There is a theory in the philosophy of punishment called utilitarianism. Essentially the utilitarian looks to the future rather than the past and justifies punishment based on whether it will provide any good for society (e.g. if punishing a criminal will deter him or others from committing crimes, then he should be punished; alternatively, if it will neither deter him nor anyone else, then he should not be punished despite his crime). An extreme utilitarian view might even suggest that the punishment of an innocent might be justified if it had a benefit for society (e.g. deterrence, maintain social order, etc.). Here is an exercise we engaged in on our first day of my criminal law course to help us explore this:
First, a real case from 1884: The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273.
Four men are on a small life boat after their ship is lost at sea. Three are older, experienced seamen with families. One is a 17 or 18 year old cabin "boy." For two days they eat canned turnips. After these run out, they catch a turtle and ration it for 9 days. Two days later, now nearly two weeks since their time in the life boat, their fresh water runs out. Four days after this the 3 older men begin to consider killing the younger one in order to survive (yes, by eating him). One of the men dissents, but the other two are in agreement. Note, that the younger man is now sick from dehydration and from lack of food (for some reason he is not fairing as well as the others), and is likely to die soon. Three additional days later, now three weeks at sea and a full week without fresh water, the two men kill the cabin boy. The three men eat for four days and are then rescued. The two men are prosecuted for murder. Question: Was the killing justified, given that the life of 1 saved 3 others? If not justified, should the two men at least receive a lesser punishment (death was the only punishment for murder at this time)?
Next, a hypothetical situation suggested by my casebook author, Joshua Dressler, Cases and Materials on Criminal Law, 4th ed., 37 (2007):
An especially violent murder occurs in a small, racially divided community. The victim is white and, although there is no hard evidence to prove it, a rumor quickly spreads that the killer was black. As the result of racist activity by white supremacist groups, a white mob threatens to enter the community and kill innocent African-Americans and burn down their homes in order to exact vengeance. The town sheriff realizes that she lacks adequate personnel to stop the mob. She is convinced, however, that if she arrests an African-American for the crime and promises a quick trial, the mob will be satisfied.
Assume that the sheriff has only the two options presented. Would she be justified in framing the innocent person to save the lives of others in the town?
Finally, consider William Blackstone's: "[It is] better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Do you agree with this? If so, how many guilty persons would you be willing to let escape in order to ensure that the "one innocent" does not suffer? One hundred guilty persons? One thousand? All of them? Consider your answer and then see my comment on the "comments" section of this post to see what our professor left us with that day.
4 comments:
After allowing us to discuss just how many guilty persons we were willing to let free in order to spare the innocent one, my professor made this point:
It is not difficult to believe, and is indeed nearly certain, that at least one innocent person is incarcerated right now. Are we willing to open the jails and let all of the people in them out so that the innocent one isn't punished too? Or, are we, in fact, willing to allow some innocents to suffer for the good of society?
I'm really not sure where I'd draw the line. Of course I'm not excited about the idea of innocent people suffering, but at the same time it seems like we need to realize that when we let guilty people go unpunished they will continue to commit acts of theft, violence, or whatever else it was that they were accused of... and in continuing to commit these crimes, innocent people would suffer. It seems like we would have to do the best we can to verify guilt and innocence in our justice system, but that we would have to realize that when it comes down to it we are causing innocents to suffer if we fail to punish those who are guilty.
Its an interesting post and a somewhat difficult question. I don't hold to utilitarianism in the sense described in the post - I don't believe the ends justify the means. Doing evil is still evil, and its still a problem.
But I'm not sure the question from your professor is the same thing. While I would guess he is absolutely correct that there are innocent people in prison, I don't think that refusing to let EVERYONE go so the hypothetical innocent can be free is the same thing as willfully choosing to harm someone you KNOW is innocent. It seems to me there is a difference - so I can say no to each scenario in the post, and still say that I would not let everyone out of jail. The implication is that this is a contradiction - but I don't think it is. If I discover that someone is definitely innocent and then KEEP them in jail because of some notion of the greater good, THEN it is the same as the original two scenarios.
Good point.
Post a Comment