Phil Cook v2 a écrit :
> And lo On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:39:59 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
> spake thusly:
> 
>>> Ah but if you accept that we're simply rationalising actions already
>>> determined by our unconscious the chemical reactions that make you
>>> want to rob the store were countered/blocked by chemical reactions
>>> that stopped you. In the  case of those who did rob the store said
>>> counter-reactions simply weren't strong enough and whose fault is that?
>>
>> It doesn't matter so much whose fault it is, just that something
>> should be done to ensure that in the future that person has strong
>> enough counter reactions to stop them robbing the store.  Making that
>> person pay some money or sit in jail for a while can have that effect.
> 
> But you're punishing them for something that's not their fault ;-)
> 
But there is no free will on the judge either, and it's a normal
application of the system on the robber: the system is punishing itself,
that just the way it is. There is not enough counter-reaction in the
judge to not apply the letter of the law.

Post a reply to this message