I’ve always argued that philosophers spend way too much time trying to limn conceptions of free will that avoid dualism. Instead, they write books confecting compatibilism. I regard this exercise as largely a waste of time. If philosophers truly intend for their lucubrations to change the world, then I’d think that they’d spend more of their time spreading the word about our growing knowledge of how behavior is determined and less on trying to show how we have some kind of free will.

After all, it is the dispelling of dualism—still deeply entrenched in our society—that has invidious consequences not only for religion, but, more important, for how we treat and punish criminals.  Really, is it more important for philosophers to tell us how we really have “free will” after all (and who reads that compatibilism, anyway), or to work on improving society by the proper treatment of those who do bad?  (And I deny the claim that the notion of dualistic free will doesn’t play a bad role in our present system of criminal justice.)

I have no time to post in detail, but the pressing need for neuroscientific studies of behavior and empirical tests of reward and punishment (in other words, science) to reform of how we meet out “justice” can be seen in an article in last Saturday’s Wall Street Journal by Adrian Raine, “The criminal mind.” Some excerpts:

The field of neurocriminology—using neuroscience to understand and prevent crime—is revolutionizing our understanding of what drives “bad” behavior. More than 100 studies of twins and adopted children have confirmed that about half of the variance in aggressive and antisocial behavior can be attributed to genetics. Other research has begun to pinpoint which specific genes promote such behavior.

Brain-imaging techniques are identifying physical deformations and functional abnormalities that predispose some individuals to violence. In one recent study, brain scans correctly predicted which inmates in a New Mexico prison were most likely to commit another crime after release. Nor is the story exclusively genetic: A poor environment can change the early brain and make for antisocial behavior later in life.

Most people are still deeply uncomfortable with the implications of neurocriminology. Conservatives worry that acknowledging biological risk factors for violence will result in a society that takes a soft approach to crime, holding no one accountable for his or her actions. Liberals abhor the potential use of biology to stigmatize ostensibly innocent individuals. Both sides fear any seeming effort to erode the idea of human agency and free will.

It is growing harder and harder, however, to avoid the mounting evidence. With each passing year, neurocriminology is winning new adherents, researchers and practitioners who understand its potential to transform our approach to both crime prevention and criminal justice.

Unlike some readers, Raine clearly recognizes that scientific studies of the brain, and of our notion of “agency,” have serious implications for criminal justice.  As I’ve said, the notion of retribution goes out the window when you discard dualism, for criminals have no “free choice” in their behavior. (I hasten to add, though, that we’ll still be punishing people to remove them from society, to set an example for others—this affects their own future decisions—and to reform people.)  To determine which punishments are most efficacious, you need tests: scientific tests. That’s hard and expensive, but the only way to go if you’re serious about reforming society.

I’ll leave you to read Raine’s piece, but will add two snippets:

What are the practical implications of all this evidence for the physical, genetic and environmental roots of violent behavior? What changes should be made in the criminal-justice system?

Let’s start with two related questions: If early biological and genetic factors beyond the individual’s control make some people more likely to become violent offenders than others, are these individuals fully blameworthy? And if they are not, how should they be punished?

. . . This brings us to the second major change that may be wrought by neurocriminology: incorporating scientific evidence into decisions about which soon-to-be-released offenders are at the greatest risk for re-offending. Such risk assessment is currently based on factors like age, prior arrests and marital status. If we were to add biological and genetic information to the equation—along with recent statistical advances in forecasting—predictions about reoffending would become significantly more accurate.

And the ending, with which I agree 100%:

We can avoid such dire outcomes. A more profound understanding of the early biological causes of violence can help us take a more empathetic, understanding and merciful approach toward both the victims of violence and the prisoners themselves. It would be a step forward in a process that should express the highest values of our civilization.

I am not, like some readers, one who dismisses the value of philosophy. I’ve written about its contributions before, especially in ethics. But in this case, what substantive contribution do compatibilist philosophers make by endlessly defining and redefining free will? (I’m not convinced, as some are, that if we don’t think we have free will, we’ll go wild in the streets.) And does that contribution even come close to the kind of contributions that neuroscience and psychological experiments can make toward improving our society?

The author, Dr. Adrian Raine, is not a journalist; he’s described as “the Richard Perry University Professor of Criminology, Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and author of “The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime,” to be published on April 30 by Pantheon, a division of Random House.