Voodoo Case

Under the definition, can victor be convicted of attempted murder?

Yes, under the definition of attempted murder victor meets all the charges. His belief was the he would be hurting his wife if he is hurting that inanimate doll. He was hurting her in his mind even though no harm was done to his wife, but the fact he though it would hurt her held him in conviction of attempted murder. He would be hold accountable for attempted murder. Not only that but he had a strong guilt believing that he had kill his wife for sure which lead to his confession to the police. 

How would Kadish analyze this case?

Kadish would examine this case based on what prior primitive cases and evidence that have actually taken place. In this case there was a doll which victor used to repeatedly stab assuming it would murder his wife but no such event occurred. This case would have taking a different turn if his wife would have been affected by the voodoo actions. Kadish would compare this case to a person who has hurt someone physically and than in the use of this lifeless doll.

What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?

Kadish criticism of the harm doctrine is that it has no reasonable basis, and finds it to be not rationally supportable. Kadish also find the “harm doctrine” to be hypothetically illogical while being unproductive when it come to prevent crimes. Kadish claims that there are two functions of criminal punishment: to prevent further criminal acts by criminals, and to discourage criminal acts by others. 

According to Kadish, why do we still have “harm Doctrine”?

When it comes to ethical and moral values society has a hard time adjusting. We still have “harm doctrine” according to Kadish because it takes time when changes come based on our ethical views. 

Mr. Peterson/ Prosecution

 Steven Peterson is guilty of the charges associated with his crime under mens rea and actus reus because in understanding the act in which Peterson was conducting he was aware that his conduct was criminal and morally unjust. We can later conclude that because of the substances that Peterson had in his bag, the load of pornography and sex toys can assimilate that Peterson had intent when he arrived in said resident’s home. His charges were against a minor of only ten years of age and he being a 45-year-old man is not only wrong but also disgusting. With the objects that contained in his bag, we can understand that Peterson had full intent in what he was going to attempt. Though the setup was a done by the police with the help of a female acquaintance, it proved that Peterson had full intensions for committing child rape. The items that he had when he arrived at the female’s home showed that he was fully aware of what he wanted to do. Also it seems Peterson had done something like this before because of the intentions in his mind. There was no ten-year-old year but there could have been one and this horrific act would have taken place. What Peterson had intended to commit was morally wrong and disturbing, and he should be charged with attempted rape of a child.

Lifeboat

1) I believe that the defendants in this case are guilty of murder. Murder is defined as an unlawful killing of a human being, with a purpose of intend to kill. The first mate wanted only the strong people on the lifeboat because he needed those who were capable of rowing the boat throughout the ocean. He than commanded the crew members to push the swimmers that tried to climb on the boat even after they were told that they were not allowed on the boat. This makes them guilty of murder because to get themselves to safety by the use of the ones who they choose to keep on the boat, they let others die. One of them being a woman who was three weeks pregnant.

2) The actions of the crew members were morally wrong. As the crew members it is their responsibility to protect the passengers and put their lives at risk to protect them. By not allowing and pushing people who they classified as being weak, is not only morally wrong but also in-humanitarian and barbaric. The passengers went on this cruise putting their safety into the hands of the crew members and the crew members decided to leave them behind for being weak.

3) An utilitarian philosopher such as John Stuart mill and Jeremy Bentham would have argued that the crew members and the first mate acted for the greater good. They would have said if the five remaining people were taken on the boat than every single person on that boat would have died leaving no survivors. They would have looked more in the future consequences that if five people have to die for twenty 23 people to live than they would find the defendants not guilty. The reason they would have supported their actions would be because more lives were saved than deaths that took place. A Deontology philosopher such as Kant would have opposed the utilitarian philosopher. Stating that it does not matter about the consequences but it's rather the fact on what is the right thing to do. Kant disagrees with the basic premises of all consequentialist theories and believes more on what is morally right.