The concept that people have a voice in how they conduct themselves and are able to make decisions

about their
actions is known as "free will." It is possible for a perpetrator to act either impulsively or out of their own free
will; however, in order to have a meaningful discussion about the differences between an act of free will and an
act of impulsiveness, we need to take into account two psychological characteristics known as defeatism and
aspiration. The activities of the perpetrator in the case of defeatism are driven by external causes, and the
perpetrator has little control over their actions. On the other hand, the aspirated perpetrator would claim that
every attempt is the consequence of their free will. However, when we take these two aspects into consideration,
we see that free will does play a part in the case of defeatism. This is because the perpetrator always had the
option of going against those external factors, and when they choose not to act against those factors, they are
exercising their free will.

Despite this, Roman philosophers who belonged to the Stoic school argued that people exist in a condition that
is somewhere between free choice and determinism. They use the analogy of a dog on a leash to clarify this
misconception. In this scenario, the dog is able to move freely within the confines of its tether, yet it is unable to
break free of the leash and go anywhere it pleases. It comes to terms with the idea that it would like to remain
close to the rope in order to avoid causing any bodily injury to itself, and as a result, it refrains from trying to
pull itself away from the leash. The length of the rope is sufficient for there to be some slack in it, but it is not
enough for it to be able to go in any direction it chooses. As a result, the animal ought to be obedient and walk
in the same direction as the leash. However, a dog is not the same as a human being. A person does not have a
chain around its neck, and as a result, they have the ability to rebel against the elements of their environment.
On the other hand, in contrast to a dog, humans have the capacity for thinking, which is the most important
factor in this situation since it gives us a huge edge over canines. Reason helps us to theorize with a substantial
amount of precision about the destiny of the act and provides us the possibility to expand our freedom to chose
between what our wants are and what cannot be altered. Reason also enables us to theorize about the future.
Even while a perpetrator may not be able to change some of the circumstances that occur, the perpetrator is
always free to choose how they will react to those occurrences.