The hard determinism approach believes that people do not commit crimes out of their own free will but because circumstances beyond their control influence their decisions. In his speech, Darrow contends that the law is a creation of the wealthy who are determined to retain their immense control of resources in society to the detriment of the less privileged. Darrow concludes that it is the poor situation that people find themselves that force them to engage in criminal activities in order to survive. He therefore states that the more the wealthy continue to acquire and control more resources the more the poor seek other ways, often criminal, in a bid to survive (Darrow, 2006, p. 227). As such, Darrow believes that people do not possess inherent criminal traits and that the only way that the poor survive is by breaking the rules. Hence, as long as there is inequality in the distribution of wealth, there will always be criminal elements that are inclined to participate in criminal activities. As a hard determinist therefore Darrow believes that there is no free will and that society should seek to rehabilitate or deter people from engaging in criminal activities.
Lewis, in his libertarian approach does not believe that deterrence or rehabilitation of criminals is enough to make a criminal repent. He disagrees with the hard determinism approach of resulting to what he refers to as a humanitarian approach to punishment because it overlooks the possibilities of cruelty and injustice to victims. As such, he urges that society should resort to retributive theory of punishment for the good of the criminals. According to Lewis, the only effective approach is punishing criminals because they acted willfully hence deserve to be punished. He opines that crime is not a disease that deserves some form of cure but rather is a sin that does not deserve pardon or any form of rehabilitative approaches. Lewis suggests that adopting humanitarian approaches would be tantamount to substituting justice for mercy (Lewis, 1987, p. 153). Lewis therefore believes in the existence of free will.
With regard to the foregoing, Stace would agree partly with Darrow and partly with Lewis. Stace’s definition of free will postulates that there are instances where criminal conduct may be deliberate while in other instances criminal acts may be influenced by existing circumstances. As such, he believes that criminality depends on the existence of free will. Therefore, if a person has the ability to choose and chooses to act criminally, then Lewis’ libertarian approach to punishment would be ideal for such person. On the other hand if an individual has no choice but to act in a certain way which is criminal then Darrow’s humanitarian approach to punishment would suffice.
Unlike Darrow, Stace agrees with Lewis that free will exists. Stace is however quick to opine that the existence of free will depends on a case to case basis such that free will determine whether people are morally responsible for their actions. As such, individuals whose acts are as a result of their wishes and desires can be said to have exercised their free will while those whose actions have been influenced by external factors cannot be said to have exercised their independent choices. Like Darrow, Stace believes that in the absence of free will, a person cannot be held morally responsible. On the other hand, Stace agrees with Lewis that individuals must be held morally liable for their actions when they exercise their choice. It is thus safe to conclude that Stace would agree with either Lewis or Darrow depending on the existing circumstances because for him, it is all about common sense.
References
Darrow, C. (2006). “Address to the Prisoners in the Cook County Jail.” Before the Law: An
Introduction to the Legal Process. Ed. John J. Bonsignore., et. al. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, pp. 225-232.
Lewis, C. (1987). The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment. AMCAP Journal, 13 (1), 147-153.
