R v. Dudley and Stephens

This is a case where consequentialism does not have enough empirical evidence to make a proper decision. Nielsen’s example here was the classic case of whether a justice system should frame and execute an innocent person in order to appease threatening rioters that are upset about a crime for which the actual perpetrator cannot be found. Although the classic consequentialist viewpoint may say that framing an innocent person is acceptable because the mob will cause greater loss of life, Nielsen contends that in such a situation the overall consequences from framing an innocent person are usually unpredictable and therefore an innocent person should not be framed. In such a situation, appeasing the mob by finding a scapegoat could backfire: people might learn of the miscarriage of justice and riot again, or respect for the justice system might be undermined, which would lead to rampant crime in the future. Such uncertainty is a consequentialist reason to follow the deontological principle of not harming the innocent instead of making what looks like a shortsighted consequentialist move.

The first witness shown on the stand in the documentary was James Stephens. He was the husband of the victim, Mary Ann Stephens. Mr. Stephens was the crucial witness in this case, because he was the only witness. He claimed in his testimony that Brenton Butler murdered Mary Ann Stephens three feet away from his face. Approximately three hours after the incident, he was able to identify Butler as the culprit from fifty feet away. However, the defense attorney was able to pick highlight multiple problems during the cross-examination. The entire incident took place within a five second window. The defendant was wearing a t-shirt with a prominent logo when he was arrested. Mr. Stephens did not mention the logo to police, and incorrectly stated that the shirt had a collar. It was later learned when a second suspect was arrested for the crime, that Mary Ann Stephens was shot after she spilled her coffee on the shooter. James Stephens never mentioned once mentioned this.

In certain scenarios regarding Ethics, it is common to reach a conclusion through the concept of Consequentialism. This is said to have been accurate for centuries, as Consequentialism focuses strictly on the outcome and consequences of actions. The reason for this is the common belief by many that outcome is everything. Throughout the last three weeks, I have developed a better view on Consequentialism. Through the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Mill, I have learned basic methods of applying Utilitarianism and Consequentialism to ethical situations. As a brief overview, Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing the “good” and minimizing the “bad” in life. The broader concept of Consequentialism seeks the positive aspects and despises the negative.

This essay will critically analyse and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of retributivism. Throughout history the term “retributivism” has had a diverse though correlated meanings. The most significant meaning of retributivism is righting or rebalancing the scale of justice, through the use of mechanisms such as punishment e.g. punishing criminals in order to achieve justice for the offence they have committed. Retributivism also looks back at the offence, since the offender has committed a wrongful offence which needs to be punished. One of the core reasons why offenders should be punished is that they need to ‘pay back’ for the offence they have committed; the theory that is associated with retributivism is the just deserts theory. A theory is a concept that is based upon a hypothesis that can be supported with evidence. The just desert theory is used to justify retributivism punishment. Unlike other theories of punishment that mainly concentrates on preventing future crime, such as rehabilitation, deterrence and reductivism. The retributivist theory primarily concentrates on punishing past crimes. Although others would disagree with this for the reason that they think punishment should be used to ‘reduce’ and ‘prevent future crimes’ (Carlsmith et al., 2002 p284). The essay will take into account the views of various theories; theorist and philosophers so that the strengths and weaknesses of

Retributivism is used in contrast with utilitarianism in such that it is used in theory about a legitimate end served by the penal institutions. Chapter 3 of our book (Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice) spoke of retributive justice. The most widely embraced mixed theory holds that punishment must achieve both the utilitarian goal of crime prevention and the retributive

Thus the former is morally culpable for the actions of the latter by virtue of being the cause of the action. Opponents of consequentialism argue that negative responsibility, and the consequentialist doctrine as a whole, is unacceptable because it reduces an agent to merely “a locus of causal intervention in the world.” Instead of being people, agents are no more than origin points of cause and effect, and their integrity is forfeit as a result. Although Williams dedicates a significant portion of his paper to illustrating the problem of integrity, he offers no defense against it. In fact, he acknowledges that life-defining projects and integrity exist, agrees that it is absurd to expect an agent to discard them in order to be moral, and then departs from the problem of integrity without further discussion.

“‘Under this statute, the reviewing court shall determine only: (1) the legality of the decision and (2) whether there was substantial evidence from the record as a whole to support the decision.’” Thomas v. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 170 Md. App. 650, 657 (2006) (quoting Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation v. Hinder, 349 Md. 71, 77-78 (1998)). Moreover, “[w]e ‘may not reject a decision of the Board supported by substantial evidence unless that decision is wrong as a matter of law.’” Thomas, supra, 170 Md. App. at 658 (quoting Hernandez v. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 122 Md. App. 19, 23 (1998)).

Is it better to let ten guilty men go free, or to imprison one innocent man? Blackstone’s formulation would say it is better to let the ten guilty men go free. This is exemplified in section 11(d) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty...” To convict a person in Canada of a criminal offence, generally, two elements must be proven. Actus reus, the guilty act, and mens rea, the guilty mind. This essay will focus specifically on the mens rea of first-degree murder. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea or there is no guilty act without a guilty mind. To understand the impact of mens rea on the determination of fault in a criminal case, one must understand the term and its context within the Criminal Code of Canada (hereafter referred to as the C.C.C.)

Consequentialism and non-consequentialism are both action based ethical frameworks that people can use to make ethical judgments. Consequentialism is based on examining the consequences of one’s actions as opposed to non-consequentialism which is focused on whether the act is right or wrong regardless of the outcome (Burgh, Field & Freakley, 2006). The three sub-categories of consequentialism are altruism, utilitarianism and egoism.

Consequentialism states that an act is moral if the consequence of the act will bring the greatest amount of good and immoral if the act will bring bad consequences.

Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary

However, those who support this style of justice appear to have a deeper application for its intention. For those who support Retributive justice, as discussed in the Stanford Encyclopedia, view it in a way that can utilized in multiple forms. Conversely, at its core it is known to be committed to three foundational principles. Those principles are incentive of firstly, that a person who violates a law, should suffer an equivalent punishment. Secondly, that good will arise, in receiving a legitimate punishment.

Punishment is the consequent effect that you get for doing a particular crime. Some of these punishments focus on just punishing the criminal, while others are about giving an effective punishment to make sure the person would not reoffend. There are two main theories of punishment, which are utilitarian and retributive theories of punishment. This essay will discuss the theory of retributive punishment with regards to its historical beginnings, key theorists supporting and critiquing this theory and how it is still being applied in this contemporary era.

The criminal justice system exemplifies how society uses punishment to discourage negative and immoral behaviors. As liberal establishments move towards enhancing freedom and justice, many are beginning to have second thoughts regarding their view on the death penalty. However, the percentage of Americans that still favors the death penalty believe it is absolutely necessary because it deters instances of murder, plus, it offers the only just punishment that is proportionate to the crime committed. The Retentionists rely on two main theories as justification for the concurrence of capital punishment: The Retributivism Theory and the Utilitarianism Theory. The theory of Retributivism, also known, as the doctrine of “just desert” is the belief

In a desperate moment, people can make decisions that can destroy the lives of others. The human’s selfish heart will undoubtedly protect itself no matter what the cost, even if the cost is ending someone else’s life. In the case of the sailors stranded in a lifeboat at sea, the question raised is whether or not the men were morally corrupt by killing the cabin boy. There are two basic approaches used to determine the outcome of this case. The first has to do with deciding if the benefits of killing a person outweigh the costs (Sandel 32). The second approach says that consequences are not the only factor to consider because some moral duties and rights are more important (Sandel 33). “Suppose you were the judge, assume that you were asked to decide whether killing the cabin boy was morally permissible, how would you rule (Sandel 32)?”