Abstract
Free will skepticism is radical in its core claim that free will is illusory. Criminal law, however, appears
to presuppose that persons are free and hence, morally responsible for their actions. So, if free
will skepticism is true, our current practices that hold people to account for their wrongs appears
unjustified–even immoral. This paper will challenge the free will skeptic’s core claim that free will
does not exist and defend current practices of moral responsibility by offering (and defending) a
Frankfurtian-compatibilist approach to the topics of free will and determinism.