Group Blog Post

*Sarah Sumner*

Was Justice Done?

As far as Richard Thomas’s character goes, yes justice was done.  Because of his impeded state, he was unable to control his actions.  Although he was able to feel remorse for the killings he committed, the stage of his illness was the reason that he did what he did.  He could not control the fact that he got stuck with his disease.  And he certainly could not control the fact that his insurance company did not complete the appropriate actions that would have eventually notified him of his illness.  Because he could not control what caused his irrational actions, he was punished in the way that allowed justice, but was also not as intense as it could have been.  While the victim’s families may not feel that justice was served, they have to recognize that the mental state of the defendant was not that of a stable, in control man.

 What Should Be Done in a Perfect vs Real World?

In a perfect world, Richard Thomas’s character would be punished, but be allowed to somehow see his family on a regular basis.  They seemed to be important to him, in fact, they seemed to be all that mattered to him,  so since he was not completely at fault for his actions, they should definitely still be in his life.  It would take a lot of people  around to monitor him for this to happen and he would still have to do some community service, but in a perfect world it would be possible.  However, it’s not a perfect world and that is simply not possible without him being institutionalized.  The punishment he received in the episode was a good way to make justice happen and to make sure that he served a punishment of some sort.  In the real world, that was the best punishment possible taking into considering the extenuating circumstances.

*Collin Eichhorn and Steven Mets*

Should we punish the man?

                Yes, his actions warrant punishment, but not to the full extent of the law.  His degraded mental state left him incapable of being properly responsible for his actions.  His diseased mind has left him in a place where he is still aware of right and wrong but seems unable to stop himself from committing actions he thinks are wrong.  Because of this it would be morally irresponsible to punish him to the full extent possible for four brutal murders.  Instead he should be put up in a secure mental institution for the rest of his days.  Two theorists that would agree with this concept are Igor Primoratz and James Stephen.  Two who might disagree and say he needs to be punished to the full extent possible are Bentham and C. L. Ten, saying that his mental state should play no role in determining his punishment.

FOUR THEORISTS:
*Collin: Bentham and Ten.  Steven: Primoratz and James Stephen*

Bentham:

                The man charged should be punished to the full extent of the law.  Regardless of his mental condition he committed the deed and robbed four innocent people of their lives.  A person’s mental stability or instability should not be put into consideration while determining their guilt or innocence.  Not only should he be punished because of his actions but he should also be punished as a method in which to deter others from committing similar actions.  No mercy should be warranted to the man on the basis of his mental state and because any mercy shown might show other would be criminals that these acts won’t be punished as harshly as they need to be.  This could give motivation for others to commit these acts and this is something that must be avoided.

C. L. Ten:

                The man charged should be punished as fully as the law sees fit.  His mental state should not play a role in determining how severely he is punished.  Ten, agreeing with Morris, says that all criminals give up the burden of self restraint and then put themselves at an unfair advantage above law abiding citizens when they decide to break the law.  When these two things happen the criminal gives up his right to be treated as a law abiding citizen and should be punished until the unfair advantage the person had over law abiding citizens has been made up for.  One’s mental state should not play a role in determining this, as the unfair advantage is still there and still needs to be made up for.  

Igor:

            The man charged as a serial killer in this show cannot be punished, at least not as a normal citizen would be.  He suffers from severe mental degradation and has been rendered incapable of moral reasoning due to circumstances outside his control.  His brain has been eaten by syphilis, resulting in his condition.  He is and should be treated as a severely mentally disabled person, meaning that it is morally unacceptable to punish him.  The only reason a person can be punished is if he or she commits a crime or moral wrongdoing and has control over his or her actions.

James Stephen:

            The man charged should not be punished; punishing him cannot prevent any crime because of the uniqueness of the circumstances.  The purpose of justice is to make men good; we cannot make this man good with punishment, as his brain is damaged in a way completely preventing him from moral reasoning.  Furthermore, the temptation of others to commit this crime is not only low but the vast majority of the population is appalled by these actions.  Public opinion is a strong deterrent along with the law.  This man’s punishment would not serve to deter, as strong deterrents are already in place.  Even if the function of the law in this case is vengeance, his mental state extenuates the wickedness of his crime.