The common use is the way that most people see it, obviously. The reason I debate free will is because if the majority of people are deluded about this it is likely to be doing a great deal of harm and I have strong reasons to think it is. When I say this I’m not focusing on the judicial system but on every human beings interactions with the other human beings around them and how we treat ourselves.
I suggest a usage that avoids mind-body duality (and the God’s eye view) and that conforms to practice. For instance, we say “Not guilty by reason for insanity”, rather than “Not responsible”.” Each person is responsible for his actions; that is, others may require him to answer for or explain them.
However, how the community judges a person will take into account the mix of deliberation, compulsion, and other factors. For example, A kills B: possible judgments include, ‘guilty of murder’, ‘guilty of manslaughter’, ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’, and so forth.
(In a trial, the first step is to establish responsibility, to answer the question, ‘Did A kill B?’. Above, I take that as given, and go to the next step, which is to answer, ‘How did A come to kill B?’.)
Ok so if we go back to the pedophile with a brain tumour.
In this instance what would be the justification for giving him a lesser sentence than another pedophile without a brain tumour? To make it simple, assume each crime was the same except for that one difference.
Do you think it would be unfair to give both a harsh sentence or do you think a harsh sentence is never fair on the person it is given to but in some cases it is of greater benefit to society to do so, than in others?