H. L. A. Hart's Theory Analysis

The Argument
An eighteenth-century theory is examined by H. L. A. Hart where he explains his stance on the significance of the psychology of action that creates crime. The theory seeks to explain how human action solely muscular contraction is. Austin tells society the misguidance of using words such as, hitting, shooting or killing because they do not accurately depict singular actions as opposed to what they really are, which are various muscular contractions. Hart believes the mere desire to move one’s muscles has little to no impact on the intention of behavior. Hart explains there are two elements to Austin’s theory. Part one is the physiology of the crime, down to the human’s muscular contraction, are we to at this point label the decision

Say the woman harbors resentment that has been ignored by her psyche, this conscious decision instantly creates a splinter irritating the image of her spouse. Behavior is not committed if a cause or desire to have an effect is not in place. By the woman possessing a desire to express her suppressed frustration, her emotions trigger muscle movements that may blacken her consciousness for a moment, while her survival decides to punish the spouse. The woman pushes the spouse and they tumble down the stairs and become paralyzed. The act to push her spouse was perpetrated by her, the will is in the muscular action of placing her hands on the spouse (act itself) because it is where her intention can be met. Her muscles agree, are sane, and are without outward obstacles that can interfere with her intention. The point of this is to make the connection between the body speaking to the person’s psyche before, during and after the decision to commit a crime. Are all criminal behavior decisions met with an element of impulse? Are all criminal behavior decisions made where the body agrees with the act about to be commit? Does the human body already predict what will happen and thus does not stop the perpetrator and the crime is a success? The expression of will is never absent and thus

I believe in linking muscles with consciousness. When we play with the psychology responsible for a person’s actions, one can realize that a split occurs between a part of the criminal’s self which is vulnerable and thus capable of committing crime, parallel to the other part of the self, struggling to deal with the situation at hand. Humans have a consciousness and can willingly disconnect from aspects of themselves. These fragments which are a byproduct of rejected trauma, are pushed into a corner where they no longer play an active role in the person’s identity. In rejecting aspects of a person’s true self, an inner child self that has been suppressed and thus molded by poor experiences, the person then chooses to identify with a persona now capable of committing serious crime even if it is in direct opposition to their core values. From there, consciousness can communicate with the body. Once a connection is made, the mind inspires emotion, muscle contractions are fueled by emotional activity that triggers a response. Every decision stems from a fight or flight response because our actions are determined by the strongest will telling us that it is exactly what we need to survive, to commit the crime. After the fight or flight response inspires a decision that creates a scenario with legal consequences, the one responsible faces punishment. Stripping away the