Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, my example can be framed in terms of deterrence. However, I think punishment can fill many purposes. Retribution is largely in the eyes of victim, so the need is subjective and depends on their emotional desire for revenge. I'm not convinced that victims will be emotionally satisfied with the explanation of causal chain that goes back to the big bang. To be honest, I dont really understand how the concept of res…
If someone took action because of rational choice, they can make a different choice/action in the future. If someone is a ‘bad puppet’/fundamentally programmed badly, then what choice do we have except to destroy them or ‘rewrite’ their programming? That is the difference, and a big one - because in the first case, consent is possible and meaningful. The second one, it is not.
Do you think that rationality is related or equivalent to free will???
I agree that someone's rationality may impact the efficacy of deterrence and Rehabilitation.
Both irrational and the rational would need reprogramming, just by different means. You would try to convince a rational person that it's in their interest to obey if you can. For an irrational person you'd have to use other means. This is basically how it works today.
Where does consent come into all of this? I understand that there maybe a difference in capacity to understand and consent, but not always. Irrational, for example impulsive people, can still consent. Normally consent isn't required for criminal justice to be carried out.