If free will doesnt exist (it almost certainly doesnt) How is anyone blameworthy for crimes or bad deeds they commit

You don't punish the person, you punish the crime.

A criminal may have no choice but neither does the law.

Canada and America are still very absolutist unfortunately.

Abe Lincoln's death was fairly dignified. Jesus too.

From a philosophical point of view, I don't see what "free will" can be supposed to mean, if not that an action derives primarily from the mind (i.e. brain) of the actor.

All of your memories, beliefs, emotions, must be physically encoded in the brain, and they're the things that are predictive of how you're going to act, surely.

Ideally this is the case, but its def not practiced in America.

but I also meant this topic to be an exercise for everyday life aswell. Individuals are not blameworthy, you are wasting energy when thinking they are (this person wronged ME, by cutting me off!!)

Don't blame someone who blames others, they can't help their predestined reaction.

Sure, but when I say blameworthy, I mean the resentment and hatred that comes along with it. It's difficult to practice in reality but I think everyone would benefit from realizing we don't live in a vacuum and any individual has COUNTLESS factors out of their control that play into who they are.

That's true, but you also don't have to just silently accept that you are treated wrongly, because the wrong-doers might see an easy victim in you and keep doing wronging you.

Well, those were kind of martyr-deaths (dying for a noble cause), so not exactly the same thing.

This
You can't control your feelings, you are evolutionally programmed to hate somebody who wronged you, since that feeling increases your fitness and your chance to pass your genes

One of the reasons is that accepting the guilt will help the criminal become a better person.
If he thinks he did nothing wrong, he will just steal/murder/rape again, given the opportunity.

He did do something wrong, but the causation is out of his control.

he needs to learn though that what he did was wrong

I'm not saying don't punish people I'm saying your reasons for doing it need to change, there should be no contempt.

Local agency and grand order are separated by the fact that we are not perfect beings with perfect information. So we can localized the effects to an illusory agency known as "self-hood".

They dont choose not to understand
Nor do they choose to hate

Honestly, even if criminals were to not be held morally at fault, they would be imprisoned either way, since society would not tolerate the risk of that deed being repeated again, wheter the criminal is guilty or not.

The main goal of a punishment is to prevent, not to correct or reeducate.

You acting as if I had free will and could change my opinion

Or start realizing that you are personally responsible for the choices you make.

how is anyone NOT at least a de facto compatibilist in this day and age?

OP: my life SUCKS it's obviously not my fault tho since i'm awesome and really smart and stuff so it's obviously because of the laws of physics and shit

They need their love cause they're on fire

I like your vocabulary

Take your Terrorist example. Whether or not they are predestined or simply more likely to become terrorists based on their cultural and economic life, they still do so knowing the punishments for such behaviours are severe. That is the context in which they make their choice.

To extrapolate a little: I could quite happily go to the shop now and steal a chocolate bar. I would quite like one and I know the punishment is essentially nothing for doing so. However if the government suddenly introduced the death penalty for chocolate thieves I would certainly reconsider my choice.

In the framework of 'no free will' I'm just as likely to steal the chocolate based on my impulses, no? If not then surely my reasoning ability plays a part in my actions and although at the lowest point of cognition I'm merely reacting to stimuli, the fact I can make these kinds of choices is as near as damnit to a concept of Free Will.

Free will might not exist in a total sense, but I'm pretty sure that Ted Bundy could've chosen to not rape and murder 30 women either way.

Even if people aren't metaphysically speaking responsible for who they are and what they do, as a matter of social order and human well-being they certainly are.

This is more or less what I think, but that an individuals freedoms shouldn't be restricted because they made the best decision possible in a situation given their 'out of control' experiences and the way they were designed to think, which is also out of their control.

This is interesting, thank you, not sure how to reply at the moment.

Have you heard of Charles Whitman? Hes a man who climbed a tower at the university of Texas and murdered 17 people. Later it was revealed via a note left behind that he believed something was wrong with his brain, and when doctors performed the autopsy they found a tumor in brain.

Is it not possible that Ted Bundy (a known sociopath) became the way he is because factors out of his control, most likely parenting at an early age?

Ted Bundy should still be imprisoned for his climbed, (not executed) cause hes still a danger to society regardless if he is blameworthy or not.