Where in U.S. law is it officially argued that the U.S. criminal justice system presumes defendants commit crimes with free will?

Question

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.

A "universal and persistent" foundation stone in our system of law, and particularly in our approach to punishment, sentencing, and incarceration, is the "belief in freedom of the human will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual to choose between good and evil."

• United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978)

From a website of Attorney John Guidry,

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.

• "Free Will, Determinism, and the Criminal Justice System"

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.

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).

Where in U.S. law is it officially argued that the U.S. criminal justice system presumes defendants commit crimes with free will?

Answer 1

It is an unquestioned pre-American axiom, expressed in Latin as actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ("the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty") 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.

Answer 2

I don't see how any legal system, US,or otherwise, could work without the assumption of free will.

• Defendant: I don't have free will, so I can't be held responsible for my actions.
• Judge: I don't have free will either, so I'm going to have to sentence you.

Answer 3

canada

Conduct that is involuntary (in the sense of having no conscious control or awareness of one's actions) "cannot be criminal" (R. v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18):

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.

Answer 4

wisconsin

I found the following in State v. Vinson, 269 Wis. 305 - Wis: Supreme Court 1955:

The instruction of which appellant complains does no more than inform the jury of the well-known rule that one is presumed to intend the natural and reasonable consequences of his acts but that the presumption may be rebutted.
"... 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, ..." 22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, p. 893, sec. 579.

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.

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.)

Answer 5

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.

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.

From a recent ruling:

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

from page 3, paragraph 1

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.

Seems pretty clear they address the question you ask here?

Answer 6

It is not presumed, and it is not required that a defendant take willful action to commit a crime in general. Many, but not all, specific crimes do require willful acts.

For instance, in washington, a criminal act may have one of four possible types of culpability:

(1) Kinds of Culpability Defined.

(a) INTENT. A person acts with intent or intentionally when he or she acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.

(b) KNOWLEDGE. A person knows or acts knowingly or with knowledge when:

(i) He or she is aware of a fact, facts, or circumstances or result described by a statute defining an offense; or

(ii) He or she has information which would lead a reasonable person in the same situation to believe that facts exist which facts are described by a statute defining an offense.

(c) RECKLESSNESS. A person is reckless or acts recklessly when he or she knows of and disregards a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her disregard of such substantial risk is a gross deviation from conduct that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

(d) CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. A person is criminally negligent or acts with criminal negligence when he or she fails to be aware of a substantial risk that a wrongful act may occur and his or her failure to be aware of such substantial risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the same situation.

Only the strongest form of culpability, intent, is actually concerned with whether you meant to do wrong (your "objective or purpose"). The others are concerned only with objective facts: you knew this, you ignored that, you failed to be aware of some other thing.

Culpability is not presumed; it is one of the factors of the crime which must be proven to the satisfaction of the jury (or the judge, in a bench trial). If a person is charged with a crime that requires intent, and there is reasonable doubt as to whether they are capable of acting with "objective or purpose", then that doubt must be overcome at trial in order to find them guilty.

---

Different levels of culpability are used in different jurisdictions, although some have standardized more or less on the four described above. Other jurisdictions in the US might have standards such as "willfully" or "with malice". In any case, the degree of culpability defined in the statute must be proven by the prosecution at trial like any other element of the offense.

Answer 7

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.

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.

So I see no reason why Free Will is a necessary assumption.

Answer 8

Question: Where in U.S. law is it officially argued that the U.S. criminal justice system presumes defendants commit crimes with free will?

Answer: Nowhere.

Relative to the U.S. Constitution, it's not argued there.

The Declaration of Independence makes the argument that people are "free," but there is not really libertarian free will. It might be inferred by some that the Declaration of Independence exists as part of American law, however, if but existing as a legal document. I have used the Declaration of Independence to make legal arguments, such as how a business license ought to not be necessary to purchase from a government in order for one to exist as a business entity (it restricts the right to "Life" and/or "Liberty" and/or "the pursuit of happiness").

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

The idea of libertarian free will existing is a presumption made in an effort to further prosecutorial efforts in an effort to prevent/deter an automatism defense (for instance). It's also a presumption that comes about in an effort to hold persons liable rather than assert that they exist as victims of circumstance: A way of shifting blame from the government failing to see to one or more citizens' well-being (what might be argued as "government negligence" or the government in its alleged goal of seeking to see to people's well-being failing to have done things ideally) and instead arguing that one or more citizens were the causative agents of something undesirable having caused such undesirable said something through their libertarian free will.