Why Do We Resist Hard Incompatibilism? Thoughts on Freedom and Punishment

The Future of Punishment, ed. Thomas Nadelhoffer (Oxford 2013)

UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1936665

37 Pages Posted: 2 Oct 2011 Last revised: 12 Sep 2013

Michael Louis Corrado

University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law

Date Written: October 1, 2011

Abstract

One of the most difficult challenges for the “hard incompatibilist” is to deal with the overwhelming objections to the therapeutic/incapacitative approach to crime control that seems to follow naturally from his theory. See, for example, Pereboom’s Living without Free Will, Chapter 6. Responding to this challenge requires the hard determinist (1) to find a way to distinguish between those who have traditionally been found responsible for their crimes and those who have been found not to be responsible; and (2) to justify the infliction of intentionally harsh treatment on at least some of those who fall into the first category. I attempt to develop a theory that satisfies both those requirements.

Suggested Citation

Corrado, Michael Louis, Why Do We Resist Hard Incompatibilism? Thoughts on Freedom and Punishment (October 1, 2011). The Future of Punishment, ed. Thomas Nadelhoffer (Oxford 2013); UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1936665. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1936665 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1936665

Michael Louis Corrado (Contact Author)

University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law ( email )

Van Hecke-Wettach Hall, 160 Ridge Road
CB #3380
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
68
Rank
277,132
Abstract Views
2,904