Social Inequality in the Dudley and Stevens Case

Part A of Chapter 1 in “Criminal Law and its Processes: Cases and Materials” by Kadish et al. focuses on the fact that the crime rate in the United States is very high, and many of those convicted are black. As in other countries, most prisoners are from dysfunctional families suffering from addiction. Substantive criminal law reform that would reduce the breadth of punishments could reduce the prison population, but society would become unsafe. Another solution could be properly distributing police officers, which would help protect low-income neighborhoods.

Seeking to treat all people equally well is a good idea, but it takes work. People’s beliefs must be completely re-examined and slowly but surely changed to achieve it. The problem is inextricably linked with other areas, so criminal law cannot solve it independently. Fiscal policy and progressive taxes can be used to alleviate social inequality first. This is one of the most crucial aspects of sound fiscal policy. Marginal tax rates in the highest income bracket can be raised without jeopardizing economic development.

In cases like Dudley and Stevens, punishment is intended to stop stories like this from spreading to the masses. People may think it is okay because it is so openly reported, and there is no punishment. Murder at sea, under the same circumstances as in the case at hand, should not be punished with anything agonizing, including the death penalty. The grounds for this may be an extreme case and a blurring of the mind against the background of the circumstances. The punishment should be imposed so that people do not repeat similar actions and do not feel impunity. The sentence could not be justified if the maritime custom had a deleterious effect on the maritime industry. However, punishment is worth limiting to those who deserve it. Dudley and Stevens do not deserve punishment, even though the murder was thoughtful, for they had no choice but to commit the crime. Under the circumstances, the lawbreakers should receive a particularly lenient punishment.

In circumstances when the victim does not agree with the offender’s sentence, the former may refuse to meet with him and even contact him through a mediator, or the mediator, after speaking with both, may judge that such communication would be damaging or even hazardous to one of the parties. The chance should be granted if the culprit foregoes the discussion and instead pays the public. This technique cannot be used for serious offenses and cannot be employed in the same way as the old approach.