type 2: comparative insight on Brink/Yankah
These two philosophical articles explained what it means to be guilty; or culpable. However, each philosopher approached the subject differently. Brink utilized a more formal argument style with multiple definitions and key terms, while Yankah used more of a stream of consciousness style of writing, and opened the article with a personal anecdote. Additionally, the authors wrote about pretty similar subjects, but each of their opinion’s was expressed through their articles as well.
Let’s begin our comparative insight first on Brink. His article, “The Nature and Significance of Culpability”, illustrated in depth the different types of culpability and liability. There are 3 types of culpability: narrow, broad, and inclusive. Narrow culpability is whether the wrong doing was intended or not. Broad culpability is wrongdoing where the agent is blameworthy, and inclusive culpability is a combination of wrongdoing and responsibility. Brink also thoroughly discusses what mens rea is, the mental elements of an offense. Additionally, he explains how punishment is determined through the different culpabilities. Predominant Retributivsim is, “mixed theory of punishment in which a backward-looking emphasis on desert predominates over forward-looking rationales for punishment, such as deterrence, rehabilitation, and the expression of community norms” (Brink p. 351). In general, this theory states that we should punish wrongdoers who are culpable, we do this because they deserve the punishment, and we punish to the degree of their wrongdoing. Overall, Brink uses terms and definitions to outline his article on culpability.
Yankah, on the other hand, in his article, “Good Guys and Bad Guys” starts his explanation of culpability with an anecdote. Yankah had just got into a minor car accident while moving in New York City. The person who hit him was a foreign cab driver, and when the police arrived, they directly assumed he was the so-called, “bad guy”. Throughout his article, Yankah uses real world examples and imaginary situations to explain his arguments. His main debate was not over the specific forms of culpability like Brink, but over whether a wrong doing is determined by poor character or poor choices. Yankah even uses multiple movie characters to show different villians and their character. He outlines the Act Theory, which states that an action does not determine an individual’s character. Yankah uses more informal language and examples to explain his opinion on culpability.
The main denotative difference between Brink and Yankah is their opinion on culpability. Brink believes there are many ways to determine if an individual is guilty and even cites a mathematical formula. Yankah believes that immoral character is not the root of culpability, but mere actions are. The two philosophers also use alternate methods to depict their opinions. Brink’s article uses graphs, more scientific language, and definitions. Yankah’s uses casual language and examples from pop culture. Each portrays their argument on culpability effectively as well.
In conclusion, these two philosophers used two different argument styles to show their opinion on what makes someone guilty of a crime.
