Bentham states that there are certain circumstances in which a punishment should not be inflicted. The first of which is when the punishment is groundless, or there is no bad deed that needs to be punished. In my opinion, this does not hold true for the case of Dudley and Stephens. Murder and cannibalism are crimes. It is understandable that they were in an extreme situation, but there is/was a protocol for what to do in situations like being stranded at sea, and they failed to follow them. Their actions were selfish and were not justifiable. I do not believe that they were malicious, but by acting in self-interest rather than for the greater good, they disobeyed the rules and must pay for it.

The second circumstance Bentham highlights is when the punishment cannot prevent the mischief. I believe that by punishing Dudley and Stephen, it will deter others in their situation from straying from the protocol and therefore prevent this from happening again. This case will set a precedent for the future, and if their is any flexibility in the law allowed this time around, I would fear for what lengths someone in the future might think they can get away with. Perhaps one person might take it upon himself to kill all of the other survivors after only one day without food to ensure his own survival and claim that his actions were justifiable.

The third circumstance mentioned by Bentham is when the punishment is unprofitable or too expensive. I don't think this relates to the case of Dudley and Stephen. One possibility, though, is if there is public outcry for convicting the two men of murder, since this case is an extreme one.

The final circumstance is when punishment is needless, or when the act may be prevented without punishment. On one hand, I don't think Dudley and Stephen were going to be mass murders and canibalists, and by punishing them, we can stop that from happening. The were simply acting on their primitive survival instincts. But on the other hand, I do believe that punishment is necessary because their actions defied protocol and by punishing them, it will ensure that both Dudley and Stephen, and future people in extreme situations will act according to the rules set out for them.

I think that Bentham's principles are good guidelines for determining whether punishment is necessary. I question how mentally unstable people fit into his guidelines, though. Both mentally handicapped and insane people who commit crimes might not be defended using these principles. If an insane person were to rob a grocery store, there indeed would be an action the needs to be prevented (first principle). By sending them to jail for their crime, it would prevent the action (second principle). It wouldn't be unprofitable or too expensive (third principle), and the mischief may or may not cease on its own (fourth principle). Or perhaps there are extenuating circumstances, such as a woman who becomes fed up with an abusive partner and kills them. Should she be punished for her actions? I believe that Bentham would say yes, but a jury might disagree.

FINAL PAPER PROPOSAL: I have read about in the media's role in the aftermath of the Columbine shooting before. I think it would be interesting to talk about this because there are several issues that could come up, mostly dealing with the media's portrayal of things and how they cause people to believe things that might not be true. One example could be the stricter gun laws that were inspired by the incident, but don't address one key loophole in the legislature that allowed the boys to purchase their weapons at a gun show. Another example would be the lawsuits against the parents of the shooters, or the police department in the county. Were these filed because of any concrete evidence, or because of media inspired public outrage?