Determinism and Criminal Sentencing: Effects on Judges

The judge leaned back in her chair and studied the defendant across the courtroom. He had stolen two hundred dollars from a corner store while addicted to painkillers his doctor prescribed after a workplace injury. She held a sentencing guideline that recommended three years in prison. If she believed his choices flowed inevitably from his biology and circumstances rather than from free will, could she still call him morally blameworthy? This question sits at the center of a debate that could reshape the entire criminal justice system.

Determinism holds that every human action results from prior causes beyond our control, which means no one could have acted differently than they did. If legislators and judges fully embraced this view, criminal sentencing would shift away from retribution and toward rehabilitation and public safety, resulting in shorter sentences, more treatment programs, and a focus on preventing future harm rather than punishing past wrongs.

Determinism is the philosophical position that all events, including human decisions, are caused by previous events according to natural laws. Under this view, the biochemistry of my brain, the neighborhood where I grew up, and the conversation I had this morning all combined to produce whatever I do next. I first encountered this idea in my Introduction to Philosophy course last semester when Professor Chen asked whether anyone in the room could have chosen not to come to class that day. Most of us insisted we could have stayed in bed, but she pointed out that our attendance resulted from our values, our fear of falling behind, our sleep schedules, and countless other factors we did not choose. The criminal justice system has traditionally assumed that offenders deserve punishment because they freely chose to break the law. Determinism challenges that assumption by suggesting that criminals are products of forces they never controlled.

If lawmakers accepted determinism, the primary justification for harsh sentencing would collapse. Retribution, the idea that wrongdoers deserve to suffer in proportion to the harm they caused, depends on moral responsibility. You cannot blame someone for something they could not help doing. My roommate works as an intern at a public defender's office, and she told me about a case where a man with untreated schizophrenia assaulted a stranger he believed was threatening him. The prosecutor wanted ten years, but everyone in the courtroom understood his illness shaped his perception and actions. Determinism extends that logic to all offenders. A legislator who truly believed in determinism would write laws that treated criminals more like that man: not evil people who chose wrongly, but individuals whose actions were produced by genetics, upbringing, trauma, and social conditions. Sentencing guidelines would focus on what intervention could change those causal factors rather than on making offenders suffer for their deeds.

Rehabilitation would become the central purpose of imprisonment under a determinist system. If a person's criminal behavior stems from fixable causes like addiction, lack of education, or distorted thinking patterns, then the justice system should aim to alter those causes. I volunteered at a reentry program last spring where formerly incarcerated people told me that their time in prison involved almost no counseling or job training. They spent years in cells and left with the same problems they brought in, which explained why several ended up back behind bars within months. Determinist judges would demand that prisons offer intensive drug treatment, mental health services, vocational programs, and cognitive behavioral therapy. Sentences would last as long as necessary to address the root causes of criminal conduct, which might mean shorter terms for some offenders and longer supervised release for others. The goal would shift from delivering a measured dose of suffering to changing the conditions that produce crime.

Public safety would replace moral desert as the standard for how long someone stays incarcerated. Even if offenders do not deserve punishment, society still needs protection from dangerous individuals. A determinist framework would ask whether an offender poses a future threat and what measures can reduce that risk. Violent offenders might receive longer sentences than they do now if evidence showed they remained dangerous, while nonviolent offenders could be released much sooner since their crimes caused limited harm and their risk of reoffending was low. I read about a sentencing reform in Norway where judges evaluate prisoners based on risk assessments rather than the seriousness of their original crime. Some people find this unsettling because it means someone convicted of a minor offense could be held longer than someone convicted of a serious one if the first person seems more likely to reoffend. Yet determinism pushes us to set aside our retributive instincts and focus only on preventing future harm.

Critics of this approach argue that abandoning moral responsibility would undermine respect for human dignity and weaken the deterrent effect of punishment. They claim that treating criminals as mere products of their circumstances denies their status as rational agents capable of making meaningful choices. My ethics professor raised this objection when we discussed determinism, pointing out that people feel insulted when you suggest their accomplishments resulted entirely from luck and biology rather than effort and character. Retributivists also worry that criminals would receive lighter sentences under determinism, which could embolden potential offenders who no longer fear serious consequences. This concern has some weight, though research on deterrence suggests that certainty of punishment matters more than severity. A system that focused on changing behavior rather than inflicting pain might prevent more crime in the long run even if individual sentences became shorter.

I now think determinism would produce a justice system that looks less like vengeance and more like public health. Sentences would shrink for many offenders as courts abandoned the goal of making criminals suffer for their wrongs. Prisons would transform into treatment centers designed to address the psychological and social factors that generate criminal conduct. Judges would keep dangerous individuals locked up as long as they posed a threat, but they would release rehabilitated offenders regardless of whether they had served enough time to satisfy the public's hunger for retribution. This shift would require a difficult cultural change because people feel a deep emotional need to see wrongdoers punished, and determinism asks us to let go of that need. I am still uncertain whether I could fully embrace determinism myself, but I recognize that our current system often punishes people for circumstances they did not choose, and that strikes me as unjust in its own way.

Did you like this example?

273

11