliefs, I would say that Angela acted with the greatest amount of freedom, while ¬¬Bryan acted with the least amount of freedom.
ReplyDeleteAngela acted with the greatest amount of freedom because she let outside factors influence her actions in a negative and harmful way. The difference between her action, compared to Bryan, is that Angela had a conscious decision. When encountering bullies, she could have reported it or quit/transfer her job. She chose to suffer and endure it, which ultimately pushed her patience over the edge.
Bryan had the least amount of freedom because of a tumor in his brain that compelled him to act in a certain way (looking at, and collecting, child pornography). He didn’t necessarily choose to commit this act because as soon as it was removed once, his “paedophilic tendencies stopped immediately.” Also, when he started viewing child pornography again, it was discovered that his tumor came back.
Based on the given situations, I would say that genetics is one of the major factors in limiting one’s freedom. When people are genetically predisposed (e.g. having unusual chemical firings in the brain, having undeveloped areas in the brain, etc.), the body is already inclined to function in a specific way—and that greatly influences how the mind will react. The environment is also a key factor in limiting one’s freedom. People do not get to choose what kind of society they want to be born into or what kind of parents they have. Those who are born in a high crime rate neighborhood with parents who are abusive and addicted substance users, are more inclined to submit to the same trends as opposed to someone who is born in a low crime rate neighborhood with mostly ambitious and kind-hearted people.
The law exists to keep just order within a society; without law, there is chaos. That is why almost all crimes have to submit to the justice system, no matter how much freedom a person had. For example, people who accidently kill someone else (manslaughter), still get charged and get sentenced to jail time. Although by accident, or no matter how out-of-their-hands the act, a crime was still committed. Those with genetic disorders that drive them to commit certain acts, such as killing a co-worker in an argument, still committed the crime and must still submit to the law. It would not make sense for someone to commit a crime and blame it on their brain, because then every smart criminal would use that excuse in court.
-Peace Chung
If I had to choose the person who had the most freedom I would also choose Angela because like every other person she was faced with a challenge and instead of overpowering it she took another route that ended badly. Like her many people make bad decisions and act without thinking about what may result. I also agree that Bryan was faced with the most difficult restraint and it is hard to blame him for his actions when really he was just a victim of a tumor.
DeleteThese to examples show how hard it is to carry out law because of all the different cases. It is impossible to apply one general law to such a complex situation which is why it is comforting to know that it is understanding of reality and tries to cater to different situations but still has consistencies to make sure it keeps order in society, like Peace Chung explained.
I think Angela acted with the greatest amount of freedom and Bryan and Aaron both acted with the least.
ReplyDeleteThe most important factor I believe that limits someone's free will is the way in which you act without restraint. For instance, in Angela's case, she acted with her free will. She acted with her own judgement and her own conscious. Though she could have done something about the situation like reporting to Human Resources or find another job, she chose to act in aggression and beat up one of her aggressors. However, in the case of Bryan and Aaron, both had a chemical imbalance in their bodies which restricted them to act in their own free will. For Bryan, he had a tumor in his brain which forced him to act the way he did, looking at child pornography. For Aaron, he had schizophrenia which made him act the way he did, killing his father.
Thus, I believe that people who act with their own free will, and without restraint, should be punished for their wrongdoings. If there is nothing that is impeding you from acting immorally aside from your morals, ethics and beliefs, you should be punished. There are other ways besides acting wrongly, like in Angela's case where she could have left her workplace or told Human Resources about her situation. But if you have acted wrongly, and you have some sort of chemical imbalance, there is no way of acting in your free will because you really are not acting in your free will. Thus, those who act with chemical imbalances should not be entirely punished for their wrongdoings.
-Timothy Hilario
I believe that Aaron acted with the most amount of freedom. He made choices early on in his life that led him to do what he did and led him to having his disease. Acting aggressively as a child does not give you an excuse to end up where he ended up.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Bryan acted with the least amount of freedom. He did not want to want child pornography, rather the disease led him to do the actions that he did and therefore he had no control of what he was doing. The tumor was the reason why he was watching child pornography,and therefore he had no freedom of what he was doing.
What limited most of these people's freedom is that the fact that most of these people had diseases that contributed to their actions. They could not control themselves, but the ones that did not have the diseases they made bad choices in their lives that led to their actions.
The law should more or less be equal for everyone, but should vary on the situation... I am not going to say that a person that is mentally ill should be treated the same way as a person who made a horrible choice, but truthfully that's why we have a jury.
Shlomo Torkieh
It is very difficult for me to determine who acted with the most amount of freedom. However, I believe that Steven acted with the most amount of freedom. Steven was not born with a mental disorder and was not diagnosed of any acute sickness. Although he was born to a poor family, his family condition should not be used to justify his actions. He can have the choice to make better decisions and choose a different path for his life.
ReplyDeleteBryan acted with the least amount of freedom. Compared to the other scenarios, Bryan's tumor did not develop because of his actions, such as, drug overdose. The brain tumor controlled his action. The tumor is the dominating factor of why he watched child pornography.
In most of the cases, mental health and physical health limited the freedom of the people. The actions of the people were controlled by their mental sickness and physical sickness.
The law should be equal and fair to everyone. However, there should be different degrees of punishment. For example, in many countries, mentally ill patients are sentenced to a shorter prison time than none mentally ill patients.
Yinyi Liao
hello, this is xiaofa wang
ReplyDeleteI believe Bernadette acted with most freedom on her part. Her problem rooted in her drinking problem that she picked up in her teenage year. Teenagers are on transition from careless childhood to become responsible adult, It is the common obstacle for everybody,and it is not easy. Naturally some will fail the test, Bernadette being one of them. Although she experienced great frustration in her late twenties, this doesn't entitle her to act irresponsibly again and further intensify it to from hurting herself to other people. It is indeed a tragedy that her ex died and she faces legal charge, but Bernadette should learn responsibility.
I am sympathetic for Steven and thinks he had least freedom. Growing up in a family situation like his, where his close family members and even neighborhood constantly giving him negative influence, I could imagine anyone end up with his distorted worldview, life-view. He committed the crime on himself, but i would say he did not know any better. Obviously the legal system is not going to forgive Steven for his ignorance, because it would be economically costly and practically unfeasible to erase all ignorance, on the other hand, the policy of containment by punishing the wrongdoer serves better.
Social and biological influences played part in limiting people's freedom. In the 6 cases, biological influence is highlighted.
ideally, people should only be punished for actions that were freely performed, simple as that, the innocent free of charge on misled crimes. But nothing is perfect, to follow that model, human society would collapse from irresponsible actions which spread like contagious disease. From legal perspective crime-doers must be punished to maintain social order. I think legal system does not care if one acted with freedom or not, since this does not help with maintaining social order. In the case of mentally illed convict, aren't they punished as well by their quarantine from society? Exile is a form of most severe punishment rendered by ancient Athen.
Out of the six examples, I would have to conclude that Angela acted with the greatest amount freedom because although she is a shy person who is consistently taunted by her peers, she was not predisposed to violence by nature or nurture. She could have simply asked to be transfered to another department or quit her job to get away from her negative environment. In my opinion, Frankie acted with the least amount of freedom because his low IQ may have prevented him from being able to properly think things through before he attacked.
ReplyDeleteThe most important factors for limiting people's freedom is these cases are their genetic makeup.
The law should punish everyone for their actions. What I do think should differ is the severity of the punishment because while some are fully aware and control of their actions others have pre disposed genetic factors that may hender their ability to judge and act responsibly.
--Ronetta Wreh
After reading each example I could not imagine what I would do if I was in one of their positions. Unfortunately I think I would probably react the same way most of they did even if it was illegal. For Aaron, Bernadette, and Bryan they didn’t have much freedom because even with all their efforts they had troubles fighting their urges especially because their brains and bodies weren’t on their side either. It is easy for someone who doesn’t have to fight with their brain or an unlucky gene in their body to see these individuals had free will and therefore they should have been able to suppress their urges and control themselves. Although it was a little bit different for Angela, Steven and Frankie it is a little different because they had less of a challenge and should have been able to control themselves. The latter three had more freedom because the former three were just unlucky with a gene, a tumor or a disease, which is the reason for their impulsive behavior while the other three just had more obstacles they had to overcome and should have though before they had acted. That is not to say that each of their cases weren’t unfortunate and difficult to understand let alone justify or explain. We live in a society where law is universal and if the law is bent for a specific situation then it is undermined and taken advantage of by people who are selfish, greedy and act on impulse. You can also argue that if the law didn’t apply to the people in the above example then there would by no justice for the people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and killed. Are their lives less valuable? I think the law can be understanding of the conditions but it also need to protect society and instill a sense of fear so that people act more cautiously and go that extra mile to create self control.
ReplyDeleteThis is Jibong Jung.
ReplyDelete#1.
From six examples, I think I found three components to measure the size of freedom or the free will.
(1) I think that killing or assaulting people is not directly related to the freedom, but emotion or the reason of the behavior is much more affected to the action.
(2) I think that killing or assaulting people by person who has genetic or health problem is related less amount of freedom or free will.
(3) I think that people who are financially stable have greater amount of freedom or free will.
Thus, according to condition number 2 and 3, Angela acted with the greatest amount of freedom since she has stable job and no health problem; and Frankie acted with the least amount of freedom since he was raised from poor family and had severe brain problem.
#2.
I think that both financial condition and health condition is the most important factors in the cases to limiting freedom.
#3.
I believe that what other people think of my actions, conscience, and the religious life affected my behavior, as law did.
After reading all of the scenarios it was really hard to chose who had the greatest and least amount of freedom respectively because we don’t actually knows what goes through any of these peoples minds unless we go through each of the experiences ourselves. What my conclusion is as to who had the most amount of freedom is Angela because it is no secret that many people get bullied on a daily basis but that does not mean that she could not have spoken up about it and made it stop. Her choosing to let it escalate and reach the point to where she had to physically injure one of the people assaulting her to make it stop clearing shows that she had the freedom to make it stop and a less gruesome outcome would have occurred.
ReplyDeleteAs for the person who had the least amount of freedom I would choose two but I ultimately believe Frankie had the least amount of freedom due to his disabilities rather than my second choice Bryan. Frankie seems to have mental retardation because he has difficulty in understanding other people, has a low IQ and is unable to read or write. I feel as if he acted instinctively to save his mother, the only person he shares his affection with and possible one of the few people who might understand him. What draws me to this conclusion is the fact that he did not stop when beating his mom’s boyfriend meaning he did not stop to think about his actions and I assume even if he could he would not have been able to understand the situation or even why he was acting as he did instead of talking or pushing his mom’s boyfriend. Furthermore, his reaction to being arrested resulting in trauma and confusion further leads me to believe that he had no idea what he did or why he was being arrested. The reason I did not chose Bryan was because it felt as if he could some way manage to turn on and off his need to watch child pornography, he could chose when and where to watch it. I assume that a tumor does not make a person act while the person is in a subconscious state but instead a tumor rather induces the need to watch the pornography and if it does induce a person then he had the freedom to go against the urge. If a tumor makes a person commit an action such as watching and making sexual offers to children online, subconsciously, then he should of denied the allegations and said that he knew nothing about the acts instead of clearly stating that he would not stop.
The most important factors for limiting these peoples freedoms were basically lack of expressing your needs to others and the lack of mental stability. Angela was limited but her not being able to express how she felt about being bullied and not putting an end to the situation she was in. Frankie on the other hand was limited due to circumstances out of his control, his mental handicap that in my opinion could not let him distinguish right from wrong or most importantly the consequences of his actions.
In terms of “punishment” I do believe that people should get punished for crimes freely performed because freedom of choosing an action results knowing the consequences of the action. In Angela’s case she clearly was free of making the decision of assaulting her bully and could have avoided the confrontation if she would have expressed her anger in a different way or as many mentioned before asked to switch departments. If a person did not have freedom of committing a crime such as in Frankie’s circumstance he should not be punished instead he should be in an institution where he can learn and get the attention he needs.
-Cristian Sanchez
I believe that Bernadette acted with the greatest amount of freedom. She choosed to be an alcoholic when she had to choice of being not. She used alcohol to help herself to escape from reality which was actually a negative and destructive way. She had the choice to become what she became.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think Bryan acted with least amount of freedom. He had a tumor in his brain which caused him to became paedophiliac. He was unable to control his own action due to his tumor.
Biological problems seem to be the most important factor in these cases for limiting people's freedom. Just like in Bryan's case, his biological illness restarined his freedom.
Personally I think the law should not only punish people for actions that were freely performed since everyone should be equal under the law. However, distinction varies base on situations. Not everyone has a choice. But for those who had, heavy punishments shall be performed.
Sze Nga Cheng
In my opinion, Angela acted with the most freedom as her catalyst was just social pressure at a stage where such external forces should not easily shape future development. Aaron and Frankie in my opinion acted ( and to a certain extent Bryan) all lacked freedom of action as their faculties were physiologically influenced preventing them from acting with the proper information.
ReplyDeleteThe most important factors in limiting freedom in these examples mostly have to do with physiological afflictions such as mental illness, brain disease, and immature neural development.
People have the right to do whatever they desire, until their actions negatively effect society or those around them. Despite impairments, those who have committed crimes must be isolated from most of society as laws have two functions, justice( in this case, punitive), and the protection of society overall. Despite lacking proper faculties to be wholly responsible for criminal actions, such individuals still pose a risk to those around them if left unsupervised.
Which of these people would you judge to have acted with the greatest amount of freedom?
ReplyDeleteI believe that out of all six cases, Angela acted with the greatest amount of freedom. Four out of the six had a genetic or mental problem, which is a great contributory factor when it comes to the explanation of their crimes. In Steven’s case, his environment may have played a big role in his crime. When it comes to Angela, however, it never mentions anything of a violent or drug related past and makes no mention of a problem that she had other than a breakup. If she had the will power to hurt another person that was taunting her then she should have the courage to tell her boss there is a problem between her and a coworker.
Which of them acted with the least?
In my opinion, Bryan acted with the least amount of freedom. The case mentioned that Bryan was collecting child pornography when he had a brain tumor. When the tumor was removed and he was in remission there was no collecting of child pornography. When he started collecting again, another tumor was found. Whenever he was in control of his body and was tumor free, he had not been collecting pornography. The tumor had dictated what he did so the tumor caused the actions rather than him freely picking to do so.
What are the most important factors in these cases for limiting people's freedom?
The limiting factors are genetic/mental problems and the environments in which these people are placed. These factors can mandate the actions of the people they affect. With four of the six cases, the person had a genetic/mental problem that influenced their committing of a crime. The other two people had environments that had motivated them to commit a crime. If these factors were not in the cases, there could have been a different outcome to the stories.
Should the law only punish people for actions that were freely performed?
I believe they should only punish those who do something of their own free will. If you are not in control of your actions then there should be a way to help the person get better (i.e. mental institution, therapy). Some view that as a punishment, but I view that as a way for the person to get help for their problem. Those who do not have a problem and have control over their actions should be punished for their wrongdoing.
Laws are simply consequences to certain freedoms. Free or not, we perceive every action to be free, and therefore, there should be appropriate punishments. We can always find justifications and reasons that brought the six people to commit their crimes. But to answer the questions, all six people acted freely while feeling seemingly compelled to act in their way. Even though Bryan had a tumor that impaired his judgment, there is some level of freedom behind him acting the way he did. Someone who is mentally challenged like Frankie may not be completely aware of what he was doing, but he was free nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, the "justifications" for the six people's actions range anywhere from how they are treated during childhood or even just genetic problems. But again, I believe there is always some level of freedom, even if not able to control it. The punishment for an uncontrolled action like with Aaron and his schizophrenia should not be prison, but obviously rehabilitation. So while the six people may not have freely CHOSEN to act the way they did, they were still free to do so.
Noah Sondheim
In my opinion Steven's actions were committed with the greatest amount of freedom. Although he was raised in an unstable environment throughout his young life there was no justifiable reason for his actions. Every day there are similar stories to his where some people choose to live a better life, and others end up stuck in the type of environment they were brought up in, however I believe that is by choice. Where Steven ended up was his own doing. On the other hand the person that i believe had the least amount of freedom was Frankie. From the very beginning Frankie was diagnosed with a very well under developed neural system. In this case that explains his actions. Because of his under developed brain Frankie did not fully understand the concept of right and wrong which in turn led to the excessiveness of his brutal actions.
ReplyDeleteThe factors that play the biggest role in limiting freedom were psychological, mental, medical, and physical conditions. As well as the environment and the circumstances the "criminals" were subject to.
My answer to the last part is that i am not actually sure. If we have free will then no matter what the circumstances are we have the choice between what is right and wrong. So it is not justifiable to give those with psychological or physical disabilities a pass on their wrong doing because they too have free will. So if you believe in free will i believe that everyone that does wrong should be punished for their actions. At the same time though I'm not certain that free will exists because it is so hard to actually prove.How do you know its not just instinct and that every action one takes is purely instinctive. In this case also however one would be punished for their wrong doing as well. So for the purpose of this discussion I believe the law should punish any person that commits a punishable act.
Steven Benigno
i believe Bryan has the least amount of freedom, meanwhile Frankie possesses the most amount of freedom.
ReplyDeletei believe some of the factors that are limiting people's behaviors are: alcohol and mental illnesses.
Well i personally believe that should rely on the person's status, meaning whether the person is intoxicated with alcohol, or drugs, or whether the person is experiencing some mental issues, if the person was intoxicated while harming a person at the time, i believe he or she should be totally responsible for his or her actions, therefore should be punish, because he could've chosen not to drink or not to go over the limit. however if the person suffers from mental issues, i personally believe he or she should be taken to a mental rehabilitation to stop such action from reoccurring.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is William Cuccurullo posting. Sorry its late, just seen the emai:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel it is extremely difficult to quantify the level of “freedom” each of these individuals had in completing their actions, as freedom is a very tentative term, based directly on definition by the beholder. However, in terms of who had the “best” self control to avert the situation, I feel Angela had the most freedom in her actions. While clearly pushed into a corner, Angela differed from all of these individuals by lacking a mental disorder or disease at the time of her offense. Each of the other cases involved an individual who had some kind of disease (including drug addiction, which has been proven to dramatically alter brain chemistry and affect decision making skills). Even Aaron, who you could say freely chose to begin doing drugs, was predisposed to a major mental disorder. While he may have chose to commit the action which triggered his predisposition to schizophrenia (it has been shown that schizophrenia can worsen with drug use), its onset made every action during his schizophrenic episode not entirely his fault. While Angela was clearly not wrong for what she did, she did commit the action with both a sober and sane mind. Because of this, I feel she acted with the most freedom.
The most important factors in these cases for limiting peoples freedom is the presence of a major mental disorder or disease. People who are predisposed to or suffer from a condition are generally less in control of their actions than people who are healthy. People who have certain conditions that affect the brain are not as free in their actions as healthy individuals.
The law should not punish people only for actions that were freely preformed, but should take every situation into consideration on a case by case basis. The courts should determine how “free” the individual was in committing their actions, and hand out penalties (which should not always equate to jail time or death) accordingly. A person who has an irregularity or one whose crime was committed as a reaction to wrongdoing is not always completely free in their actions. A countless number of factors can go into determining how “freely preformed” an individual’s actions are. For example, in the situation with Bernadette, she was clearly not of sober mind while committing her crime. While I do not think she should be let off for her crime, this woman clearly needs alcohol treatment as opposed to jail time to correct her issues.
Briana Shuki
ReplyDeleteI believe it is difficult to say which of the six examples acted with the most freedom on the sole reasoning that their actions were all induced by different motives. One can argue that some of these crimes were a direct result of a psychological problem which was out of the subject’s control, while some of the other crimes were caused by a choice of free will. The amount of freedom each subject had proves my previous statement to be true.
Given the circumstances of each individual I believe that Angela and Steven acted with the greatest amount of freedom because they’re behavior was a direct cause of their own self esteem or lack thereof and outside forces that provoked them to lash out in that manner.
As I stated above it is tough to judge the amount of freedom each individual had when committing their crimes but because of their mental illnesses I believe that Aaron, Bryan, Frankie and Bernadette acted with less freedom. Because it was so apparent that Bryans tumor was the ultimate root of his pedophilic tendencies, this is an ideal example to why the law should punish people for actions that were more freely performed.
Simon Kim
ReplyDeleteIn all of these cases, all people acted of free will but case 4 seems to be the least free whereas case 5 is the most free. In case 4, whether it was fully or partly, the tumor had some kind of affection on the person's behavior since the timings were perfectly matched. However, in case 5, regardless of the negative social settings the person grew up in, he made his own choices to be a drug dealer and a murderer. Having a weak mind is no excuse for wrongful behavior.
Moreover, the law should only punish people who act of free will but the question is the extent of free will. I think the only times people are stolen of their free will are when you are forced to act a certain way, or if there is some kind of disability the person is suffering. A person's surroundings are never enough to take away free will.
David Braxton II
ReplyDeleteOut of all these cases, I think that Aaron had the greatest amount of freedom given the fact that he was spoiled as a child, while Bryan had the least amount of freedom given that he couldn't control himself due to his brain tumor.
The most important factor of these cases is neurotic behavior, which is behavior that affects the brain. The people in these cases each have diseases in the brain, such as schizophrenia or a brain tumor, or dealt with alcohol or drug abuse. These kinds of illnesses and diseases can cause a person's change in attitude, behavior, and/or personality.
The law should punish those people who have acted in free will; however, they should also help them try to get better from their illnesses because they were not in their right minds. Therefore, they must do whatever it takes for them to get better and get the help they need.