Proposal//Bentham

I believe that Bentham’s first case preventing punishment, when it is groundless and absent of mischief, is a good determinant for no punishment of an act. However, for the other three, I believe that most, if not all cases, are too nuanced to be subjected to just one criterion that would redeem the act unpunishable. While Bentham’s theories about unpunishable situations are helpful and seemingly straight forward, most theoretical writings about actual events are too good to be true, as the author or philosopher cannot make edits to his theories for abnormal cases, such as Regina vs. Dudley and Stephens. In this case, it is hard to determine just how harmful the mischief done was. The young boy was murdered, but his body and blood saved three others. While murder is inarguably mischief, the benefits (i.e., survival) of the harm, to many people, outweigh whatever harm was caused. In this case, assigning of punishment is arbitrary, as it is up to the judge or the jury to determine the definition of mischief. Bentham’s rules for punishment are lost in trying to define what mischief is.

For my final paper, I would like to examine the somewhat recent Supreme Court ruling on the Citizens United vs. FEC case that has opened the door to a whole new kind of election and primaries, fueled by millions upon millions of dollars from corporations and unions funneled into Super PACs with patriotic names like “Endorse Liberty” (supporting Ron Paul) or “Priorities USA Action” (supporting Obama).