Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Bentham and "Dudley & Stephens"


I think that the Jeremy Bentham’s four cases in which punishment should not be inflicted provide basis to not persecute Dudley and Stephens. Each of the four cases provide some validity to how the actions of the two of them (or three of them) would never happen again. The first case, “when it is groundless,” provides insight as whether or not there is a need to prevent the two of them from reenacting the events on the boat. Clearly it was a life or death situation in which they had to reject all of their dignity and morality in order to survive. Related to that, I think that the act itself was enough for them to never do it again. It seemed so inhumane, and it made me feel like they would never do it again. This relates to the fourth case. The second case, “when it must be inefficacious,” relates directly to the events on the boat. The four men on the boat were dwindling down to death, and they needed nutrition and hydration. Nothing was going to stop them from killing someone on the boat in order to survive. The third case provides justice as to how in the event of life and death, people will do anything in order to live. So, by punishing then two of them, the justice system would not stop the next event from happening no matter what.

I think that the four tools are good in their function. I think especially in this example, Dudley and Stephens should not be tried. And if they are, they should be innocent. I think in this situation I agree with Bentham. I think that there should be exceptions made in the justice system for life or death situations, like self-defense. I think that this case involving Dudley and Stephens falls under that category.  

No comments:

Post a Comment