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