Hard Determinism and Punishment: A Practical <Emphasis Type="Italic">Reductio</Emphasis>

How can hard determinism deal with the need to punish, when coupled with the obligation to be just? I argue that even though hard determinists might find it morally permissible to incarcerate wrongdoers apart from lawful society, they are committed to the punishment’s taking a very different form from common practice in contemporary Western societies. Hard determinists are in fact committed to what I will call funishment, instead of punishment. But, by its nature funishment is a practical reductio of hard determinism: it makes implementing hard determinism impossible to contemplate. Indeed, the social practices that hard determinism requires turn out to be morally bad even according to hard determinism itself. I conclude by briefly reflecting upon the implications.     

A positive domestic violence screen predicts future domestic violence

The objective of this study was to determine if a brief screen for domestic violence (DV) predicts future violence. We conducted a cohort study of adult women who presented to an inner-city emergency department during an 8-week study period. Participants were screened for DV using the Partner Violence Screen (PVS). At 4 months, follow-up telephone interviews were conducted: rates of verbal and physical violence were measured using the modified Conflict Tactics Scale. Relative risks of violent events (physical and verbal) were calculated. Of the 215 women who enrolled, 36 (16%) had an initial screen positive for DV. Ninety-six women participated in the follow-up phase; of these women, 9% had screened positive for DV. At 4 months, women with DV were 11.3 times more likely to experience physical violence and 7.3 times more likely to experience verbal aggression. The study's screen identified women at high risk for subsequent physical violence and verbal aggression.