Yes, justice was served to Richard Thomas’s character,
Mr. Varney. He was removed from the
streets and placed in a treatment facility and this was equivalent to the crime
he committed due to his mental instability.
Being not of sound mind, Varney was in no position of make rational
decisions, so being placed in a treatment facility for his brain deterioration would
be the only just outcome for both Varney and society. This essentially is a life sentence for him
because he can never recover from the damage caused by his untreated syphilis
and will spend the remainder of his years struggling with his handicap.
Varney does fit into all of Bentham’s four categories of cases
unmeet for punishment, and therefore his treatment plan was a just decision. Sentencing
him to death row will not change his way of thinking, because he is mental
unstable, so his death would be a needless action. The mischief he was causing can be prevented
by his commitment to a treatment facility; therefore, Bentham would agree with
our opinion on justice.
Edward L. Pincoffs believes that punishment is intended
to show the criminal that he is the one who has willed (caused) the suffering
that he now endures. Therefore, Varney
did realize that he did something wrong, but due to his condition he was not in
control of his actions. Since he was not
mentally stable, he was punished to the full accordance of what he did as a
person who is did not have the ability to make rational decisions. Consequently, Pincoffs believes as we do,
that Varney was punished as he should have been, and the only reason he was not
sentenced to death row was because of his mental instability.
Beccaria believes that the punishment should not be more
than what is necessary for the safety of the public, even if it means giving up
a part of your personal liberty. In this
case, Beccaria agrees with us and the way that Varney was punished. Varney was removed from society and placed in
a mental treatment facility. He was not sentenced
to death row (which would have been more than what was necessary to protect
society). So, even though his personal
freedom was limited by being constrained to the mental facility for the remainder
of his life, it was just in punishment because it protected society.
Kant believes that any underserved evil you inflict on
someone else, you consequently inflict on yourself. This means that since Varney inflicted an
undeserved evil on his four victims, he, in result, allows himself to be sentenced
to death. Therefore, Kant does not agree
with us or the way Varney was punished and would have pushed to have Varney
sentenced to death row.
In a perfect world, Varney would have been treated the
same as he was in the episode. He was
unfit to stand trial and also incapable of stopping himself from committing the
murders due to his mental incapacitation, so putting him in a mental health
facility for treatment and separation from society was the most ethical
decision. Where we would differ would be
with the punishment of the insurance company.
Instead of making a deal forcing them to settle with those people that
they neglected to inform, we would advocate a full-blown investigation and
trial against the company. An audit
would surely reveal more cases of negligence and probably save the health of
other at risk individuals. They should
have to take legal and economic responsibility for their dangerous profit
driven practices so that others do not make the same mistakes they did. Furthermore, we would construct a regulatory
agency that would be tasked with giving insurance companies more oversight and
making sure that they follow the law.
After all, if they would have simply reported it to the public health
board the entire tragedy would have been avoided.
In the real world, Varney’s outcome would not change and
neither would the insurance company’s. Varney’s
treatment was just and ethical, while the insurance company’s was the most
expedient. If the company and its
executives had been fully investigated and put on trial, then it would have
been bankrupted and there would be no resources with which to compensate the
victims of its dangerous policies. In a
perfect world those resources would exist, but in the real world resources are
finite, so it makes sense to allow the company to settle discreetly out of
court.
No comments:
Post a Comment