Introduction
The criminal justice system is designed in such a way that it brings together different players to identify offenses and punish culprits. This model remains critical since it addresses human disagreements while providing fairness to all. The pronouncement of penalties remains an evidence-based approach intended to deter individuals from committing similar crimes in the future. Policymakers and legislators provide laws and guidelines that allow the system to function in an impartial and seamless manner. However, some skeptics have indicated that most of the existing penal codes are problematic and incapable of presenting befitting punishments to offenders under specific circumstances. This report examines most of these gaps and offers supportive arguments for the insights Alexander and Ferzan present.
Problem Statement
The American penal code outlines progressive laws aimed at analyzing and punishing offenders engaging in criminal activities. The proposed forms of penalization are intended to deter future acts, incapacitate the targeted criminals, rehabilitate, or even deliver restitution. These measures are essential since they have the potential to deliver safety and security to the greatest number of citizens. Unfortunately, some challenges exist in the manner in which the system provides the intended punishment. The emerging issue revolves around the move to focus on the final harm associated with an offense and the intentions the offender had in his or her mind. Analysts have indicated clearly that the current model ignores the motives of the offender while relying mostly on the outcome to adjudicate and offer final punishment (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). This problematic issue forms the basis of the discussions and analyses presented in this report.
Defending Alexander and Ferzan
In the chapter, “Only Culpability, Not Resulting Harm, Affects Desert”, the authors focus on the theory of culpability to present their views and arguments. According to Alexander and Ferzan (2009), such “a framework sets forth not only the necessary conditions for blameworthiness and punishment but also the sufficient conditions” (p. 171). This assertion guides them to acknowledge that the current American law remains unacceptable or incorrect. The penal code has evolved in such a way that it only allows the system to blame offenders based on the nature of the eventual result or outcome. This reality would dictate the most appropriate punishment for the identified wrongdoer.
The issues of intention and choice present a strong reason for challenging the present state of affairs. Alexander and Ferzan (2009) assert that the decision a person makes has the potential to either harm or protect others. The choice arising from such a deliberation becomes a desert basis for committing a specific offense. People will tend to focus on a specific goal and then act accordingly to achieve the aims. In most cases, offenders will begin by considering an idea (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). The approach will lead to a choice that forms the foundation of a given action. These attributes explain why the authors rely heavily on these notions to establish the best ground for their subsequent arguments and insights.
The concept of causation has attracted attention of many philosophers and legal scholars in the past. In the chapter, Alexander and Ferzan (2009) present Michael Moore’s assumption to link causation to morality. Specifically, it becomes clear that causation remains a powerful element that is capable of guiding ethical and moral principles. The authors are convinced that the present models of the penal code fail to focus on the overall process of choice or causation (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). It is evident that any action is a product of a specific decision someone made before its occurrence. During this critical stage, an individual can chose to pursue a specific action or abort it.
These two scholars believe that the criminal law tries to capitalize on the results of a specific act. Alexander and Ferzan (2009) believe that the whole idea of causation without necessarily taking the issue of choice seriously is a practice that has little or no consequences. While focusing entirely on the outcome of a specific act, the investigators question where the offender gets the courage and room for pursuing the recorded “results” or outcome. Under the American penal code, it remains quite that human emotions and feelings have taken center-stage when it comes to the process of punishing such offenses (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). Experts in criminal justice systems would tend to analyze the results as the most important moral desert.
In simple terms, it becomes quite clear that humans have developed a tendency of feeling guilty with the outcome is unacceptable. For example, the occurrence of harm and death appear to present a compelling reason for condemning and punishing. This outcome becomes the primary guiding principle for the wider criminal justice process and the overall process of issuing sentences. The example of the Satanic Cult is plausible since Alexander and Ferzan (2009) rely on it to explain how the intention of pursuing a specific act matters. This notion is founded on the initial risk of a specific motive and its potential towards causing harm. Based on such arguments, these scholars remain convinced that people’s intuitions bear much weight even if the eventual outcome does not result in much harm.
The outlined insights present a unique dimension for analyzing the nature of the American penal codes and how they fail to promote justice under some circumstances. Alexander and Ferzan (2009) show conclusively that “an actor who acts culpably has his punishability fixed by that culpable act alone, regardless of whether it produces a harmful result” (192). Analysts would need to examine the motive and intention that compelled the wrongdoer to behave in a specific manner. The researchers acknowledge that most of the emerging malpractices or choices that eventually result in harm are risky in nature. This means that the individual’s desert remains fixed. The person has already made the decision to act in such a manner while expecting specific outcomes or consequences in the end.
The application of moral principles could help shed more light on this debate. Alexander and Ferzan (2009) present different viewpoints to show conclusively that any action intended to harm is a manifestations of the wrongdoer’s final choice. The notion reveals that the person has settled to unleash the mentioned act with the aim of contributing to a given risk. It would now be clear that the outcome is already in the wrongdoer’s mind. When something unforeseeable occurs to prevent this form of harm, it would still be valid and right to identify the person as culpable (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). The assertion is that the individual has already decided to act in a specific manner that has clearly identifiable risks.
The authors go further to compare and contrast the events and actions that result in injury or death and others that do not. While the criminal justice system appears to be interested on the harm itself, Alexander and Ferzan (2009) take a different path to show how the wrongdoers in the two scenarios remain culpable. The argument is that such individuals would have both decided to engage in specific conducts that are proxies harm. Possible disruptions and facilitations that might emerge notwithstanding, it will remain clear that the intent is already defined and capable of causing great harm. These analysts, therefore, believe that such an emerging argument needs to become the guiding principles to improve the existing penal codes in this country.
The hypothetical example of an individual who is planning to visit a specific home and maim or kill the available children will be culpable and should receive the much needed punishment. The outstanding message that jurists should not focus primarily on whether there are children in such a domestic setting or not. The motive is already there and the individual has chosen to pursue such a path (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). The example goes further to indicate that the breakdown of such a criminal’s car is not a reason not to condemn the individual. The fact that he or she has not managed to arrive at the intended home and commit murder should not become the basis for sentencing and punishing the individual. The important approach would be to affect the fact that the individual is already culpable and has decided to commit a crime irrespective of the external forces that could emerge.
The outstanding message from the researches and findings of these two professionals in that a paradigm shift is necessary in the American criminal justice system. The current model is biased since it tries to condemn and provide punitive measures to only those whose intentions have fruited and eventually led to deaths or injuries. They carefully present powerful ideas and case scenarios to guide the reader in order to appreciate how choices bear as much weight as the final results. In the presented examples, it becomes clear that actors begin by identifying specific actions that are capable of fulfilling their personal interests. By deciding to act in such a manner, Alexander and Ferzan (2009) are convinced that the would-be wrongdoer is already decided to pursue a specific action. His or her culpability would remain unquestionable. Consequently, those involved in issuing punishment would need to examine the decision-making processes and the choice formulation.
Based on these notions, it would become quite clear that a person who already has a motive to kill, maim, or injure, and starts the process of achieving the intended actions is guilty. Such an individual has already pursued a dangerous path irrespective of the obstacles and unpredicted events that could occur along the way. With all factors remaining constant, chances become high that the wrongdoer will achieve the targeted outcomes and injure the selected victims (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). It is this kind of foundation that compels these investigators to support the issuance of the most appropriate punishment to these actors. Such a move would become an effective form of deterrence and bring sanity to the criminal justice system.
The current state of affairs tries to present a scenario whereby only those whose missions succeeds become more deserving of the pronounced judgment. The approach remains problematic and allows planners and criminals to continue pursuing their goals for the longest time possible until results are recorded. The provision of less punishment to those whose actions fail to maim or kill continues to encourage more criminals to pursue their heinous acts (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). When the criminal justice system considers this argument, it will be easier to identify the choice and intention as powerful attributes for punishing offenders. The precedent will create room for additional measures capable of making the process more progressive while helping protect more lives in this country.
The emerging proposition will allow professionals to focus on the defendant’s mental state (mens rea) and analyze the risks he or she set for the targeted victims. This approach will would allow the jury to gauge what the individual had planned to do and the possible consequences (Alexander & Ferzan, 2009). The strategy will ensure that there is a distinctive separation of the intention and the outcome, thereby allowing the courts to pronounce the most appropriate punishment.
Conclusion
The above discussion has revealed that a problematic issue continues to undermine the effectiveness of the American criminal justice system. The existing penal codes support the pronouncement of strict punishments to wrongdoers whose actions have led to death or injuries. The existing professionals in different courts ignore the initial decision-making processes and choices of criminals. The emerging argument is that the choices and intentions should be studied separately and becoming the basis for issuing judgment. The consideration of this approach will present a paradigm shift and help prevent more people from offending or making decisions that can put lives at risk.
Reference
Alexander, L., & Ferzan, K. K. (2009). Crime and culpability: A theory of criminal law. Cambridge University Press.