Bentham/Paper Topic

1) In my estimation, it is case 1 where the Dudley and Stephens case comes closest in failing to fit Bentham’s criteria. Based on the facts, one could argue necessity because Parker was in a coma while Brooks, Dudley and Stephens were quickly approaching the brink of deadly dehydration and starvation. On the other hand, Parker never consented nor was a random game of chance played to determine the sacrifice, so this defense has some plausible holes making this case a situation warranting ethical punishment. In the case of self preservation via last resort cannibalism, the need for punishment depends on the details of the disastrous situation and the agreed upon consent of the individuals involved.

2)In the Dudley and Stephens case, punishment is point less because in the context of a situation like they experienced one does not think about their actions in a rational reasoned manor; on the contrary, one succumbs to their baser instincts and desire to survive. Therefore, punishment is inefficacious because the crime would nonetheless be committed.

3) Likewise, punishment would be unprofitable because it would never prevent the mischief from happening. Aside from the fact that labeling their case mischievous is highly debatable, no punishment could ever produce a good that would outweigh that act of self-preservation. In fact, more harm could be produced by illegitimately killing or jailing a man not guilty of any real crime rather only situational necessity.

4)As one would expect, I too think that punishment for Dudley and Stephens is needless for the reasons I’ve stated above. I do not think any of the men involved in that case should have faced punishment because they fail to meet Bentham’s standards. I think cannibalism is wrong and should be punished, but not in a case with facts like theirs because the greatest suffering was avoided. If they had not sacrificed the unconscious and rapidly decaying Parker, then two or all of them would have had to die. In a utilitarian sense, the ethical decision was made. I think Bentham’s criteria are good tools for determining fair and ethical punishment because they help avoid ineffective and overly paternalistic laws, while also helping to give form to those laws which are actual just encroachments upon and individual’s liberty. They are conservative in nature, and in that sense they help to limit arm of the state in it unjust imprisonment of people guilty of no real moral wrongdoing.

For my paper, I would like to pick a particular case and examine the ways that media shaped the perceptions of justice surrounding the case. I’m not sure of which case I will choose but it will probably either the Martha Stewart case, the Michael Jackson case, or the McDonalds hot coffee case. All of these have particularly compelling legal and cultural angles, as well as a legacy of heavy media scrutiny, so I think they provide good prompts.