The philosophical argument of free will versus determinism plays an important fa

ctor in taking a stance for or against the death penalty. The notion of free wil
l implies that an individual is in control of every decision he makes. This sugg
ests that a person is aware of the consequences of their actions and that their
destiny is self determined. Free will, limited by the realities of nature is wha
t gives an individual their personality. The freedom to make choices based on mo
rality and creativity is what separates a human from an inanimate object.
The counter side to this is a notion called determinism. It is a philosophical c
oncept that proposes all individuals are destined to make the choices that are m
ade in their lifetime. It suggests that although a person makes a conscious deci
sion for every action, the outcome of that decision would have been the same reg
ardless of the choice. According to determinism, individuals are powerless when
it comes to changing the course of their actions and that the consequences to th
ose actions are a result of things beyond their control.
The death penalty is a judicial consequence that is set in place in this country
when an individual commits a capital crime. Determinism does not play a role i
n an individual committing a capital crime. A person is not is compelled to make
decisions that have such obvious and harsh consequences, it is the criminalâ s choic
e to murder, rape or burglarize robs an innocent person.
Thus is it only appropriate that the criminal faces the consequence of losing th
eir free will to experience the freedoms of a citizen, just as they robbed an in
nocent individual of their free will to live. There would be no law and order if
every personâ s choices were attributed to determination. It has been proven that ex
ternal factors such as physics and nature play a role in life such as if one fal
ls off a 10 ft roof they will consequently suffer major injuries, paralysis and
possibly death will however it is not justifiable jump off the roof. A person h
as the free will to avoid situations that will endanger themselves and others. T
he pre-existing knowledge of consequences should be sufficient in a personâ s choice
to commit crimes that ultimately result in the death penalty.
The idea of determinism would give would-be criminals a free pass to act without
inhibition and with no regard to the law. They could rationalize their actions
and behaviors to the law if they thought that what they were about to do was in
their destiny to happen. In this case, they would willingly commit crime or othe
r acts without facing any type of consequence for their actions. The argument wo
uld be that the individual had free will in deciding what he or she was doing an
d that determinism cannot be proven. If determinism was an acceptable rationale,
crimes would be dismissed to this theory.
There is a fine line between the belief system that supports determinism and ind
ividuals free will to act and make decisions. Explaining to family members who h
ave lost a loved one that their child/mother/father/sister/brother was determine
d to be killed at the hands of another person provides no justification for thei
r action. The family would not withdraw their demand for justice to be served an
d the criminal to be punished accordingly. Determinism does not provide adequat
e reasoning because there is essentially no reasoning behind the theory. It cann
ot be accepted as an excuse or an explanation for a free willed individualâ s actions
.