Volition Essay ⋆ Criminal Justice Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

The term volition may refer most simply to a presumed human ability to freely choose one’s actions, or to the ability to freely choose one’s goals and then to act upon achieving those goals, or to the act of exercising free will. The existence of volition is the premise on which most modern criminal justice systems are based in that these systems generally seek to punish the choice to commit the act as much or more than the act itself. It is also the basis for classical theories of criminology that human beings freely choose to engage (or not engage) in criminal activity.

As an example of volition as simply a synonym for free choice, Subject A is told there is a diamond in one of two boxes placed before him or her. Subject A is told they may choose either box and may keep the diamond if found in their chosen box. They choose Box 1. The diamond is not in Box 1; they are terribly disappointed but may take comfort in the fact they were able to exercise their volition in making a choice. An example of volition as a more complex concept would be Subject A deciding whether or not they wanted the diamond, and if so, whether or not it was worth their while to actually choose one of the two boxes. In the first example, Subject A is merely exercising free will through an action. In the second example, Subject A is exercising free will to make a choice of actions. So, volition may be regarded as an exercise of free will in determining intent and in terms of an actual act, as well as to act upon those choices.

Autonomy and Freedom

Fundamental to the idea of volition are the ideas of personal autonomy and freedom, specifically freedom of choice. Autonomy refers to the right to self-determination, that is, the basic human and civil right to make and act on one’s own decisions. This would include a right to make one’s own mistakes. Most simply put, freedom may be defined as the absence of constraints. This definition is problematic as it defines freedom as what it is not rather than what it actually is, rather like defining justice as the “absence of injustice.” In terms of a social contract—the foundation for any system of justice—John Stuart Mill defined freedom as the “least amount of societal coercion required to protect others from the harm that we would otherwise inflict upon them.” As may be seen, if volition is the ability to choose a course of action as well as pursuing that course through actual action, it is clear that there are some limits placed on action that must limit thought to some degree. The social contract, an unspoken societal agreement by which individuals give up certain rights to secure other rights, is one limit on the exercise of volition. These limits are both social and political. There may be other limitations on volition as well.

Free Will and Determinism

Regardless of whether volition is defined simply as the ability to choose and/or the freedom or ability to actually act on those choices, the concept of volition assumes the existence of free will and thus denies the existence of determinism. Free will is the belief that one’s actions are freely chosen. The exercise of free will may be a random impulse or the result of some logical thought process. The former is simply an exercise of free will; one simply decides and then acts.

The latter process takes the form of a “cost-benefit analysis” prior to the act of volition. A cost-benefit analysis as applied to volition is the process through which individuals identify their overarching goal or goals, perhaps freely, perhaps not, then choose a particular course of action. The individual would then consider the following variables: the most likely benefits of a particular course of action to oneself (and perhaps others), the possible negative consequences of the act (to oneselves and perhaps others), the likelihood of achieving the benefits, the likelihood of negative consequences and their likely degree, and based on all these factors, whether the course of action will achieve the goal (benefit) with the fewest consequences (costs). Although this process may suggest the contemplated course of action, the concept of volition allows the person performing the cost-benefit analysis to freely choose another course of action based on a comparison to a cost-benefit analysis of an alternative, or to choose an alternative simply on impulse. In terms of volition, the cost-benefit analysis is a mere tool to assist decision making; the decision to choose and follow a given course resides in the free will of the individual. One may, for example, choose a course contrary to the one suggested by a cost-benefit analysis simply because it is contrary and one chose to do so—the concept of volition meaning purely the ability to choose and act.

The concept of volition also suggests that people are capable of rational thought to begin with. That is, through formal education, experience, and observation of the experience of others people are able through a logical thought process to determine the most likely outcomes of their decisions and then exercise free choice to select the outcome they find most likely or most favorable, even if not the most likely. This is closely related to the cost-benefit analysis referred to previously.

Determinism, on the other hand, denies the existence of free will or severely restricts its role in human decision making. Determinism may be religiously based as in a theology called predestination, such as Calvinism, or based in science or philosophy. Predestination is a theology espousing the idea that human actions and ensuing events are God’s will, predetermined at the beginning of history. Although individuals may believe their actions are the result of free choice, all outcomes are in fact predetermined by God. This is a bit oversimplified for purposes of this discussion; John Calvin, for example, believed that those to be saved and those to be damned were chosen at the beginning of history, their actions in life having no bearing on where they were going at the end. An example of scientific determinism would be criminological theories that state human actions are biologically or socially programmed to act in a specific manner under certain circumstances; that is, the individual has no volition.

In terms of a more philosophical concept of determinism, philosophy separates determinism into hard and soft varieties. Hard determinism is the belief that humans have no real choices; they are merely players acting predetermined roles, or they instinctively react to the environment in accordance with biological, evolutionary programming as do other animals. Soft determinism holds that although individuals make choices, these choices are more or less limited by environmental factors including genetics and social context. That is, individuals make their choices but they do not choose their choices. Belief in whether determinism is hard or soft should be seen as a continuum ranging from no choice, or when people are merely acting out a set part, to a soft determinism that is not too far from some ideas of free will.

Responsibility and Consequences

For much of human history, crime was considered the result of evil in the form of demon possession or satanic influences. In effect, this would deny or at least limit a belief in volition as one’s criminal ideations and actions were beyond one’s control. Criminals thus bore no personal responsibility; they simply could not help themselves. Therefore, the criminal’s body was punished or killed to drive out the evil that had robbed the criminal of volition, thus saving their soul. Put another way, the body was punished for the criminal act committed by the body to drive out the evil influence that had robbed the criminal of volition, causing them to act out criminally.

As the modern era developed around the year 1500, the influences of the European Enlightenment and certain elements of the Protestant Reformation began the shift away from the belief that crime was purely the result of evil influences that caused individuals to engage in criminal activity. Rather, the view began to shift toward a belief that crime was the result of individual volition. Individuals chose crime and chose to commit criminal acts. Logically, then, if crime was the result of some volitional process, the individual must then bear moral responsibility for choosing to engage in criminal acts and then choosing to act out that decision. As a result, rather than punishing the body for committing the act, the early modern criminal justice system began to punish the mind for making the choice. As modern ideas of crime and punishment evolved the goal of punishment thus shifted from punishing the body to drive out evil spirits to punishing the mind to deter future misconduct.

This concept of punishment as a way to deter future misconduct is based in the concept that humans engage in a volitionally based cost-benefit analysis prior to committing any act, including a crime. The idea developed that however much the body could be made to suffer, there were limits on that suffering in terms of degree and especially time, thus limiting any deterrent effect. However much physical pain could be inflicted, it could only be inflicted for a short period of time. Imprisonment, on the other hand, punished the mind, rather than the body, and punished it through deprivation of volition or through placing extreme limits on volition. Punishment through deprivation of volition could be made to last a lifetime. Such punishment was deemed potentially more severe than any punishment that could be inflicted on the body, short of death, giving it a level of deterrence that mere physical punishment could not match. The death penalty also represents a limit on volition, perhaps the most extreme limit as the individual cannot control even their own passing. It was, and is, believed that this ultimate limit on volition would serve as the ultimate deterrent.

As the modern criminal justice system developed, deterrence through long-term limitation on volition developed as the standard punishment, with death being reserved only for a few crimes. Imprisonment as punishment was a deterrent intended to influence decision making and behavior through influencing the volitional process. As this philosophy evolved, the idea shifted from punishing the act to punishing the thought process behind the act. In effect, in most cases the volitional intent to commit the act became the object of punishment more so than the actual act itself.

It has been acknowledged since the early modern era that humans do not always possess full volition over their thoughts, intentions, decisions, or actions. Those who suffer from some forms of mental disease or defect and those who are very young are legally considered to lack the ability to form full criminal intent as the result of an inadequate, flawed, or incomplete ability to reason, thus limiting their legal and moral responsibility for their actions. Additionally, some offenses requiring no direct intent incur legal if not moral responsibility even though exercising volition is the foundation of the process.

For example, John intends to burn leaves to clean up his property. The fire spreads to his neighbor’s property, destroying the neighbor’s home. In some jurisdictions John may be charged with arson because his exercise in volition formed the intent to start a fire and led to his actually striking the match that touched off an unfortunate chain of events. Later, to repay the neighbor’s loss, John, exercising volition, decides to rob a bank. As a further exercise of volition he obtains a gun, writes a note announcing a holdup, and drives to the nearest bank. As he puts on a mask while approaching the front door to the bank, he observes a sign on the door stating the bank is closed for a federal holiday. Although he exercised volition to formulate his intent to rob the bank, external factors limited his exercise of volition. In some jurisdictions he may still be charged under the doctrine of inchoate crimes, as he performed physical acts going beyond mere preparation. That is, he may be punished for his exercise of volition in formulating intent and performing preparatory acts leading up to his walking to the front door of the bank, even though the bank robbery itself was left undone. One could also argue that he was morally responsible for robbing the bank as he had made the free choice to do so and tried to act on that choice.

As another example, John and a group of friends discuss robbing a bank. They discuss this of their own free will (a volitional act) but never agree to do so nor do they make any preparations to do so. The discussion was volitional (unless perhaps fueled by alcohol) but they cannot be punished as they chose (volition) to go no further.

Law, written legal decisions, and other forms of legal writing often use the term volition to assert that a person engaging in criminal acts consented or willfully did so. Thinking back to the example of the diamond hidden in one of two boxes, although the individual may not have wanted to go to jail, their criminal act may demonstrate their volition to break the law.

Bibliography:

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML1.html (Accessed June 2013).
Foucault, Michael. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 2d ed. New York: Vintage Books,
Mill, John Stuart. “On Liberty.” In Richard A. Wasserstrom, ed. Morality and the Law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1971.
Souryal, Sam S. Ethics in Criminal Justice: In Search of the Truth. 5th ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing, 2010.

This example Volition Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.