Starting Point

 What topic are you planning on researching?
I plan to research the topic 'Determinism' which had three main aspects to it: Hard Determinism, Libertarianism and Compatibalism.

I am going to visit each of these aspects and seperately decide how each of these may undermine the legal system by investigating their implications on praise and blame in our society today in order to come to an overall conclusion on whether Determinism does undermine the Legal System.

In order to do this I am also going to research the current Legal System in the UK to gain an understanding on the rules which surround those with mental disabilities and how this affects different forms of punishment.

Why are you interested in this topic?
I am interested in this topic as I am planning on studying Philosophy at university, and I have an interest in the concept of free will and morality and the part that they play in our legal system. A possible future career that I am looking into is Criminal Law and so this topic will give me a broader understanding.

What are you aiming to find out?
I am aiming to find out whether or not Determinism does undermine the Legal System by discovering how Determinists view blame and our freedom. As by posing the question whether someone was to blame for their crime will heavily affect their punishment, and I am interested to discover how frequently a Determinist argument may be used in court.

For example, to put it briefly, a Hard Determinist would argue that every event is the effect of a previous cause, and our choices are the produce of previous causes. Therefore any freedom we may have is merely an illusion, because in fact our choices have already been mapped out for us, and as a result we cannot have any free will, 'I could not have done otherwise.' So if this is the case it seems that the Hard Determinist cannot be punished as they have proven that we are not to blame for our actions as we did not freely choose to do them. However in assessing this I will be referring to Consequentialism in my EPQ to show that even in a Hard Determinist case blame is carried out - so at this early stage it seems that in this case Determinism does not undermind the Legal System.

What are you planning on producing?
I am planning on producing an essay that delves deeper into the topic of Determinism and looks at it from very different angles, and using this essay to come to my conclusion. I am also going to produce an interactive presentation where I will be using members of the audience in my speech to prove my case.

How will you go about doing this?
I will go about doing this by using views from several different philosophers on Determinism and by studying the Legal System in detail to show where the contrasts arise. I will also be looking at previous Legal cases and using these to illustrate how Determinism may be put into practice in an active trial to give a simple and relateable approach to a difficult topic. I will also be interviewing people at random to gain an insight into their views and setting up votes and polls on a variety of topics relating to my EPQ to use as background research in order to see how it is viewed in society today.

Views

These are views on my topic which I have received from others (who are educated on the topic!). I will be gathering a large collection of views from those who study Determinism in Philosophy and those who don't in order to gain insight into how it is perceived. I will then be able to use these as background research.

'Determinism of some form necessarily underpins the function of the legal system because of responsibility and rationality. Determinism necessarily underpins the existence of the legal system because of the basic principles of causality. If it negates freedom, as it appears to, it undermines it, thus creating a logical paradox, since determinism underpins and undermines it. It seems that this forces the philosopher into Hume's position of consequent mitigated scepticism, and we should just carry on as normal.'

'Can our Criminal Justice system survive in a Deterministic universe?' - Assessment of the Criminal Justice system's response.

In recent years the growing suspicion has emerged that human free will may be an illusion, and that in fact we are all living an existance blisfully unaware of an ever present deterministic process operating within us.

This modern view has been heavily criticised as it seems that this opinion will become a threat as it may leave us devoid of any moral and personal responsibility.

Not only does this statement pose a threat to our own personal sense of morality, it is becoming an increasingly large danger to our criminal justice system. This is due to the fact that as it stands, our criminal justice system pre-supposes the freedom of will due to rules and regulations that have been layed down by our Government as a response to our own personal conscience, a conscience which has become the foundations for the manner in which society is conducted.

In this post I am going to consider the view that the criminal justice system has adapted to a supposed deterministic universe.

It does seem that our criminal jusice system has responded to this by introducing verdicts that go beyond the standard realms of 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty', as a person may now be convicted as 'Guilty' to a degree of insanity, thus lessening their sentence and setting matters of reformation into practice, for example the more recent 'extreme emotional disturbance' (EED) defence. I will be assessing the reponse of the Criminal Justice system by looking at several pieces of evidence, the first is below:

1. Litwack, Galperin and Kirschner analysed cases of intentional murder or attempted intentional murder between 1988 and 1997 in order to determine what factors played a part in determining which verdict was the outcome. They collectively found that jurors, judges and prosecutors were much more likely to accept a defence based on EED when the defendant's behaviour was significantly motivated by a genuine emotional fear for a loved one, and thus their actions were carried out on the belief that their actions were a movement of protection rather than that of vengance. Litwack and other authors were keen to stress that an EED claim was simply not accepted on terms that the defendant felt strong emotions such as anger or jealousy, and that the fact of the matter is that for an EED case to be allowed the emotions and characteristics of the defendant had to fit with the circumstances of the crime, therefore it is evident that the reasonableness of the emotion and overall EED was critically assessed.

- This is the first of many responses that I will continue to evaluate. I shall add further pieces of evidence onto this post.

Grange EPQ

http://grangeepq.blogspot.com/

The Golden Rules

 The Golden Rules of EPQ

1. Regular reviewing.
2. Stay in contact with your supervisor throughout.
3. Ensure you have designated meetings with your supervisor.
4. Have a good research base.
5. Keep track of dates.
6. Respond to advice.
7. Don't leave things too late.
8. Don't overcomplicate things.