Where in U.S. law is it officially argued that the U.S. criminal justice system presumes defendants commit crimes with free will?
<p>I've been studying the relation between free will and the U.S. criminal justice system, and it appears that there is the argument that whether or not a defendant had free will to commit a crime is a significant factor in determining whether or not the defendant is factually guilty of having committed a crime.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A &quot;universal and persistent&quot; foundation stone in our system of law, and particularly in our approach to punishment, sentencing, and incarceration, is the &quot;belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/41/" rel="noreferrer">United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978)</a></li>
</ul>
<p>From a website of Attorney John Guidry,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Free will creates the moral structure that provides the foundation for our criminal justice system. Without it, most punishments in place today must be eliminated completely.</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>&quot;<a href="https://www.jgcrimlaw.com/free-will-determinism-and-the-criminal-justice-system.html" rel="noreferrer">Free Will, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System</a>&quot;</li>
</ul>
<p>However, it does not appear to be published much in legal literature of legal cases. From what I have studied, the legal system adheres to the philosophy that criminals commit crimes via compatibilist free will. This, however, is from what I have pieced together from legal literature that I have read over the past 10 years. It seems to be a tenet that comes from the neo-classical school of criminology.</p>
<p>I have yet to read some kind of Federal or State source that argues that compatibilist free will is presumed to be had by anyone who commits a crime. For instance, I might construe the appeal of Grayson v. United States to not touch upon findings of guilt but instead punishment, sentencing, and incarceration (as if whether or not a defendant had free will influences those aspects of a criminal case rather than influences a finding of criminal guilt).</p>
<p>Where in U.S. law is it officially argued that the U.S. criminal justice system presumes defendants commit crimes with free will?</p>

<p>It is an unquestioned pre-American axiom, expressed in Latin as <em>actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea</em> (&quot;the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty&quot;) which has been part of the Anglo-American legal system since at least the 17th century. It is thus presupposed in all criminal proceedings. It's not that a person only commits a crime with free will, it's that it is not deemed to be a crime if there is no free will. A person can be held at gunpoint and required to commit a criminal act: the person does indeed have free will to choose to be killed rather than commit the act, but the act is legally excused since dying is never held to be the only acceptable alternative to committing an otherwise-criminal act.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-canada-tooltip-container">canada</a></p>
<p>Conduct that is involuntary (in the sense of having no conscious control or awareness of one's actions) &quot;cannot be criminal&quot; (<em>R. v. Brown</em>, <a href="https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19389/index.do" rel="noreferrer">2022 SCC 18</a>):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To deprive a person of their liberty for that involuntary conduct committed in a state akin to automatism — conduct that cannot be criminal — violates the principles of fundamental justice in a system of criminal justice based on personal responsibility for one’s actions.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't see how any legal system, US,or otherwise, could work without the assumption of free will.</p>
<ul>
<li>Defendant: I don't have free will, so I can't be held responsible for my actions.</li>
<li>Judge: I don't have free will either, so I'm going to have to sentence you.</li>
</ul>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/wisconsin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;wisconsin&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;wisconsin&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-wisconsin-tooltip-container">wisconsin</a></p>
<p>I found the following in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6114749198337627541&amp;q=56%20Wis.%202d%20808&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,50&amp;as_vis=1" rel="noreferrer">State v. Vinson</a>, 269 Wis. 305 - Wis: Supreme Court 1955:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The instruction of which appellant complains does no more than inform the jury of the well-known rule that <strong>one is presumed to intend the natural and reasonable consequences of his acts but that the presumption may be rebutted.</strong><br />
&quot;... there are certain presumptions which react against accused, such as the presumption of sanity, considered below in sec. 584, of knowledge of the law, see infra sec. 586, and that a person intends the natural and reasonable consequences of his acts, ...&quot; 22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, p. 893, sec. 579.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't know that it's possible to intend to do something without free will, so I think these presumptions also imply a presumption of free will.</p>
<p>The citation to a law encyclopedia would seem to indicate that these presumptions come from common law, and not from any particular statute (if the presumptions came from statute, they'd cite the statute instead.)</p>

<p>I may be wrong, but it sounds like the question is flawed in that it makes inaccurate assumptions... namely; our legal system specifically addresses free will. It does not.</p>
<p>To operate effectively we assume a person cannot be found guilty of committing a crime unless they did so with the ability to make a choice.</p>
<p>From a recent ruling:</p>
<h2>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus KAHLER v. KANSAS CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 18–6135. Argued October 7, 2019—Decided March 23, 2020</h2>
<p><em>from page 3, paragraph 1</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Defining the precise relationship between criminal culpability and mental illness requires balancing complex considerations, among them the workings of the brain, the purposes of criminal law, and the ideas of free will and responsibility. This balance should remain open to revision as new medical knowledge emerges and societal norms evolve.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Seems pretty clear they address the question you ask here?</p>

<p>Even if we were like machines or primitive animals, just reacting to the input we get in a deterministic fashion, the justice system still makes sense.</p>
<p>It is clear that punishment has effect, and that people like to avoid punishment, no matter whether this a free choice or just wired into our brain.</p>
<p>So I see no reason why Free Will is a necessary assumption.</p>

<p>After some reflection, I have theorized that where it is &quot;officially&quot; stated that the American criminal justice system presumes that defendants commit crimes with free will is found in the U.S. Constitution: To clarify, a necessary component of something being a crime (in the U.S.) is that the alleged crime was done with free will. More specifically, the official stating of such is found in the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, namely the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.</p>
<p>My reasoning for this is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause:</p>
<p>&quot;This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.&quot;</p>
<p>As such, if there is something to be learned about how the American legal system works, it should be able to be derived from the U.S. Constitution. Although the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not explicitly detail how free will is presumed to exist within those who have committed a crime in the land of the U.S., case law [such as United States v. Grayson 438 U.S. 41 (1978)] explicates this matter. Furthermore, common law tradition of free will being a component of a crime having been committed is codified in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments rather than explicitly argued.</p>
<p>So, two things:</p>
<ol>
<li>As part of guaranteeing due process, it's required that for something to qualify as a crime, it must have been committed via free will. (It's not fair to consider otherwise)</li>
<li>As part of due process, it is presumed that all persons have free will.</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Answer: The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.</strong></p>

united-states criminal-law theory-of-law