Bentham and Proposal

I believe that the case or Dudley and Stephens would meet some of the criteria of Bentham's cases unmeet for Punishment.  The situation these men were in happens rarely and therefore, provides no mischief to be prevented.  It is groundless because this situation is most likely to not happen again.  It is frowned upon and even seen as wildly disgusting to most people today to eat another person, even if it is for survival.  This was a rare situation and fulfills the first of Bentham's criteria.  The Dudley and Stephens case also cannot prevent the mischief because there is no telling what a person or group of people may or may not do when it comes down to survival.  Punishing Dudley and Stephens would not necessarily change someone's mind about eating another person when their life depends on it.  This case is in-efficacious since there is no telling whether someone in a similar situation would not act the same way as these men did.  It is needless in a sense that cannibalism is not a typical trend in any society.  Therefore, that act seems to have ceased on its own and does not need punishment to prevent it from happening again.

I believe that Bentham’s criteria are good tools for determining whether punishment is just and fair because each point focuses on the fact that the problem can be solved without punishment.  If there is no ground for the punishment to prevent, no mischief to keep from happening again, then why would punishment be needed?  If punishing the criminal would cause more harm or more destruction, then why would it be carried out?  You do not want to make situations worse but punishing a crime that is not just.  By doing so, you would create more havoc and unsettle the people.  If the mischief can be prevented or stopped without the punishment, then there is no reason to take it to that measure.  On the flip side, if punishing the criminal will not do anything to further prevent an incident of the same manner from happening again, then they should not be punished.  All the criteria have valid points and would support the belief that punishment is just and it is fair to those who face it.

For my second paper, I would like to discuss the media's effect on how people view punishment and whether or not this changes how people view criminal cases.  Does seeing harsher punishment on television make the viewer wish to see harsher punishment for real life criminals?  Does the portrayal of the death penalty on television effect people's opinion about it?  Would some criminals from television shows receive different punishment if they were actually on trial?  I do not know yet the exact question I want to discuss, but I would like the focus to be on punishment.