Question Response

Blogpost

From Nils:

Question 1A: if it turns out that this person is found to not be mentally unstable, what punishment would you give him?
• I think that this man deserves to serve back to back life sentences so that he has to live with an awful punishment

Question 1B: If the court recognizes that he has some mental instability what would you recommend?
• I think that this person deserves to be treated for his illness and monitored for a long time.

Question 2: Where do you take Daniel Varney?
• Clearly he is under some sort of mental duress. He needs to be taken to a psyh-ward.
Questions 3: Question 2 again
• Take him to jail, it doesn’t matter where he is, he is dangerous, and will kill anyone.

Question 4: if you had to decide whether or not to charge him, would you?
• I would try to prosecute him. He knows what he is doing. It isn’t a split personality.
• He should be sent to death row.
• They might not be able to control him at a psych ward.

In your opinion, was justice served? Think the response in context of the readings in the past.

In our opinion, justice was served to Daniel Vanery in the justice system. He was taken out of society as a means to eliminate the harm, which agrees with the utilitarian point of view of punishment; if there is something that is harming society, it must be removed in some fashion. The interesting difference between the case in the episode, “Scourge,” is that the guilty party, Daniel Vanery, was suffering from a severe case of syphilis, which caused massive brain trauma. He was technically sentenced not guilty, but was placed in a psychiatric facility. This result parallels the idea of a weak retributive justice example. It is not quite “eye for an eye,” yet it provided some solace to society. He received what he deserved under his mental capacity, while balancing retribution to society by placing him in a controlled environment that prevents him from causing future harm.

Jeremy Bentham would disagree with this result. Bentham’s theory on punishment seems to have no “extraordinary circumstances” clause that absolves certain people of their transgressions. Bentham is more forward, and believes in the strong retributive justice process in which the criminal gets what he receives. In this case, Daniel Vanery would have to serve 4 life sentences, or suffer the death penalty.

Igor Primoratz would disagree with Jeremy Bentham, and might agree with the result in the case in the episode. He believed that a pure utilitarian process brings along its own injustice in a way. Specifically with the case of Daniel Vanery, having a justice system without any mercy is unjust. The result in the episode turned to be in favor of Igor’s philosophy because there was mercy, but yet it still allowed for some rehabilitation of the criminal.
______________________________________________
From Joe:

Immanuel Kant would disagree with Bentham's reasoning for the punishment of Varney. Kant's strong retributive theories would ascribe punishment on Varney only for the satisfaction of the retributive justice required for his crime. Kant would argue that if Varney is to be punished, it is only morally acceptable and leviable if the punishment exactly fits the crime. This is only suitable for Varney if he were to be executed for his crimes. Therefore, medical imprisonment is not a suitable punishment and Kant would argue that it is morally indefensible for the government to make this decision. Either Varney must deserve punishment equal to his actions or he does not deserve punishment at all.

Finally, George Schedler is a philosopher critical of both retributivism and utilitarianism. Schedler's argument countering retributivist theory as knowingly accepting the occasional punishment of an innocent as contrary to the moral backbone that forms much of retributivism. In this circumstance, Schedler would argue the devil's advocate position, primarily questioning whether a sick man, who shows evidence of having more than one personality and complete loss of self control, can be punished for actions that he would not intentionally commit given he was sane. This argument is powerful and serves as the dogging inconsistency that plagues us in trying to make a decision for Varney's punishment.

In regards to what "should" have been done:

In a perfect world with limitless resources, Daniel Varney would be released to the public with constant guardianship. This would serve the same purpose as his current medical incarceration, preventing him from doing harm to others. It would also remove an element of punishment associated with sequestration from society and his family. If the medical field was truly unlimited, then Varney would have his damaged brain healed in order to alleviate his symptoms of late stage syphilis.

In the real world, I think that the resolution presented in the episode is about as ideal as possible. Varney can undergo treatment and hopefully become a more stable individual. Society is protected from potential further harm if Varney were to have more episodes in the future. I view Varney's end circumstance as a kind of purgatory, away from the paradise of being released back in to society, yet protected from the harsh realities that would await him if he were sentenced to a true prison. While a medical facility may likely seem to be imprisonment, it serves in the best interests of both Varney and society. It is evidence of the limitations of real world legal practice, where often the best case scenario cannot be achieved due to limitations created through obligations to society and public opinion.