Bentham's Criteria & Proposal

According to Bentham, the case of Dudley & Stephens is definitely a case unmet for punishment. The case is groundless, which is Bentham’s first criteria that makes for a case unmet for punishment. It is groundless because by punishing the crew members, one is not preventing any further mischief. They will most likely never be in that position again- where they will need to kill a fellow sailor. Suppose three months later these sailors do end up in a similar situation and the opportunity for “mischief” arises again. Even then, Bentham’s second criteria would not apply…because indeed, the original punishment (death) would obviously have prevented the mischief from happening because the men would not be around to commit the supposed murder. But in my opinion, the end punishment (prison), would meet Bentham’s criteria for a case unfit for punishment because if the men were to be in the dire situation again, I do not think the threat of prison would outweigh their survival. In desperate situations, people will do whatever they can to survive, and thus they would most likely commit the “crime” again to ensure their own survival. Next, the case would also be deemed unfit for punishment according to Bentham’s third criterion “when it is unprofitable or too expensive.” The punishment, whether the original plan or the one that actually happened, is not going to bring Parker back to life. The boy’s life was taken and killing the men who did it or putting them in prison is only harming the men’s families and friends. These men are probably the bread winners of their family, so by punishing them, their families are automatically hurt. In addition, nothing is gained by the family and friends of Parker, besides maybe some peace of mind. In fact, prison would only cost the state more money. In the end, nothing is gained by punishing these men, making the punishment unprofitable because these men are not innately bad men. They did not maliciously preconceive this idea to kill Parker. It was merely their situation that caused them commit the deed. Finally, Bentham’s last critique would also deem this case unfit for punishment because the mischief would cease automatically. It is a one and done kind of crime and thus punishing the men for their “crime” is not necessary to stop the mischief. 

The case of Dudley and Regina clearly match Benthams criteria and in my opinion I don’t think the men should have been punished at all. These men were in a life threatening situation. Not only was it a matter of life and death, the men were deprived of food and water, and thus had entered the innate human survival mode, which is very animalistic and will make a person do anything for survival. Also, the men offered up one life, and in return gained three. The fact that the boy did not consent to offer his life to save the others does make it unfair, but in reality that is how life goes. The strong will always dominate over the weak. I do not think these men really had a choice and ultimately it just came down to who wanted to live the most. They should not be punished because their circumstances in a sense justified their cruelty. Bentham’s criterion, in this case really makes sense and work well, but I am not sure if they will always lead to a correct conclusion about whether or not a crime should be punished. The reason I think this is that some crimes are so brutal and heinous that punishment should definitely be employed. Even if the punishment will not prevent any mischief, is really unprofitable, or makes no difference in stopping the mischief, it may still be just to punish the criminal to the highest extent simply because the criminal just deserves some type of punishment.

I would like to write about the death penalty in some fashion. I’m thinking about focusing on the classic arguments for and against it, but bringing in how it relates to the theories of punishment we have been discussing in class, including the dessert theory and the consequentialist theories. How would these two theories determine what types of crimes would be punishable by death penalty. Meaning, which types of crimes would be justified in punishment by death according to each of these thoeries. I would also naturally bring in Bentham's criteria, etc. and how different theories justify or do not justify the death penalty depending on the crime at hand.