Does the punishment ever fit the crime? Is the punishment itself a disguised crime? What I want you to think about right now is the death penalty. Let's say you have a guy, Jimmy Joe Bob, who goes and kills someone. The cops, thinking that killing another human is wrong, go do their thing and arrest Jimmy Joe Bob for murder. Now at court, Jimmy Joe Bob is sentenced to penalty by death. Now let's go back to why you arrested Jimmy Joe Bob in the first place. You thought killing someone was wrong so now you are going to kill someone who killed someone. Are you doing it right? Is this a moral action? If you let Jimmy Joe Bob go then people will think you can just get away with killing anyone. If you kill Jimmy Joe Bob, you are acting against your own morals. Is there a system that can evenly balance out crime and punishment?
Let's now take a look at Candide. Candide decides to go for a walk while in an army he was practically forced into and chooses the punishment of running the gauntlet thirty-six times. This seems to me like a case of ridiculous consequence for something not serious at all. Candide did something he didn't even know was wrong and was punished with almost death. It seems to me that all crime and punishment can be put onto a scale. In the middle of the scale we have what the crime was, the left we have no punishment, and the right we have the most severe punishment. If you tip too far left, people might perform unjust actions because they know the punishment isn't severe enough. If you go too far to the right then very minor offenses will be punished severely. If you are in the middle you are causing the same punishment to a man who committed a crime you thought was unjust.
No comments:
Post a Comment