*It is often held that punishment under pure (hard?) determinism is irrational as the criminal had "no free choice" NoT to commit a crime, and cannot thus be held responsible. Of course, I will have to cite my sources for this statement (no doubt about it!), but moving on... But, why must punishment necessarily be derived from individual responsibility (or the free will and/or capability to have acted otherwise)? *For example, if a person is raised in a neighborhood replete with crime and gangs, they may develop a tendency towards violence. Whether or not he/she is morally or "voluntarily" responsible for his/her crime, he/she *does* have tendencies towards violence which must be corrected (e.g., via imprisonment). Basically, punishment of crime is need not necessarily be "punishment of one's voluntarily choice to commit crime", but merely a means of correcting one's tendencies towards crime, whether or not he/she is necessarily responsible for these tendencies. *As another example, consider an individual with destructive psychiatrical conditions (harmful to others or to him/her-self?). Whether or not he/she is "voluntarily responsible" for whatever harmful actions are committed, he/she must nevertheless be "punished" or undergo treatment to reduce tendency to harm others or his/her-selves (yes, my his/her's get quite annoying). Perhaps not "imprisonment", but somehow undergo an experience (e.g., treatment) that will reduce tendiencies towards such harm. *Just one more example (this one may be irrelevant!): consider a person deviod of considerable tendency towards crime, but was hypnotized to murder someone. This fact is "proven" (technically how? I do not know yet), and the person receives a "punishment"-->Not "imprisonment", but merely rather just a quick de-hypnotization. (This example serves merely to show that circumstances can exist for which punishments/treatments less harsh than imprisonment can be useful. "Punishment" need NOT necessarily be strict imprisonment! Whoever did hypnotize or force that person to kill would have the true tendencies towards crime. Or maybe someone hyptomized him/her as well??-->But seriously, stick with me here) *Basically, the pure/hard(?) determinism that deems all action as a collection of genes & experience/"nature"&"nurture" can support reasonable punishment, meant simply as a correction towards tendency towards crime. As someone might paraphrase pushinment, "an unfortunate but necessary result of unfortunate nature+nurturing". There is no reason why pure/hard determinism does not support punishment of individuals; punishment is to correct the existing tendency towards crime (or sin?) regardless of whether the criminal action in question was voluntary or involuntary. (Whatever "punishment" it be--simply dehypnotization, one/two pills, a nice short counselor talk--->or in quite the serious case, imprisonment). *What do you guys think?