. 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?
I do not believe that they are guilty of murder. It all comes down to the interpretation of the Penal Code and Statutes of their localities. I am a Law Major and plan on becoming a Lawyer, Rule number one when studying to become a lawyer, emotions, sadness, and morality should not play a role in judgement. My Criminal Law Professor used a quote that I love very much when describing the Law, "Too Bad So Sad". They were smart to wave their right to a jury so the judge would "Judge" them based on the written law, not how sad it is, or they are a monster for what they did in a jury's eyes. They could not risk the jeopardy of everyone for the 5 that died. It is sad, but two dozen other people were guaranteed safety because of the hard choice the had to make. As well as the defense of " General Justification" that had no choice to ensure the safety of everyone else.
Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? Why or why not?
In most cases when you add morality to it, it doesn't look good. It can actually make you sick. The law is not meant to be held to moral standing, it is meant to keep the general peace of the public. There are crimes and cases that were planned out and executed to the precision of a Cardiologist, and they are able to walk away from criminal liability. The Justice system is not perfect but it works for the most part. In my opinion it was immoral what they did, they could have risked it, and pulled them to safety and leave it to chance, give everyone a fair chance to survive, but they didn't.
I like that you point out that it was a good move that the defendants waived a trial by jury, and they were probably well advised to do so for the very reason you cite. As a future lawyer, if you were the judge in this case, how exactly would you interpret the statutes to acquit the defendants?
ReplyDeleteOf course, questions of morality are difficult. But I am not sure that morality and law are completely unconnected. If the only function of law is to keep people in order and peace, at least some laws do not fulfill that function. Thus, what is the good of the constitutional right to free speech if it does not keep the general peace, and what’s wrong with laws permitting slavery if it would be good for the economy?