Causality exists

>causality exists
>criminals are guilty of the crimes they committed

If nobody is guilty of anything we are not guilty of anything if we jail criminals.

How can we be guilty if truth is an abstraction?

It was causality for them to end up in prison.

Yes. You are guilty if you knowingly and intentionally (including through willful negligence) commit a crime. This doesn't require any appeal to non-deterministic free will.

Yeah.

They should be forced to fix the disfunctional situation that caused them to commit the crime. Causality based criminology when?

>criminal commits crime
>gets caught
>goes to court
>depending on the evidence submitted, the jury convicts him
Cause and effect. You could say he’s not guilty, just that punishment was inevitable

I don't see anyway they could have stopped the Big Bang happening.

We will use them to gain the deepest understanding of human society that we ever had and even beyond

We are causally determined to put them on jail

I think you misunderstand the worldview and understanding people who believe in determinism have in regards to human's conscious choices or at least you pretend to for the sake of smug replies which makes serious discussion useless.

I think you are a cheeky rascal who doesn't understand the chain of causality goes back to at least the Big Bang and arguably beyond.

I think your assumption is baseless and quite honestly embarrassing to you that you could actually deem it plausible.
While the chain of causality does go back thus far you don't have to trace it as far back within your daily situations. In the example user gave (the disfunctional situation that caused them to commit the crime) a reasonable application of that would be: He raped because he has no control over his urges, chemical castration.

That doesn't sound very reasonable at all.

/thread

Free will doesn't exist sure, so you can make the argument nobody is guilty of anything. That does not they should not be punished for their crimes however.
Punishment should be seen not as a tool to deal out what we believe to be justice. Punishment should be seen as a tool which we may use in a pragmatic fashion, in order to improve society.
There are a couple of key functions criminal sentences serve in our society.
First of all they can inmediatly remove a dangerous element from society. Wether or not a murderer is responsible for his own actions doesn't matter. Locking him up makes sense, so he can't murder again.
Secondly instilling in other potential criminals the fear of reprisal is very usefull. If people commit crimes not out of their own free will but because of environmental factors, instilling fear is one of the factors the plays part in the calculation. You are altering the factors in such a way to make criminality less likely.
Thirdly sentences have the potential to rehabilitate. The first element is impractical if used to lock up everyone indefinetly, and if we consider criminals part of our society it also does not make sense to imprison people indefinetly. So it makes sense to lock up untill we are relatively certain they will not commit crimes again. To make this work you will sometines need to give criminals mental care, or teach them skills so they can climb out of poverty and depravity when the come out of prison.
There are other reasons but these are the main ones imo.

>hurr durr free will doesn't exsist
>god isn't real, morty

Determinism is for positivist brainlets. Read Thomas Aquinas, you plebs.

There is no reason to do that. It would be more fitting to call it concentration camps then.

We don't jail people because of fairness, we jail them because then they won't commit more crimes

Depends wholly on which country you are talking about. Americans jail people to punish them.

involuntary manslaughter is a punishable crime, if we can already accept that something out of your control is a crime then what's the issue with thinking the same of other crimes