Murder of Jabrill Mara by Charncey Daniels Research Paper

Introduction

The paper seeks to discuss the three primary theories of justice related to the murder of Jabrill Mara by Charncey Daniels. The three theories of justice are retributive, utilitarian, parallel, and restorative. The theories of justice are important since they are applied to solve controversial social issues in society (Wexler et la., 2019). First, the retributive theory is a mode of punishment for an offender who breaks the law, and justice requires that a guilty person suffers for the crime they commit with a punishment that is proportional to the offense committed. The retributive theory will be essential for this paper to assess the crime to ascertain the kind of punishment that should be given if an offender is found guilty. Secondly, the utilitarian theory’s goal is to punish people and discourage future wrongdoings. According to the theory, laws and regulations in society should be used to maximize happiness among people. Thirdly, the parallel theory responds to crime using two separate paths (Wexler et la., 2019). One path is for the offender, while the other is for the victim. A victims’ safety in society is restored and the system helps them heal from trauma caused by crime and regain full control of their lives. Finally, the restorative theory focuses on both parties. Victims and offenders are given a platform to communicate within a controlled environment to discuss the caused harm and find strategies for repairing it. Restorative justice’s primary concept is that crime causes harm, and justice should focus on repairing it. Some of the strategies used in restorative justice are conferencing, mediation, victim assistance, DMI reduction, community service, and real restitution. The four theories of punishment are critical in comprehending justice regarding respecting human beings as free and rational creatures. The purpose of applying the theories to the crime is to maintain order in society (Wexler et la., 2019). Different justice theories are used since each crime is different, and offenders cannot receive the same punishment. The retributive, utilitarian, parallel, and restorative justice models can be used to solve a hypothetical murder case.

Crime Description

The police arrested Charncey L. Daniels on 3rd January in Springfield for the murder of a twenty-year-old Mara. Mara, a father of two, was found by the police on 27^th December as he staggered along the Nutley Street ramp to Interstate 66 (LaFleur, 2011). Police found Mara with his face and clothes covered in blood (Newmark, 2020). It is because he was critically wounded (“Jabrill Mara murder,” 2011). Mara had two bullet wounds on his head. Moreover, according to the Court of Appeals of Virginia (2013), “…Mara suffered abrasions to his nose, abdomen, knees, and left leg, as well as a contusion on the right side of his chest” (para. 4). Mara died two days later in Fairfax Inova Hospital (Virginia State Police, 2011). According to the court records, Daniels was arrested since he left the crime scene on the day Mara was shot. Mara’s family could not come into terms with the incident since they knew the two were going out together, and it did not make sense that Daniels would murder him.

It would be challenging for someone unfamiliar with the crime to understand what happened fully. However, there is sufficient information to apply the four models of justice to the crime.

Research Methods

The starting point for knowing the available crimes for the research was to create a timeline for murder cases in Virginia. The search was narrowed down to 2011. Additional information was obtained by googling the details of the case selected. The keywords used were “crime,” “murder,” “Commonwealth of Virginia,” and “bullets.” The database from which the information was derived was a news website.

Applications of the Models of Justice to the Crime

The theories of justice address various problems in society and have common themes. The common theme between distributive and procedural justice is that they both entail both the victim’s and offenders’ perceived fairness. The primary concept of distributive justice is that pain and pleasure are appropriately distributed between the victim and offender by punishing the latter. Thus, distributive justice’s primary goal is to ensure that rewards and punishments are fairly given to all parties according to their merits or demerits. The difference is that distributive justice is the perceived fairness of the sharing of rewards and costs by two parties, while procedural justice applies to rules used to determine specific outcomes. Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in all the processes of solving all disputes in criminal law (Wexler et la., 2019). Therefore, every party appearing in a court of law is given an equal opportunity to represent their case. The procedural justice theory’s primary objective is to ensure that all parties receive a fair trial in court. The two theories are different from the social contract theory, which entails moral or political obligations dependent on agreements among members of society. The social contract theory dictates that people in society shall not break the law or specific moral codes, and in exchange, they reap benefits needed for survival. The social contract theory in criminal law describes the relationships between rules and laws each society needs. The themes will be applied in discussing the theories to the crime to determine the judgment’s perceived fairness.

Applications of the Models of Justice: Retributive Theory

Procedural Justice. A justice system applying procedural justice should prioritize fairness, transparency, being impartial in decision-making, and providing an opportunity for voice (Hermann, 2017). Fairness in the crime would be put into practice by ensuring that the defendant received a fair sentence based on the court’s evidence. In this case, fairness in the retributive theory of justice can only be realized if the offender is given a proportional punishment to their crime. Transparency would be enhanced by ensuring that the court allowed greater participation by society in solving the case. Impartial decision-making would be applicable if the court listens to both sides of the story and come up with a rational ruling (Hermann, 2017). Thus, the court should not be biased in any way when making the ruling. Both parties are given equal opportunities to present their claims. If the court rules that the defendant is guilty beyond questionable doubt, they should be incarcerated to pay for their crimes. Opportunity for voice could be enabled by allowing the defendant and his witnesses to give their testimonies in court.

Distributive Justice. The equality principle could be ensured by having a neutral jury listen to the case’s facts. Secondly, proportionality would be practiced by ensuring that the defendant’s punishment fits the crime he committed (Wenzel & Okimoto, 2016). If the defendant is found guilty of murder, they should receive a harsh punishment that will make them suffer. According to the distributive theory, the punishment given should distribute pain and pleasure equally between the offender and the victim. If the offender is found to be guilty of the murder, he should be incarcerated. The criminal sentencing for people convicted of murder in the United States is a minimum of thirty-five years, death without penalty, or life without parole. In this case, the offender’s incarceration, if found guilty, would be painful, but the victim would receive justice and pleasure from the ruling (Hermann, 2017). Thus, it is only fair that if the accused is found guilty, they should suffer for their actions, and the victim’s family would get some closure on the matter by having the criminal in jail.

Applications of the Models of Justice: Utilitarian Theory

Procedural Justice. The principle of fairness can be applied by the court by ruling based on the specific effects and outcomes of the case. The process to reach the final outcome of the case should be consistent. The utilitarian theory aims at maximizing the happiness of society. In this case, the judge, jury, and prosecutors involved in the case should ensure that they get all their facts correct so that both parties are satisfied when the final ruling is given. For instance, it should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder so that it is fair when he is incarcerated for the crime. The court should ascertain why the defendant left the crime scene after his friend’s murder. The court can then decide if he shot the deceased or not. Since the crime’s effects led to death, it would be fair to give the offender a sentence for the murder (Bagaric, 2020). Regarding the transparency principle, the court should allow third parties to give their testimonies and use the outcomes to give a ruling. Nobody is certain that the accused murdered his friend, and it would be unfair to assume that he committed the crime based on the fact that he was on the crime scene and later left. The investigation process to determine if the accused is guilty or innocent should follow a transparent process from the law enforcers, judge, jury, witnesses, and any other involved party in the case.

Distributive Justice. The proportionality principle could be applied by determining whether the defendant’s actions are morally wrong or correct so that the punishment given aligns with the crime committed (Fremantle, 2016). If the accused is found guilty of murder, they should be punished to discourage future wrongdoings from himself and others. Their incarceration should act as a lesson to them and society to avoid being involved in criminal activities in the future. If the accused is found guilty, the punishment given should fit their crime. For instance, murderers should be incarcerated for life with no parole or for a term not less than thirty-five years. In other cases, the court can issue a death sentence as a form of punishment. In that way, the victim’s side will receive justice for their murdered son as the offender pays for the crime they committed (Bagaric, 2020). Thus, if found guilty, the offender will be punished because they deserve the consequences of their actions. According to the utilitarian theory, laws should be used to increase happiness in society. Incarcerating a guilty person accused of murder would be satisfactory to people in society, including the victim’s family and friends.

Furthermore, the offender’s punishment would prevent others with similar behaviors from engaging in criminal activities after knowing the punishment they will face once arrested. According to the distributive theory of justice in criminal law, an offender should be punished so that pain and pleasure are equally distributed to them and the victim (Bagaric, 2020). In the end, both parties will get justice. The offender will be incarcerated for the murder, and the victim’s family will get justice for the murder of their son. However, if the defendant is found to be innocent by the court of law, the fair thing to do would be releasing them and arresting the real perpetrator of the murder.

Applications of the Models of Justice: Restorative Theory

Procedural Justice. According to the restorative justice theory, crime causes harm, and the system should seek to repair the harm. However, all the people and processes involved in getting justice for the murder should ensure fairness prevails. Procedural justice can be accomplished through cooperative processes by all the stakeholders (Kiyala, 2019). In this case, the murder trial parties are prosecutors, law enforcement, judges, witnesses, the defendants, and the plaintiff. The officers investigating the crime should be partial and ensure that the evidence gathered from the crime scene incriminates the offender of the murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The process should be transparent to ensure that all the case facts are considered before a ruling is given (Marshall, 2020). The restorative justice theory requires that the people who are most affected in a criminal case should be allowed to participate in the resolution. In this case, the murdered person’s family should be comprehensively involved in the trial processes and provide witnesses and testimonies that would lead to a fair trial. The fairness, transparency, voice, and impartiality principles of procedural justice can be used to repair crime, encounter, and transform the case’s outcomes. The best way to realize fairness in the murder trial against the offender is by having both parties decide together on the accused’s fate. The murdered person’s family should be allowed to have a say in the matter and give their opinion on the case.

The two parties involved in the murder trial should be flexible enough to accept new approaches brought forward by the prosecution. For instance, there could be new evidence from the prosecutors regarding the murder case. Both the accused and the victim’s side should be flexible enough to accommodate new investigative processes’ findings.

Fairness can be realized by having the murdered person’s family to observe trail in court unless their presence can jeopardize the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Regarding partiality, the victims of this case should be allowed to make a statement during the sentencing phase (Marshall, 2020). The murdered person’s family should offer their testimonies about the physical, emotional, mental, economic, or social harm that the accused caused after killing their own.

The opportunity-for-voice principle can be accomplished by giving the victim’s family the legal right to pursue restitution. The murdered person’s family can be included in several stages of the criminal justice system like plea bargaining, investigation, sentencing, post-sentencing, and arraignment (Kiyala, 2019). The involvement of the victim’s family will allow for consistency and efficiency in the entire process.

Distributive Justice. The court can be fair to the murdered person’s family by repairing the shooting’s harm by imprisoning the offender if he is found guilty (Marshall, 2020). If the defender’s actions are morally wrong, a sentence should be issued to ensure proportionality (Kiyala, 2019). Equality can be applied where both parties receive fair rulings based on the case’s facts and the evidence presented in court. Proportionality can be achieved by giving a fair ruling based on the facts of the case and using both sides’ opinions. In this case, if both sides have enough proof to incriminate the offender, then he should be incarcerated for murder, as the law requires.

Applications of the Models of Justice: Parallel Theory

Procedural Justice. Fairness and transparency can be enhanced by ensuring that the framework for responding to the crime are parallel (Eryilmaz, 2019). Thus, the court should not neglect any party when issuing a ruling. In this case, the harm that the victim’s family is experiencing must be acknowledged in court during all the processes. Fairness and transparency, in this case, can be ensured by having the offender and the victim’s family encounter one another with a facilitator to act as the mediator. The encounter between the two parties can be direct or indirect using letters, videos, or messages delivered by a third party. Since the parallel theory focusses on both parties, the victim’s family should meet with the defendant’s side outside court proceedings. The two parties can meet to hold face-to-face confrontations and discuss possible facts of the case. For instance, the victim’s family can insist on knowing why their son was murdered and the motive behind the crime. In this case, the two parties knew each other before, and the victim’s family was surprised that a friend killed their son. Thus, the victim’s family can get closure and seek to be given a satisfactory statement of the activities that happened that day when their son was murdered (Eryilmaz, 2019). In their narrative, the two parties should talk about how the case has affected them, their view of the crime, and its consequences. Transparency can be achieved by ensuring that the two parties meet and express and address emotion. However, it is possible that the victim’s family does not want to meet with the accused person. In such a case, the two parties can communicate through videos or letters that are delivered by a neutral person. Being a murder case, a lot of emotions would be involved when dealing with both parties. First, it has not been proved if the accused of killing his friend. Furthermore, the victim’s family is in disbelief since the victim and the accused were good friends. The victim’s family is in denial, and the murder could produce significant emotional responses. The victim’s family needs to express their emotions so that both parties can heal from the ordeal.

Distributive Justice. Proportionality can be applied if the testimonies from both sides are satisfactory (Degefa, 2020). The two parties should be allowed to deliberate on the course of action that should be taken. The defendant’s and victim’s side can decide the accused’s fate and deliberate on the punishment he deserves should he be found guilty of the murder accusation against him. A punishment that fits the crime is given if the defendant is found guilty for the charges (Eryilmaz, 2019). If the defendant is found guilty of the murder after deliberating with the other side, he should be incarcerated just like other murder victims. The punishment should be harsh enough to be proportional to the murder crime he committed. However, the victim’s side should have a say on the ruling to ensure that a fair judgment is issued. The collaboration between the two parties can assist the law enforcers and prosecutors in determining the real facts of the case to ensure that the accused is not incriminated for a crime he did not commit.

Conclusion

The restorative justice theory would be the most effective for this case since it provided a unique model for thinking about crime and victimization. In my opinion, the theory is better than the others for multiple reasons. For instance, instead of focusing on punishment, the theory prioritizes healing and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the model assumes that the persons most affected by crime should be given a chance to be involved in conflict resolution. In this case, the victim’s side is the most affected since their son was murdered. Thus, it would only be fair to ensure that they are involved in solving the conflict in the presence of a neutral third party (Wexler et la., 2019). The offender should be asked to take responsibility for his actions, and he should confess if he killed his friend. The confession will give the victim’s family the closure they need to move beyond their sense of vulnerability. Most of the time, the criminal justice system focuses on criminal behavior and punishes offenders through different levels. Through restorative justice, the two families will be mended and restored through strategies like dialogue, inclusion, and community support, among others (Marshall, 2020). After the defendant is found guilty of the crime, he should be treated with dignity and respect when in prison and after he completes his sentence.

The restorative justice philosophy’s primary objective is to assist communities in understanding the importance of engaging both the prisoners and victims on healthy ways of making them empowered to make meaning with their experiences and move past them (Marshall, 2020). The victim’s family is mourning the loss of their son, but they would feel better by being empowered. Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of reconciliation between victims and offenders to promote healing and redefine crime in the community (Wexler et la., 2019). The offender will be held accountable for the murder he committed, and the victim’s family will get closure of the death of their loved one. By the end of the processes, the emotions of both parties will be restored. Furthermore, the theory advocates for opportunities like dialogue, problem-solving, conflict resolution, community safety, and closure.

Even with multiple benefits, the restorative theory of justice contains some negative aspects. First, the model can be problematic, especially regarding the victim’s needs. The theory is perceived to be more beneficial to offenders, whereby offenders help avoid getting into the criminal justice system as a prevention measure to reduce overcrowding in jails and prisons. The model focusses more on the offenders, and it can be challenging for victims to achieve autonomy within the process (Wexler et la., 2019). In some cases, the victims are completely removed from the resolution processes. Finally, restorative justice systems are coordinated by groups that work with offenders instead of networks for seeking justice for victims. However, the benefits of the restorative justice theory outweigh its disadvantages.

References

Bagaric, M. (2020). The Contours of a Utilitarian Theory of Punishment in Light of Contemporary Empirical Knowledge about the Attainment of Traditional Sentencing Objectives. The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy and Science of Punishment, 62-74.

Court of Appeals of Virginia. (2013). Daniels v. Commonwealth. Web.

Degefa, A. (2020). 14. When parallel justice systems lack mutual recognition. Culture and Social Practice, 311.

Eryilmaz, E. (2019). A critical assessment of john rawls’s theory of justice as fairness (Doctoral dissertation, MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY).

Fremantle, S. P. (2016). Reconstructing Rawls: a utilitarian critique of Rawls’s theory of justice (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London)).

Hermann, D. H. (2017). Restorative justice and retributive justice: An opportunity for cooperation or an occasion for conflict in the search for justice. Seattle J. Soc. Just., 16, 71.

Jabrill Mara murder: Family mourns loss of 20-year-old father. (2011). WJLA. Web.

Jackman, T. (2011). The Washington Post, p. 1. Web.

Kiyala, J. C. K. (2019). Restorative Justice in Theory. In Child Soldiers and Restorative Justice (pp. 179-197). Springer, Cham.

LaFleur, T. (2011). Mystery of man shot on I-66 ramp. NBC4 Washington. Web.

Marshall, C. D. (2020). Restorative justice. In Religion Matters (pp. 101-117). Springer, Singapore.

Newmark, L. (2020). CRIM 495: Murder of Jabrill Mara by Charncey Daniels. [PDF document]. Web.

Virginia State Police. (2011). DC man indicted for 2010 interstate 66 murder. Web.

Wenzel, M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2016). Retributive justice. In Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 237-256). Springer, New York, NY.

Wexler, L., Robbennolt, J. K., & Murphy, C. (2019). # MeToo, Time’s up, and Theories of Justice. U. Ill. L. Rev., 45.