Response Dom Cooper/ Determinism and the Legal Process

I really enjoyed the question posed by Dom Cooper in his post "Determinism and the Legal Process". He posed a very intriguing set of circumstances to debate.  Personally, I don't think considering a (hypothetical) correlation between morality and determinism would necessitate change in the legal system; however I do believe the arguments used to reach convictions may be causeless .  If an attorney has a guilty client- considering a determinist moral construct- what argument could be made to combat a universal truth founded that each individual is determined to carry out certain actions? If a man kills another man, determinist morality dictates that his beliefs intended for this to occur.  He would be certifiably guilty due to the structure of determinism and the idea that variances from "free will" and choices do not exist.  His deterministic actions will resound for his entire life- he will never repent for the actions he was determined to commit. 
We would have a world of convicts and murderers incapable of inhibitions or moral input.  I then ponder if the legal system would alter our treatment of the guilty  (ex. would extermination be allowed)

Defining Origins of Inborn Conservatism

I want to relate this post to the classroom discussion we had on Wednesday.  I want to examine the origins of our inborn conservatism on sensitive issues (such as abortion, gay marriage, womens' rights, etc.).  Is it due to an innate biological process of needing complete understanding and correlating evidence to validate the legitimacy of any idea? Or, considering that the constructs of "normal" are determined by society and cultural expectations, do we exclusively ascribe our conservatism on social pressures and accepted norms?  Is there a balance of these two in determining our natural selections?
When we are first born we begin as an intellectual blank slate (variances do occur in intellectual capacity and strength), however we can say undoubtedly that our familial or environmental influences contribute to our opinions concerning various topics.  "Inborn conservatism", to me, refers to individual natural born tendency to favor one argument, not accepting one universal truth. The "conservatism" we experience is a subjective scale  resulting from our personally accepted modes of technique.  Example: If I was born in the Southern states in 1760 I would have an inborn conservatism to support slavery, due to the components I rationalize from my biological opinion of race superiority and cultural influences.  Example 2: If I was from the 1980s during the AIDS scare, my natural opinion would be greatly swayed by the media and societal pressures.  Regardless of my acceptance of "free love", homosexual relations, or opinions that intravenous drug users partake in a dangerous occupation, my perspectives are impacted.  I was "born" to recognize individual freedoms and the right to carry out such liberties- but my notions are thus challenged by recent developments;   ultimately becoming altered.
In both of these instances, it equates a combination of natural desire for complete validation on any ideal (that varies from the opinion we have) in correlation with cultural influences determines our inborn conservatism.  Can we say then, that "inborn" only defines half the formula and forsakes the larger influence of social pressures?

Section Focused Analysis Regarding "Culture Wars" Reading

I chose to blog about the first section of the reading titled "Culture Wars" by Thomas W. Clark. The section is appropriately titled "Irreconcilable Differences" and explores the contrasting fundamental beliefs of naturalists and super naturalists.  The copious amounts of topics for me to write about forced me to chose the section that ignited a fervor in me.  I was initially intrigued with the notion that this dichotomy has existed since either the big bang or God created mankind. There will never be a resolution and as Thomas Clark explains, " Such coexistence wouldn’t be problematic were it not for the evangelical desire, so common to the human heart, to universalize one’s beliefs, what we might call the totalitarian temptation.  We are not content to have our certainties – others must share them as well, since a plurality of worldviews raises doubts about our truth."  This is the common sentiment I have seen reflected by all religious people I have encountered.  This argument is not intended to question the validity of religion or cast judgment against those who adhere to its doctrines; I am simply relating my personal experiences to the observations outlined in the first paragraphs of Clark's essay.  Embracing a natural source for all living and non living objects encompasses the innate knowledge that we originated from and are composed of matter.  A person who seeks answers in faith yearns for an emotional, social, or intellectual connection in their lives.     I truly hope this post does not offend any religious followers- I am offering my opinions related to the text we read.