I understand.

I hold a scientifically informed position (to the point that I can go into neuroanatomy and evolutionary dynamics - I’m a biologist) that makes me believe quite firmly that free will simply does not exist and that people cannot therefore be morally held culpable for their actions. I would require the people (that is, the prosecution) to prove to my satisfaction that the person under trial can and should be held culpable for their actions, not just that they committed the actions or that they “knew they were wrong.” This is a subject I’ve studied at length and can make numerous citations to back my position - including neurobiologists and neuropsychologists at the top research institutions around the world.

If I were to be put on a jury, I would feel obligated to make my position known to my fellow jurors and would explain at great length why a person with a hypertrophied amygdala and a hypotrophied prefrontal cortex resulting from growing up in poverty in an abusive household and in a violent neighborhood can be fully expected to react violently with a hyper developed fear reaction due to a pre-triggered limbic system with extremely diminished executive control. That person is just set up to fail.

And I would require to know that the person should be held culpable. If a man’s daughter were to have been kidnapped, and the kidnappers told him they’d kill her if he didn’t rob a bank, we’d have a situation in which the man would have done the deed, made a plan, knew it was wrong, but still would not be held culpable. I couldn’t see a prosecutor attempting to try that case, and I couldn’t see a conviction happening if they did. That’s how I have to evaluate behaviors in general.

I’m not saying that dangerous members of society shouldn’t be removed - I’m saying it needs to be approached as a medical problem and not one of crime and punishment. As long as “guilt” is a factor and punishment is the answer, I cannot sign off on that.

I would not, however, say that in front of the jury pool. I’d request a private meeting with the judge and attorneys and carefully answer their questions. I recognize that I likely would not be selected for a jury.

You have to differentiate between your responsibilities as a citizen and human versus those more specific ones as a juror. I argue my position with people, I write and work on trying to spread my understanding, but I’m not going to put myself in the position of either coming off like I was trying to deceive the court or tainting the pool illegally. If they ask “if we prove the defendant guilty will you vote to convict?” I could technically say “Yes” knowing that they will not prove the defendant guilty because that’s not a status I think exists - unless we get into a multi week philosophical and biological discussion - but it’s not really what they’re asking and I know that.

On the other hand I would be perfectly confident in clearly and openly stating that I would not send someone to prison for life or to the death penalty, because I am opposed to both of those things independently of my position on free will.