The author first draws a distinction between determinism and fatalism. The Necessitarian argument that one is compelled to act, or in the alternative, constrained not to act, is explained. The author then discusses the opposite position which contends that if one has the freedom to choose whether to act in a criminal mode and nevertheless commits a crime, he is justly punished. Also examined are difficulties of the free will theory, the concept of theoretical determinism, and the roles of desire and motivation in human behavior. In a rebuttal to the insanity defense, the essay says that if the criminal declares himself insane due to antecedent forces beyond his control, then a juror whose background has instilled in him a belief in law and order is compelled to vote for a guilty verdict. 10 footnotes.