please summarize the following paper: The criminal justice system is a morally unfair and unjust system that punishes people
harshly for actions that they can not be held morally responsible for. Wait, criminals are not
morally responsible for the reprehensible things they do? Yes, and we must look at the Basic
Argument for proof of this statement. A basic version of this argument states that: (1) You act
how you do in situations due to how you are. (2) To be morally responsible for your actions, you
must also be responsible for how you are. I contend that it is impossible for one to control how
one is and the makeup of their character, therefore they are not morally responsible for any of
their actions. We are formed by factors in our upbringing and environment that we ultimately
have little control over. Someone who was born into a poor family is not responsible for that, just
as someone born into a rich family also holds no responsibility for that. The respective
socioeconomic positions these individuals were born into will have a significant impact on their
upbringing and later life. The rich individual will likely have more opportunities and more
stability in their life as compared to the poor individual. They will have two very different
perspectives on life, all because of things they have no control over. The same goes for someone
born into a family with addiction issues. Is it their fault when they end up addicted to drugs?
Some would argue that some character changes are self-motivated. It could be thought that the
person takes steps of their own to change who they are would be morally responsible for their
actions since it would be unlike their usual character. An example of this is someone who is
addicted to drugs decides to just quit them cold turkey one day. It could be thought that the
addict could make this decision on their own and that they could be found morally responsible
for bringing about this significant change, but that would still be incorrect. Looking at the Basic
Argument, we know that people act the way they do because of how they are. As I mentioned,
we are not responsible for who we are, we are just the products of our upbringing and
environment. This decision to change their character was driven by something external or some
part of them that has external origins. I believe that nothing can be causa sui, which means that

nothing can be self caused. We are purely the products of what happens around us and in the
past.
This brings me to the point about the criminal justice system. When people commit
actions, they are not morally responsible for them, meaning it is morally unjust to punish them
for these actions. It seems a bit counter-intuitive, since it would seemingly suggest not punishing
criminals for their actions. This seems to be a bit drastic and not something I am about to argue
for. Most societies are built on a foundation that the judicial system will punish individuals for
actions that the society deems as collectively undesirable or harmful. Murder is a prime example
of something that is almost certainly universally punished. Senselessly taking the life of another
individual is a socially undesirable action with dire consequences for the victim. What do we do
with a perpetrator of such a murder if we deem them as not being morally responsible for the
atrocity they just committed? As I have been repeating, it would be morally unjust to punish
them for their actions. In this case though, their actions had immediate and direct negative affects
on another individual. Society can not allow the murderer to continue killing people. Is what
happened to the victim morally just? No, absolutely not. So what should be done?
The solution, of course, is to re-evaluate how we view the criminal justice system. What
is the purpose of the punishments handed down from the courts? Is it to punish criminals for
their actions? We like to put them in prison like we would put a toddler into timeout. Or is it
more preventative? Which would be removing offenders out of society and trying to rehabilitate
them. The latter seems to be the more morally just view if we believe that individuals are not
responsible for their actions. If you are having trouble understanding this view, think about how
we treat addicts. We send them to rehab facilities where they can detox and be treated so they do
not fall back into the maw of addiction. The addict can be seen as similar to a criminal. He has
no control over his addiction, society views him as a sick man, rather than someone voluntarily
ruining their life with excessive drug use. The criminal is no different, he is a victim of
circumstance and his pre-existing character and influences, neither of which he has any control
over.
Now, one might say that this mentality would fail to dissuade people from committing
acts we deem criminal. Would people not feel inclined to commit crimes they otherwise would
not have if they will not be held morally responsible? I disagree with this. Many will still view
prison sentences as a punishment. Murderers would not be killing people in broad daylight and

then showing up to work the next day like nothing happened. Consequences will still exist for
these actions. These consequences will almost definitely serve as an external deterrent that will
prevent individuals from committing crimes. This undesirable outcome will likely be a big factor
in the decision making process based on the person’s pre-existing character.
What would this change actually look like in our criminal justice system? I would like to
see a reform to sentencing and how prisons operate. Sentencing should be structured around the
best way of getting the criminal help so they will not become a repeat offender. Should someone
who got arrested for a non-violent crime really be put into prison? Before any notion of moral
responsibility this question is already debatable, but it seems impossible to put someone in prison
for a non-violent action we view them as not being responsible for. Sentencing someone to
prison should only be done if that person will pose an immediate threat to themselves or other
people if they are released. I could also see prison sentences justifiable if it is deemed the person
will likely not follow through with the non-prison aspect of their sentencing, but that would only
be applicable in certain scenarios. This now brings me into how prisons should look and operate.
The punishment of prison has traditionally been viewed as being separated from the outside
world. Criminals are removed from society for a certain amount of time. Instead we need to view
the criminals similar to how we view the addict. Prison should be a form of rehabilitation. The
person is not being punished for their actions, since they are not morally responsible, but
something about them needs to be reformed. They need to learn that their actions are detrimental
to the whole of society and that it would be harmful to continue them. This more utilitarian
mindset would be more net beneficial and morally just.
The prison reform I presented would obviously be a monumental task. It would require a
total overhaul of prisons to best provide care for each individual case. A number of different
factors could lead to someone committing murder, meaning there is no one-size-fits-all solution
for each crime. Despite this, it would still be the most morally just thing we can do. It is time that
we acknowledge that criminals, no matter what kind, are just a victim of circumstance and the
environment that they belong to.