Dudley and Stephens, and topic

The case of Dudley and Stephens not only has difficult legal and ethical dilemmas, but also includes a cringe-worthy amount of disgustingness.  On one hand, it is impossible for us to condemn Dudley and Stephens outright; however, they did not act in the most ethical manner in the way they killed the boy. It is important to note, that if the boy had been ingesting salt water for any period of time, he not only would be completely in cohesive but also would have quickly reached a point where his body was too damaged to ever recover. While we can’t know what Dudley and Stephens actually knew, maybe they, as experienced sailors, had some idea of the unlikeliness of the boy’s survival. As someone who grew up sailing, and who is hoping to do some longer passages in the future, I was very interested in this case. Looking at it from that perspective, I can’t really place blame on either of the men—starvation and dehydration are terrible and slow ways to die. At least today, emergency provisions are more sophisticated and high tech.

Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder and sentenced to death for their actions at sea. Yet, how much of this punishment was for legal or moral reasons, and how much was because of the uncomfortable feeling of disgust caused by their actions? If Bentham’s criteria for punishment are applied, it makes the punishment even more questionable. Bentham states we should not punish when “there is no mischief to prevent,” “it cannot prevent mischief,” it has greater harm than good, and “when the mischief may be prevented or cease of itself without it.” The circumstances with this case were completely unique. There was no mischief to prevent, as the men didn’t believe they were doing something wrong. Additionally in punishing them, the state caused more harm than good. They freely admitted to their actions and did not attempt to hide anything. By punishing them, it will not prevent any future similar crime from being committed. The desperate situation surrounding their crime was rather unique. In addition, I really doubt other people in similar desperate situations stop to think about the legal consequences of their actions. In this same line of reasoning, any similar crime committed would only occur in such an unlikely range of conditions, it is highly unlikely to ever happen again. This topic makes people uncomfortable; I wonder if by sentencing them to death, the justices hoped to relieve the sense of unease caused by the men’s violation of cultural or societal norms.

Paper topic:

For my topic I would like to experience the media’s effect in the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine. Crack cocaine is generally viewed as a poor, minority drug. At the same time, especially in the 1980s, many communities were terrorized by the very thought of its presence. A crack conviction, even for a relatively minor offense, invokes harsh mandatory sentences. Over the course of the drug war, crack users were condemned and vilified by both the government and the media. At the same time, powdered cocaine is viewed as a more elite problem. What are the legal and ethical reasoning for this difference?