Toward the end of our discussions of Kant, we discussed his idea of "instances of necessity," where an act one commits is morally wrong, but unpunishable. We came up with several theoretical situations in which an action clearly violations a moral law (such as lying) but is unpunishable (because it protects innocent Jews hidden from Nazis). It is in these instances of necessity that one must choose between two or more moral laws, as they cannot all be upheld. Thus, in order to uphold one moral law (in our example, the preserving the autonomy of others), one must violate another moral law (lying is wrong).
This got me thinking about the potential applications in our justice system. There is the obvious "wrong but unpunishable" offense of murder in self-defense--the court recognizes that the murder was wrong, but will not punish the offender because they acted out of self-preservation. In the case of murder, the court moves beyond simply allowing for “instances of necessity” and acts in a relatively Kantian manner, by allowing for huge differences in punishment based on the intent of the offender. The highest punishment is reserved for those convicted of first-degree murder: murder that has been premeditated. Here it is the most apparent of the offender's intent, as they put forth a significant amount of time in order to orchestrate the murder. Next in the hierarchy of punishment is second degree murder, when one intentionally kills someone (not in self-defense), but it was not premeditated. Finally, our court system separates the final two levels of killing into a separate category from murder: manslaughter. Higher punishment is reserved for voluntary manslaughter ("heat of passion murder") than involuntary manslaughter (such as killing someone as a result of drunk driving). Interestingly, nearly identical acts can be classified as second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter: if a fight results in death, it is second degree murder, but if the fight starts after a revelation of infidelity, it may be classified as voluntary manslaughter.
Since we can never absolutely know another’s motive for acting, how just is this system? Should there be the varying punishments of second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, or should they be given equal punishment? Finally, are there instances where our justice system gives no regard to one’s intention in their action before deciding punishment?
Grace, this is an absolutely fascinating blog post! I like that you defined exactly how the law works in regards to murder. I unfortunately cannot respond to your questions thoroughly because they are so tough. I do not think that the system is very just though, because there are so many instances in which we would not know the person's motives. If we can not 100% know the motives how can we make such definitive judgements and punishments in regards to their actions? However, I do not think there are instances where our justice system should give no regard to one's intention in their action before deciding punishments. I always think that intentions should be taken into place. Say for example someone kills another person but the person who committed the murder was actually mentally ill. If the government did not allow for intentions to be examined the court may never have known the killer was mentally ill.
ReplyDeleteSuch an interesting application of our past few weeks of class! Clearly a utilitarian would have serious objections to the distinctions our justice system makes based on motives. Since the consequence (a dead human being) is the same for all, the level of immorality for each should be the same as well and equal punishments should be in order. A utilitarian would likely claim that any possible distinctions between the seriousness of these acts would have to be based on the quantity of human life ended.
ReplyDeleteFully enforcing this equal consequences-equal punishment policy has some pretty interesting implications when it comes to deaths that are legitimate accidents, involving no further wrongdoing. Simply firing a gun straight into the sky could result in life in prison or even the death penalty if the stray bullet happened to fall and hit someone. In most places it's not illegal and clearly no harm is intended, but the result is still the same.
I'd rather have a justice system that takes motive into account and occasionally lets a criminal off a little easy after misinterpreting their level of ill-will than one that might punish an inadvertent celebratory act the same way it would punish a premeditated murderer.
Since we can never know the motives for a murder in an absolute sense, there is always the possibility of the wrong charge being pressed or the homicide classified incorrectly, like you mentioned, in cases that are nearly identical but punished under different rules. However, in a Kantian sense, our justice system is as close as it can get to moral and just in a practical sense, in that laws have been established, modified, and redefined to the point that they are set up to act in a universal way for each different classification. Within these classifications, there are also sub-sets decided upon the jury who have to make the decision of what is just and moral. It is as close to just as it can get in practicality.
ReplyDelete