type 1: Smart
Smart, in his piece titled simply “Mercy”, discusses mercy within our judicial system and our society as a whole. Smart goes through a variety of situations where mercy is needed or on the other hand, would be inappropriate. Smart argues that mercy is needed within our society because punishments do not suit each individual case. Mercy allows for these punishments to fit the situation and no individual is punished too harsly. Smart believes that mercy is needed in the judicial system in order to be for any punishment to be just.
A good depiction of how Smart views mercy is his statement, “It is commonly regarded as a praiseworthy element in moral behavior- something to be practiced occasionally both for the good of the one who punishes and the one who is punished” (p. 345). It keyword in his definition of mercy is occasionally. Mercy becomes ineffective when used constantly. Another description of Mercy from Smart that exhibits his thinking is, “ We also think of mercy as benevolently reducing or waiving punishment” (p. 358). Benevolent is the significant term in this definition. Overall, Smart views mercy as a necessary action that should only be used occasionally in order to adjust punishment.
Smart also in “Mercy” illustrates how mercy should function within the judicial system. Smart states that us as a society, “We condemn as hard and unbending the judge who never shows mercy and the suggestion is that the poor unfortunates whose lot it is to be judged by him are poor unfortunates indeed” (p. 345). This statement shows that mercy is necessary within our society in order to be viewed as fair and just. The judge that never shows mercy is harsh and cruel, merely because the punishments are already harsh and cruel. A specific case where mercy should be utilized is that of murder vs. premeditated murder, “The reason why the pre-meditated murder is thought to be worse than the spontaneously committed one is presumably that the murderer is more responsible when the crime is premeditated” (p. 346). If a spontaneously committed murder received the same punishment as a pre-mediatated murder is would be harsh. However, in the judicial system, the punishment for each murder is the same. Murder is murder. If a judge did not allow mercy in this example, Smart explains that, “ Where the law made no provision for this sort of difference a fair judge would exercise mercy; a judge who didn’t would be regarded as unjust” (p. 346). In general, Smart illustrates that mercy is necessary in our judicial system in order to apply punishments to each case. Additionally, those judges that don't use mercy as seen as unjust.
To conclude Smart’s piece on Mercy, mercy is necessary and needed in our judicial system due to the organization of it. Judges who don’t use mercy are unjust, but if mercy is used in every instance it becomes meaningless, “Although the suggestion, in cases of real acts of mercy, is that mercy is good in itself, it is quite clear that it would not be justified in all cases, and in some cases, in fact, would be immoral” (p. 350). The necessity of mercy makes me wonder if there is a way to create punishments for each situation that are fair and just. There must be a fairer way to run our criminal justice system than relying on mercy to correct punishments.
Bibliography:
Smart, Alwynne. “Mercy.” Philosophy, vol. 43, no. 166, 1968, pp. 345–359. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3750252. Accessed 23 Nov. 2020.
