Stephens and Dudley, Paper Proposal

According to the criteria laid down by Bentham for cases unmete for punishment, Stephens and Dudley should not be held responsible for their actions.  The first point Bentham makes is that punishment is unneeded if there is "no mischief to prevent."  In this case, there is mischief--Stephens and Dudley killed Parker.  However, the case does is unmete according to the rest of the criteria.  The circumstance of the crime, being stranded at sea and killing another man on board for sustenance, is so unlikely to happen again there is no need to prevent the murder through the threat of punishment, meeting Bentham's second point.  The punishment of these men would also create more mischief than it would prevent; these men survived at sea because they ate Parker, and the punishment asked for, death, would simply result in more deaths with no real purpose.  This satisfies Bentham's third point of cases unmete for punishment.  Lastly, Bentham states that crime that will cease of its own accord does not need to be punished.  This case is so exceptional that it is highly unlikely to happen again, therefore the "mischief" will simply stop.


I do not believe Bentham's requirements are good criteria for deciding punishment at all.  They fail to take into account the crime itself to any substantial degree; I believe that in committing a crime of any nature, one incurs a debt to society and it is only right that they pay this debt.  The debt cannot be paid for with money or with life.  I believe that in a criminal act, one does harm, so the debt they must pay is to do good, such as through public service while incarcerated.  I do not see any real place for Bentham's criteria, as they only serve to prevent crime through fear and do not seek justice in any real fashion.


PAPER PROPOSAL:  I would like to investigate the ethics of reporting on court cases via news channels or other media sources.  I have noticed in many cases, such as the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson trials, the jury reached a different verdict than the court of public opinion.  The driving force of the jury is evidence provided in court, while the driving force of the public is media reports.  Something must be substantially different between the two to produce such different results.