I immediately recognize why some would be in favor of clemency. What sort of example would it send to society as a whole when a man who has clearly changed his ways is still denied clemency? Giving him clemency may seem to advance society in a way that encourages correcting your mistakes and promoting what is morally right. Giving Williams clemency could be seen as an opportunity for him and others to advance society in anti-gang awareness.
However, capital punishment for Williams can be seen as the stronger example of utilitarian punishment, or punishment that is allowed if the harm to be afflicted on the person being punished is overridden and justified by the overall positive results following the punishment. Williams made a complete change in his character and made significant strides in the anti-gang movement for the youth. However, the fact that he was sentenced to capital punishment in spite of his great efforts demonstrates just how unforgivable the act of murder is. It completely eliminates any hopes of a potential murderer of sliding his way out of death sentences. It makes many criminals think twice before committing murder. It sends a very strong message to ignorant criminals/murderers who plan to commit such atrocious acts, a message of a no tolerance policy towards any type of intentional murder. This message is the social benefit that is gained from capital punishment of Stanley Tookie Williams, which makes it a strong case for utilitarian punishment. It should go without saying that this capital punishment is also a strong example of retributive punishment, where the convicted receives the punishment that he or she deserves. The decision to sentence Stanley to execution covers both sides and benefits of punishment, on the benefits side and the realm of morality.
It can be seen as a harsh decision to a man who is no longer same criminal that he once was, but the message that it sends out to dangerous gangs is a great benefit to the whole of society. It is not just about him, it is about the safety of the society as a whole.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Rebuttal Argument
Rebuttal to Danny's Argument
You made a very good point in regards to the context in which the man committed manslaughter. The man acted out of self defense because of his tribe's knowledge and history with Wendigos. There is proof of this.
However, I believe that this context serves as a justification only to a certain, and possibly minimal extent. This is mainly because the tall human he killed was not directly attacking him at that moment. He had to chase him from a distance. If the victim was innocent, of course the man should be held accountable.
Overall, I do agree that there has to be further investigation before a decision is made. We need to know more about the person that was killed and exactly what about him that convinced the Native American to kill him. What are the tribe's defined characteristics of disguised Wendigos and how did they fit the features of the victim? What made the Native American so sure that the man was a threat? How far away was he? With what we know right now, the Native American went out of his way to kill someone who has not directly threatening him at the time. Even if he had reason to believe that he was going to be attacked later on, there are other less extreme precautions he should have taken before resorting to going after the human and killing him. Therefore, he should be held responsible for his actions until further information is released.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Case of the Wendigo
The Native American is responsible for his act despite the given circumstances. He went out of his way to chase and challenge a human that was at a significant distance from him. The human was not attacking him directly in any way, so it is difficult to make the case that the Native American was fighting for his life and had absolutely no choice but to kill the other man. Respecting the culture and knowledge of the Native American's tribe, the Native American did not take the proper precautions in verifying that the runner was actually a Wendigo. Unless he can provide the proper and morally acceptable protocol that he used to verify if the runner was a Wendigo or not, there is good reason to believe that he acted too quickly before murdering someone, even by his tribe's standards. It is important to respect the Native American tribe's knowledge of the occult, but there is no excuse for making a rash decision that ended a harmless person's life.
Overall, the runner (Wendigo or not) had to be attacking or threatening the Native American for him to go completely out of his way to chase him and kill him with a gun. If there is no evidence that the runner was a threat to the Native American, then he should be charged with manslaughter.
Overall, the runner (Wendigo or not) had to be attacking or threatening the Native American for him to go completely out of his way to chase him and kill him with a gun. If there is no evidence that the runner was a threat to the Native American, then he should be charged with manslaughter.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Assignment 3
1. Victor can be convicted of attempted murder. Because he believed in voodoo, he clearly fits the all three criteria of the Model Penal Code. Considering the three components of the definition, Victor believed in his act, went forward fully committed to perform the act, and completed the act that he thought was real.
2. Kadish is against the Harm Doctrine, which supports the reduction of the punishment if the intended effects of the the act do not occur. He believed that the Harm Doctrine cannot be reasonably supported in terms of the crime prevention or justice. The absence of the intended effects of an act do not affect the prevention of that act to any degree. Kadish would have used this first principle to point out that Victor's belief, combined with his successful procedure that he believed in, are enough to convict him of attempted murder. The failed results of his act do not have any bearing on the chances of preventing the act itself. The future cannot have any bearing on the past. In Vitor's world, he already committed the murder when he stuck the pins in the doll. The second principle of justice is very effective here. Excusing Vitor's malicious intentions on the basis of pure chance is completely against the principle of justice. Pure chance is applicable here because Victor completely believed that his act would work when he committed it.
3. As stated above, Kadish criticizes the Harm Doctrine on the basis that it is indefensible in crime prevention and justice. The main act of the crime is technically already committed before the results are known. In this way, crime prevention has already failed. So there should be no reduction in punishment corresponding to the result of the crime. Punishment should be reduced based on crime prevention, and not just the results we see. In this case, there wasn't any significant crime prevention. Punishment for the crime is justified. Second, it is unjustifiable to reduce punishment due to luck. This goes against the principle of justice. Kadish makes it clear that the degree to which luck takes place after the act does not have anything to do with the suspect. Rewarding the suspect with reduced punishment based on pure luck goes against the principle of justice. It is unfair to many others involved in the Harm Doctrine, past, present or future. Suspects caught in harsher punishment systems for committing the same crime or less expose the faults in this doctrine.
4. According to Kadish, we still have the Harm Doctrine because it is linked to possible faults in our own moral judgements. Kadish states that the need to punish the wrongdoers following a crime are ingrained within our moral intuitions. We feel the need for retribution as soon as a crime is committed. This need is fueled by the control our emotions can have on us. On the other hand, if the results of the crime are not as apparent before our eyes, that very same crime does not seem to be as malicious. When we do not see the catastrophe before our eyes, less emotion takes place. Then the need for retribution is much less. This is a sign that emotions might possibly be attached to the Harm Doctrine, the same emotions that might be deeply rooted in our history and culture. This leads to many questions concerning the basis of some doctrines that we rely on all the time.
2. Kadish is against the Harm Doctrine, which supports the reduction of the punishment if the intended effects of the the act do not occur. He believed that the Harm Doctrine cannot be reasonably supported in terms of the crime prevention or justice. The absence of the intended effects of an act do not affect the prevention of that act to any degree. Kadish would have used this first principle to point out that Victor's belief, combined with his successful procedure that he believed in, are enough to convict him of attempted murder. The failed results of his act do not have any bearing on the chances of preventing the act itself. The future cannot have any bearing on the past. In Vitor's world, he already committed the murder when he stuck the pins in the doll. The second principle of justice is very effective here. Excusing Vitor's malicious intentions on the basis of pure chance is completely against the principle of justice. Pure chance is applicable here because Victor completely believed that his act would work when he committed it.
3. As stated above, Kadish criticizes the Harm Doctrine on the basis that it is indefensible in crime prevention and justice. The main act of the crime is technically already committed before the results are known. In this way, crime prevention has already failed. So there should be no reduction in punishment corresponding to the result of the crime. Punishment should be reduced based on crime prevention, and not just the results we see. In this case, there wasn't any significant crime prevention. Punishment for the crime is justified. Second, it is unjustifiable to reduce punishment due to luck. This goes against the principle of justice. Kadish makes it clear that the degree to which luck takes place after the act does not have anything to do with the suspect. Rewarding the suspect with reduced punishment based on pure luck goes against the principle of justice. It is unfair to many others involved in the Harm Doctrine, past, present or future. Suspects caught in harsher punishment systems for committing the same crime or less expose the faults in this doctrine.
4. According to Kadish, we still have the Harm Doctrine because it is linked to possible faults in our own moral judgements. Kadish states that the need to punish the wrongdoers following a crime are ingrained within our moral intuitions. We feel the need for retribution as soon as a crime is committed. This need is fueled by the control our emotions can have on us. On the other hand, if the results of the crime are not as apparent before our eyes, that very same crime does not seem to be as malicious. When we do not see the catastrophe before our eyes, less emotion takes place. Then the need for retribution is much less. This is a sign that emotions might possibly be attached to the Harm Doctrine, the same emotions that might be deeply rooted in our history and culture. This leads to many questions concerning the basis of some doctrines that we rely on all the time.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Mr. Peterson/ Defendant
Unless Steve Paterman was given a chance to clearly voice his intentions upon his arrival, he should be claimed innocent. We have to take into account the chance that there was still time for Paterman to decline the offer to be involved with the girl. Did Paterman have intention to rape the girl? Well, it depends on how much we can actually infer from the items he brought with him. He could have brought them simply to show them off to the female acquaintance. Now, to be fair, let's say that the items are sufficient indicators of his intentions. Considering Mens rea, or criminal intent, yes, it is easy to see why he was accused. Looking at his items, it is easy to see why many would think he intended to get involved with the girl in question. However, how far did he actually get in completing this action? Would he have actually went through with this or changed his mind at the last moment? That's not for us to judge or assume. Therefore, "attempted rape" is a strong accusation. A few items do not directly prove that Paterman was looking to rape the child. He didn't get a chance to decide if he was going to follow through with his actions. Actus reus, the physical act of committing the crime in question, did not come into play at all in this situation. Both Mens rea and Actus rea should have to successfully come in play for someone to be legitimately guilty of an attempted crime. Bottom line: the items can be seen has sufficient evidence for Mens rea (even though there is another argument there), but definitely not for Actus rea. It is unfair to observe one of these aspects and assume that the other will follow. It was simply too soon to declare Paterson guilty of attempted rape. The defendant is innocent.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Do you think that the defendants in this case
are guilty of murder (see the penal code on p. 2) or were they justified in
their action? (See definition on p. 2). Why or why not?
The defendants in this case are not guilty of murder, as according to the penal code. They did not directly murder the swimmers. They may have indirectly murdered them by pushing them away and placing them in a position to die, but they did not do this with "malice aforethought." They had to make a choice between two risks. They could have risked letting the swimmers on the boat and getting sunk, or pushed them away. From a legal perspective, there is a clear way out of this by pointing out that the lives of the people on the boat were protected from further risk by keeping the swimmers off the boat.
Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?
Tough question. This is an incredibly tricky situation that did not seem to have a clear answer. There is no honor in surviving at the expense of indirectly killing others. However, there is no honor in risking the lives of all the people on the boat for the few swimmers. Either way, you have risks. You have the certain death of the two swimmers, or the possible death of everyone via the boat sinking. If one were to try to play around in the middle and let the swimmers on just to see if it would work (prepared to push them back off if the boat were to sink), one might be creating an even more chaotic situation where a possible fight could break out on a sinking boat. This is mostly likely a lose-lose situation. I think that although it would not have been the smartest thing to do, they should have tried to let the people on the boat just to see what would have happened. This would most likely be thinking from emotions rather than pure left brained logic, but morally, this would have been the right decision. In the heat of the moment, where the people may be in shock and/or full of adrenaline to stay in survival mode, radical decisions are likely to be made, so this is probably not a situation to even consider the idea of morality. From left-brained thinking, the crew made the right decision. From right-brained thinking, or considering morality, they did not, in my opinion. Either way, they cannot be blamed!
What would a utilitarian philosopher argue, and what would a deontological philosopher, such as Kant, say? (For the ethical theories, see p. 7-14)
A utilitarian philosopher have advised that the crew go through with pushing the swimmers away from the boat. Because the utilitarian philosopher advises that decisions be made based on the well being of everyone affected, keeping the swimmers from possibly sinking the boat would put overall less people at risk. A Deontology philosopher would have based his/her decision on morals of the actions themselves, rather than the consequences of the actions. Therefore, they would have advised that they rescue the swimmers because it is simply inhumane to leave people to freeze and die in the middle of the ocean. Again, going back to the use of the brain, the utilitarian philosopher would focus on using left brain while the deontologist would focus on using the right brain, or emotions, to make important decisions.
The defendants in this case are not guilty of murder, as according to the penal code. They did not directly murder the swimmers. They may have indirectly murdered them by pushing them away and placing them in a position to die, but they did not do this with "malice aforethought." They had to make a choice between two risks. They could have risked letting the swimmers on the boat and getting sunk, or pushed them away. From a legal perspective, there is a clear way out of this by pointing out that the lives of the people on the boat were protected from further risk by keeping the swimmers off the boat.
Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?
Tough question. This is an incredibly tricky situation that did not seem to have a clear answer. There is no honor in surviving at the expense of indirectly killing others. However, there is no honor in risking the lives of all the people on the boat for the few swimmers. Either way, you have risks. You have the certain death of the two swimmers, or the possible death of everyone via the boat sinking. If one were to try to play around in the middle and let the swimmers on just to see if it would work (prepared to push them back off if the boat were to sink), one might be creating an even more chaotic situation where a possible fight could break out on a sinking boat. This is mostly likely a lose-lose situation. I think that although it would not have been the smartest thing to do, they should have tried to let the people on the boat just to see what would have happened. This would most likely be thinking from emotions rather than pure left brained logic, but morally, this would have been the right decision. In the heat of the moment, where the people may be in shock and/or full of adrenaline to stay in survival mode, radical decisions are likely to be made, so this is probably not a situation to even consider the idea of morality. From left-brained thinking, the crew made the right decision. From right-brained thinking, or considering morality, they did not, in my opinion. Either way, they cannot be blamed!
What would a utilitarian philosopher argue, and what would a deontological philosopher, such as Kant, say? (For the ethical theories, see p. 7-14)
A utilitarian philosopher have advised that the crew go through with pushing the swimmers away from the boat. Because the utilitarian philosopher advises that decisions be made based on the well being of everyone affected, keeping the swimmers from possibly sinking the boat would put overall less people at risk. A Deontology philosopher would have based his/her decision on morals of the actions themselves, rather than the consequences of the actions. Therefore, they would have advised that they rescue the swimmers because it is simply inhumane to leave people to freeze and die in the middle of the ocean. Again, going back to the use of the brain, the utilitarian philosopher would focus on using left brain while the deontologist would focus on using the right brain, or emotions, to make important decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)