Mystic River: Deals with Three Issues with Regard to Criminal Justice: Proof, Guilt and Punishment
Dennis Lehane's novel, Mystic River, deals intimately with three very delicate issues with regard to criminal justice: proof, guilt and punishment. Repeatedly, the proper criteria for sentencing a possibly guilty party to death are presented. In the one case, the guilt of the party is almost certain, whereas in the other instance, the guilt is ambiguous and then disproved. Nevertheless, Dave Boyle's crime could, from a certain perspective, justify the manner of his death. Although he was killed for a crime he did not commit, the crime he was guilty of was in some ways analogous. Since, from Jimmy's point of view, Dave's guilt is somewhat unclear though circumstantially convincing, he is left with the moral dilemma of determining whether his actions were in any way right. In this way, Lehane presents the reader with a series of moral tales which they are ultimately left contemplating from their own criteria for justifiable punishment. Ultimately, the novel forces the audience to look at the death penalty, proof, and guilt in new manners; additionally, certain readers may find the circumstances depicted in the novel exceptional with regard to their more general stances regarding these very same issues.
Killing as a function of justice raises a number of moral questions, and makes a number of moral assumptions. Essentially, Kant recognizes the classic contradiction between the freedom of the individual moral actor and the freedom of society: one must be limited in order for the other to be perfect. Retribution is morally demanded, according to Kant, because permitting the violation of moral laws would be equivalent to the citizenry endorsing the criminal action of the individual. It is important to note, however, that these punishments are justifiable on a social scale only because, in Kant's view, they grow out of universally acceptable maxims; if a society can recognize these moral laws, then deviation from them demands retribution from society. However, that time has not yet arrived. The fact is that justice is not blind because no human can ever be completely impartial. Socially, by adopting the death penalty, in many ways, the United States' public is identifying the justice system as an infallible device-a mechanism that is not capable of errors, imperfections, or inequity. In other words, allowing a murder to carry out his rampage simply because it is his personal belief that he is justified is wrong; this is because a non-retributive society passively sanctions infringement upon the categorical imperative. Philosophers have grappled for ages with the role that retribution can and should play in the seeking of justice. In America, death as a punishment for certain criminal activities is relatively widely accepted, and it is supported by the state. Bias will always exist in some form. Kantian justice demands active support of the categorical imperative. Today, prejudice based upon race is central to the manner in which many Americans think and behave, and accordingly, it is prevalent in the criminal justice system. Lehane, however, forces his audience to look at deterrence theory in another light. In Mystic River we see Dave choose to penalize a pedophile to death for his molestation of a young boy.
Common topics in this essay:
Immanuel Kant,
Dave Boyle's,
Nevertheless Dave-who,
Dave Jimmy,
United Despite,
United States',
River Dave's,
Mystic River,
Furthermore Sean,
Dave's Jimmy's,
death penalty,
criminal justice,
justice system,
capital punishment,
mystic river,
justified killing,
criminal justice system,
deterrence theory,
vigilante justice,
categorical imperative,
jimmy justified killing,
moral law,
|
Acceptance Essays
