Marcel Brass and Patrick Haggard conducted an experiment in 2007 in which they studied the brain activity of

subjects pressing a button which they chose to do themselves and the questions who decided to press the button
but refrained from pressing a button using fMRI (Functional Magnetic Reasoning Imaging). When Brass and
Haggard compared the fMRI results of both scenarios, they discovered that pulling back resulted in activity in
the dorsal frontal-median cortex (dFMC), an area on the middle of the brain that did not show up otherwise.
This discovery was made after the researchers compared the results of both scenarios. According to Brass, one
of the most essential differences between intelligent behavior and impulsive behavior is the ability to refrain
from carrying out a plan of action after having previously examined it.

These findings also imply that human behavior, in the context of purposeful action, has a framework for
withholding or self-initiated inhabitation. This concept is often referred to as "free won't." There are a variety of
"degrees of freedom," each of which is specific to a certain system. In this scenario, ants have the fewest
degrees, rats have a little bit more, and so on up the food chain until chimps and humans have the most.
However, in the cases of psychopaths, those with brain injury, and those who are addicted to substances, these
individuals have a lower degree of freedom than other people have. As a result, the law makes allowances for
their lower degree of freedom in terms of moral and legal responsibility. "These vetoing brain impulses inside a
complicated system with numerous degrees of freedom are part of the deterministic cosmos," claims Scientific
American. By considering free will to be a component of the causal network, we are able to reinstate personal
responsibility to the position that is fitting for it in a civil society.

We are able to reach this conclusion based on the ideas and arguments that were presented before. Free will is
an essential component of human civilization. Even though determinists argue against free will, they are unable
to remove the link that free will has with the human mind since it is difficult for determinism to solve many
concerns about human nature and morality. The only circumstance in which a person's lack of free will may be
justified is when the offender suffers from a mental illness or is subject to the influence of other factors in
determining his or her conduct. We noticed the presence of free will in several research which indicates the
existence of free will in humans. This free will was shown in a non-impulsive person's act of impulsiveness as
well as in a spontaneous person's act of impulsiveness. Both of these examples demonstrate impulsive behavior.
If there were no external circumstances that led to the act, and the perpetrator had the 200-millisecond gap to act
upon, then it may be argued that the perpetrator acted out of their own free will. This is true even if the
perpetrator acted impulsively, without preparation and without a plan. We can say that they have acted on their
free will and are morally responsible for it unless the impulsive behavior is caused by a mental disorder or
disease such as Parkinson's disease, in which we have seen that the patients have very few degrees of freedom.
In this case, we cannot say that they are morally responsible for their actions.