Jeremy Bentham’s idea of punishment
is centered on “the promise to exclude some greater evil.” In the case where Dudley and Stephens killed
Parker on a boat at sea, with no promise of survival, even after the possibility
of surviving on the body of the man they killed, punishing Dudley and Stephens
would not be in conjunction with Bentham’s ideas because the “mischief” they committed
(killing Parker for food) is unlikely to occur again, therefore there is not
any “mischief” to prevent. Since Bentham’s
justification for punishment is to prevent mischief, Dudley and Stephens should
not be punished.
Another qualification for
Bentham is that “it (the punishment) must be inefficacious” meaning punishing
Dudley and Stephens will prevent the “mischief” in the future. In the rare case that the situation did again
present itself in the same time period (not accounting for modern applications
of today), the idea that the crew members would not decide to kill a member solely
on the basis that Dudley and Stephens were punished upon returning from their
trip is unlikely. When the crew members
reached the point of choosing to kill Parker, they were most likely in a state
of severe dehydration among a multitude of other medical conditions along with physiological
stress. The possibility of a punishment once
returning home will most likely not affect their decisions on how to survive
until that point.
Bentham also brings up the
condition of the act of punishment not being necessary if the act will cause
more “mischief” than has already resulted from the incident. The punishment (killing Dudley and Stephens)
will only result in the loss of two additional lives that already survived at
the hands of one death. Putting Dudley
and Stephens to their death will result in a greater “mischief” arising as the
killing of Parker would no longer be not only tragic, but also no longer beneficial
to the survival of two additional men. Therefore,
in conclusion, Bentham would not approve of the punishment of Dudley and
Stephens.
PAPER PROPOSAL IDEA:
For my paper, I would like to address the influence media (fictional television
shows; court case shows; radio, television, reports, as well as public
networking coverage of high profile cases; etc.) has an effect on the way the
general public perceives the process of the law and the rights they are entitled
to (such as the efficiency of a court case, selection of a jury, possible definitions
of sentences [such as what 2nd degree murder means], etc.).
No comments:
Post a Comment