Philosophy Now Forum

I argue that mercy is a necessary ethical constant in human affairs

tbieter wrote:"LAKEVILLE, Minn. -- A father abandoned his 11-year-old son last month, telling him in a letter to move in with neighbors because their south Minnesota home was in foreclosure, according to a warrant complaint seeking his arrest.

Steven Alexander Cross, 60, left two notes for his son, according to the complaint charging him with a gross misdemeanor of child neglect. One letter said their home in Lakeville was going to be sold at a sheriff's sale and instructed the boy to take his PlayStation and go to a neighbor's house. The other asked the neighbors to take care of his son. The boy has been placed in foster care.

"If this paper is wet it's because I am crying so bad. You know your dad loves you more than anything," the letter said. Elsewhere he wrote: "There are many, many great years ahead for you. Not so for me."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/2 ... 38686.html

When I first read about this case, as a former prosecutor I wondered if the Dakota County Attorney had considered exercising mercy when he made his charging decision. I would have. It seemed to me that the guy had a lot of problems, namely, unemployment and home foreclosure. Charging him with a crime seemed to me to be just unnecessarily adding to his problems.

In Minnesota a prosecutor has absolute discretion in deciding whether or not to charge a man with a crime. The written charging guidelines are silent regarding mercy. Not even the state supreme court can force a prosecutor to issue charges against someone.

In this case, Mr. Cross was extradicted back to Minnesota. He was tried and was recently convicted by a jury. After his conviction in court, he cried on TV when he was interviewed by the TV reporters. It was quite sad.

I argue that mercy is a necessary ethical constant in human affairs. And perhaps the consideration of mercy is an ethical duty on the part of a public official in a proper case. It follows, I think, that if the county Attorney did not consider mercy in this case, he at least committed an intellectual error.
____________________________

ala1993 wrote:

I argue that mercy is a necessary ethical constant in human affairs

Do you? I can't seem to find an attempt to actually argue this in your post! That being said, I think it's a point worth discussing.

First of all, how are we to understand 'mercy' (more as an activity than as a concept, although the latter is intrinsic to the former)? The word represents a concept, an emotional experience, an act or activity, and a tendency in human nature. 'Mercy' is related to the word 'humane.' http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humane As a tendency in human nature, I suggest that evolutionary psychology would provide evidence of a progression from the brutal to the humane in human behavior. A prosecutor works in a legal system. The police provide him with reports on an incident. As he legally analyzes the reports; he looks for a crime. He then looks to see if there is evidence on each element of the particular crime. Finding probable cause of the commission of the particular crime, his legal analysis directs him to instruct a paralegal to draw up a complaint. Rarely do prosecutors make an ethical analysis of the facts. If I may quote myself: "Legal education rarely if ever explores the use of general moral values, norms, and reasoning in the practice of law. Yet it’s indubitable that in practice law and morality at times conflict, and with justice as the goal, the two must be reconciled."
http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2007/ ... _court.htm
I suggest that as humane studies decline, a prosecutors may become more like robots humane actors. I doubt that the prosecutor in this case even considered the concept of mercy be fore he issued the charge.
We could begin by thinking of it as a decision not to act against the well-being of another where we are able to do so and the acting in accordance with said decision based on an understanding of the factors which led the other person to be in their current position. This is a very general understanding, so I'll try and pin it down. When I say 'against the well-being of another' I mean 'harming another'. This could be through deprivation of physical freedom, killing and limitation of financial resources (among other examples). If I am able to kill or order the death of another on the basis that they have committed something either I or a legal system deems 'wrong' and opt not to do so on the basis that this person acted out of (e.g.) desperation then I could be said to have 'shown mercy' (note: it is interesting to consider this phrase, as mercy must be made manifest in activity). For instance, if it can be established that the other person did what they did in order to further survival (whether their own or that of others) then mercy can be granted.

However, I don't think that the idea of 'furthering survival' is specific enough, in that it could cover (e.g.) wealthy individuals who seek to maintain their fortune through illegal or immoral means (although desperation cannot be overlooked as a factor in instances such as this). There must be a definite threat to the well-being of that person (or to that of their friends or family, perhaps even their community) in order for us to recognise the desperation involved in their actions. The means of this threat must relate to their basic security (i.e. regarding food, shelter, physical or psychological health).

To look at this from the point of view of a philosopher of ethics, we must ask: what is the benefit of mercy (both as regards to the individual and to the society)? What would a society without mercy look like?

Mercy allows us to show that we understand the reasons why some people are 'driven' to commit criminal and/or immoral acts. Not everyone acts out of desperation and we consider their actions accordingly. However, the simple act of 'trying to survive' need not be punished and an individual may understand the immorality and/or illegality of their actions. A society that recognizes this also recognizes that a way to address the problem of (e.g.) crime is to try and understand the factors which can cause it. Alongside this, it recognizes a distinction between someone who is 'a criminal' (i.e. they desire to commit illegal acts for selfish ends) and someone who sees no other way to remain alive and/or safe.


On the subject of your example, I would argue that the man need not have left his son to be looked after by the neighbour and may have caused harm to him in the process. Because of this, his actions cannot be overlooked and must be accounted for. However, the circumstances that - supposedly - drove him to act in this way must also not be overlooked. Mercy can then be shown either by the prosecutor (by arguing for a lesser sentence) or the judge (either through acquittal or by handing down a suspended sentence).

My own thoughts are that a society without mercy is a society without compassion; moreover, such a society demonstrates a dangerously anti-social principle, namely the irrelevance of actual social factors in influencing the behaviour of individuals. WELL SAID I would go so far as to say that this is a fallacy of logic, inasmuch as 1/. there is no need for a legal system, or indeed any idea of punishment, if it can have no effect and we must presume that it has no effect if we also maintain the idea that individuals are not influenced by external factors - and 2/. that the mere fact of society is only possible through interaction which presumes that individuals can have influence over, and be influenced by, others.

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote:"LAKEVILLE, Minn. -- A father abandoned his 11-year-old son last month, telling him in a letter to move in with neighbors because their south Minnesota home was in foreclosure, according to a warrant complaint seeking his arrest.

Steven Alexander Cross, 60, left two notes for his son, according to the complaint charging him with a gross misdemeanor of child neglect. One letter said their home in Lakeville was going to be sold at a sheriff's sale and instructed the boy to take his PlayStation and go to a neighbor's house. The other asked the neighbors to take care of his son. The boy has been placed in foster care.

"If this paper is wet it's because I am crying so bad. You know your dad loves you more than anything," the letter said. Elsewhere he wrote: "There are many, many great years ahead for you. Not so for me."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/2 ... 38686.html

When I first read about this case, as a former prosecutor I wondered if the Dakota County Attorney had considered exercising mercy when he made his charging decision. I would have. It seemed to me that the guy had a lot of problems, namely, unemployment and home foreclosure. Charging him with a crime seemed to me to be just unnecessarily adding to his problems.

In Minnesota a prosecutor has absolute discretion in deciding whether or not to charge a man with a crime. The written charging guidelines are silent regarding mercy. Not even the state supreme court can force a prosecutor to issue charges against someone.

In this case, Mr. Cross was extradicted back to Minnesota. He was tried and was recently convicted by a jury. After his conviction in court, he cried on TV when he was interviewed by the TV reporters. It was quite sad.

I argue that mercy is a necessary ethical constant in human affairs. And perhaps the consideration of mercy is an ethical duty on the part of a public official in a proper case. It follows, I think, that if the county Attorney did not consider mercy in this case, he at least committed an intellectual error.
____________________________

There is and can be no "constant" in mercy. Your concept of mercy is more narrow than mine. See my response above. Mercy is by its very nature about the contingencies of each case, where consideration as to mitigation is always, or should always be a considered. That is why all most sentences are a suggested range rather than absolute and irrevocable punishments.
That is why civilised countries do not have the death penalty, and the "Life" sentence may allow for some freedom after a period of incarceration.
The judge in this case has not committed an intellectual error he has committed an ethical and moral crime or barbarism. What is your reasoning for this statement?
You did not say what the Mr Cross got by way of a sentence.

tbieter wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote:"LAKEVILLE, Minn. -- A father abandoned his 11-year-old son last month, telling him in a letter to move in with neighbors because their south Minnesota home was in foreclosure, according to a warrant complaint seeking his arrest.

Steven Alexander Cross, 60, left two notes for his son, according to the complaint charging him with a gross misdemeanor of child neglect. One letter said their home in Lakeville was going to be sold at a sheriff's sale and instructed the boy to take his PlayStation and go to a neighbor's house. The other asked the neighbors to take care of his son. The boy has been placed in foster care.

"If this paper is wet it's because I am crying so bad. You know your dad loves you more than anything," the letter said. Elsewhere he wrote: "There are many, many great years ahead for you. Not so for me."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/2 ... 38686.html

When I first read about this case, as a former prosecutor I wondered if the Dakota County Attorney had considered exercising mercy when he made his charging decision. I would have. It seemed to me that the guy had a lot of problems, namely, unemployment and home foreclosure. Charging him with a crime seemed to me to be just unnecessarily adding to his problems.

In Minnesota a prosecutor has absolute discretion in deciding whether or not to charge a man with a crime. The written charging guidelines are silent regarding mercy. Not even the state supreme court can force a prosecutor to issue charges against someone.

In this case, Mr. Cross was extradicted back to Minnesota. He was tried and was recently convicted by a jury. After his conviction in court, he cried on TV when he was interviewed by the TV reporters. It was quite sad.

I argue that mercy is a necessary ethical constant in human affairs. And perhaps the consideration of mercy is an ethical duty on the part of a public official in a proper case. It follows, I think, that if the county Attorney did not consider mercy in this case, he at least committed an intellectual error.
____________________________

There is and can be no "constant" in mercy. Your concept of mercy is more narrow than mine. See my response above. Mercy is by its very nature about the contingencies of each case, where consideration as to mitigation is always, or should always be a considered. That is why all most sentences are a suggested range rather than absolute and irrevocable punishments.
That is why civilised countries do not have the death penalty, and the "Life" sentence may allow for some freedom after a period of incarceration.
The judge in this case has not committed an intellectual error he has committed an ethical and moral crime of barbarism. What is your reasoning for this statement?
You did not say what the Mr Cross got by way of a sentence.

Mr. Cross has not yet been sentenced. The judge assigned to the case only handled the trial. He will sentence Cross later.

tbieter wrote:I said:"It follows, I think, that if the county Attorney did not consider mercy in this case, he at least committed an intellectual error." I did not say anything about the judge.

chaz wyman wrote:Okay - I assume that a county attorney you mean the prosecuting council? Is it his job to interpret the law and to bring cases before the legal system?

chaz wyman wrote:Surely it is for the judge to decide mercy and the prosecution service to consider the facts of the case?

chaz wyman wrote:I would think a judge with any intelligence would see that nothing positive would be served to give the father more than a slap on the wrist. But I can see the logic in bringing the case in the first place.

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote:I said:"It follows, I think, that if the county Attorney did not consider mercy in this case, he at least committed an intellectual error." I did not say anything about the judge.

Okay - I assume that a county attorney you mean the prosecuting council? Is it his job to interpret the law and to bring cases before the legal system?
I'm still having trouble why you would think that withholding mercy was an intellectual error. I argue that the normal man consults his reason and his emotions before he acts depending upon the circumstances. The normal prosecutor should do the same.

If I were the prosecutor, I would have first investigated the circumstances of the boy. Was he safe? Yes, as his father instructed in a note, he went to the home of close friends who immediately called the child protection agency. A judge would have automatically signed an order granting child protection legal custody of the child. He then was placed (child custody consented to a grant of physical custody) with a relative.

Then I would investigate the circumstances surrounding the father's irrational act: He was unemployed. The bank was taking the home by foreclosure. The US is in a recession, if not a depression, especially in the area of home and commercial construction (Cross is a 60 year old architect; older people have difficulty finding a job.) In one of the notes the father left, he mentioned his tears and told his son that he loved him. To my thinking, this statement is inconsistent with a contention that Mr. Cross acted with mens rea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

What would a criminal prosecution achieve in this case? It would just present Mr. Cross with another problem to add to his poverty and unemployment.

I would know that eventually Mr. Cross would return to Minnesota. If he returned while his son was still a minor, he would have to answer for his alleged abandonment in the civil court when he sought legal custody or visitation rights to his son.

I would have had sympathy for Mr. Cross. I would have acted with mercy. I would have declined to charge him with child neglect.

Surely it is for the judge to decide mercy and the prosecution service to consider the facts of the case?

I would think a judge with any intelligence would see that nothing positive would be served to give the father more than a slap on the wrist. But I can see the logic in bringing the case in the first place.

tbieter wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote:I said:"It follows, I think, that if the county Attorney did not consider mercy in this case, he at least committed an intellectual error." I did not say anything about the judge.

Okay - I assume that a county attorney you mean the prosecuting council? Is it his job to interpret the law and to bring cases before the legal system?
I'm still having trouble why you would think that withholding mercy was an intellectual error. I argue that the normal man consults his reason and his emotions before he acts depending upon the circumstances. The normal prosecutor should do the same.

If I were the prosecutor, I would have first investigated the circumstances of the boy. Was he safe? Yes, as his father instructed in a note, he went to the home of close friends who immediately called the child protection agency. A judge would have automatically signed an order granting child protection legal custody of the child. He then was placed (child custody consented to a grant of physical custody) with a relative.

Sorry but you don't know that. The prosecutor did not know that, and nor can we know that without the trial and the assessment by the judge and other authorities.
It is the prosecutors job to bring such matters to judgement.
If you were the prosecutor you would do exactly the same thing, knowing your job.

Then I would investigate the circumstances surrounding the father's irrational act: He was unemployed. The bank was taking the home by foreclosure. The US is in a recession, if not a depression, especially in the area of home and commercial construction (Cross is a 60 year old architect; older people have difficulty finding a job.) In one of the notes the father left, he mentioned his tears and told his son that he loved him. To my thinking, this statement is inconsistent with a contention that Mr. Cross acted with mens rea.

Exactly what the judge and I hope the family services (if such exists in Minnesota) would determine. Not some cop!

What would a criminal prosecution achieve in this case? It would just present Mr. Cross with another problem to add to his poverty and unemployment.

[/color]

The case would achieve the notice of the court and social services. One hopes that even in barbaric Minnesota the state makes some provision for child welfare?

I would know that eventually Mr. Cross would return to Minnesota. If he returned while his son was still a minor, he would have to answer for his alleged abandonment in the civil court when he sought legal custody or visitation rights to his son.

I would have had sympathy for Mr. Cross. I would have acted with mercy. I would have declined to charge him with child neglect.[/color]

Once again you do not know all the facts

Surely it is for the judge to decide mercy and the prosecution service to consider the facts of the case?

I would think a judge with any intelligence would see that nothing positive would be served to give the father more than a slap on the wrist. But I can see the logic in bringing the case in the first place.

Under our system the prosecutor (a county or district attorney) starts a case by filing a complaint (a formal document alleging a crime) or getting a grand jury of citizens to approve an indictment (a formal document,,,,,,). The prosecutor has absolute discretion to charge or not charge. He can't be forced to charge, not even by the supreme court.

tbieter wrote:We are obviously in a permanent state of disagreement.

chaz wyman wrote:

tbieter wrote:We are obviously in a permanent state of disagreement.

Well if you are seriously asking me to consider abortion the same as infanticide then you are a moral bigot.
Personally I am not arrogant enough to stand in judgement on women like you.

You are also a hypocrite. If you think that abortion is okay for a rape victim then presumably you would condone killing a child that is the result of rape too.

People like you are a danger to the health of society who stand in judgement upon others whether or not one child should live or not.