Bentham and Topic

In analyzing the case of Dudley and Stephens, Bentham's standards for cases mete for punishment would prevent the state from exercising punishment on the two for their actions on the sea. First, any punishment enacted on the two would be inefficacious, simply because of the extreme nature of the case and the unlikelihood that either of the two men would ever be involved in such a scenario again. Additionally, any threat of harm to prevent others from taking similar action in the future is equally inefficacious, because the immediate threat of death from starvation or dehydration will certainly overwhelm any fear of retribution from the government. Therefore, it is needless as well, because the two men, having already been through such an ordeal, require no more punishment in order to never commit a similar act again.

Bentham's criteria for punishment are very powerful in and of themselves. However, I tend to think that there is some level of retributivism that does not fit in with the Utilitarian mindset of Bentham. In a perfect society where a need for justice is outweighed by a desire to increase net happiness, Bentham's system is ideal. In a real world where human emotions and story-telling play as big a role in the legal system as actual codified law, a need for some sense of retribution is necessary. So by seeking to balance a sense of justice with the sense of maximum utility, Bentham's criteria for punishment are extremely useful but cannot be taken as the quintessential element of law.

For my final essay topic, I would like to write on how the dawn of new media (i.e. Twitter and Facebook) effects the classic jury sequestration from the public, and how the law may fail to address it. My primary question I would like to address is: To what extent does access to new media effect individuals perception of cases, and introduce the "trial by public opinion" into the actual court of law?