You are defending someone accused of robbing a bank. It’s already been shown that they actually committed the robbery – for one thing your client confessed, and the confession is backed up by footage from a security camera. In short, there’s no doubt they did it.
Your goal is to argue that even though they physically committed the act, they are not responsible, since they were not acting freely. Your defense should focus on the the concepts of determinism and incompatibilism, as set forth in the Week 9 handout, attached here: 2023-04-17 – Free will.docx
In short, I want you to explain why determinism, combined with the conception of freedom that underlies incompatibilism, supports the conclusion that your client was not acting freely when they robbed the bank.
Don’t worry whether appeals to determinism and incompatibilism would actually work in a court of law. Let’s assume that, in this case, the judge agreed to consider your argument.
