The charge of manslaughter as defined by M.P.C. is,
"a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actors situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be". (M.P.C 210.3)The premise for my argument is that N.A.'s tribe holds the myth of "Wendigo" to be true. Although their conception of it as, "evil spirit clothed in human form....who eat[s] human beings", is a dangerous and vague description (anyone can be categorized in this way)- to N.A. and members of his tribe, his action is excusable. Recall the last part of M.P.C.'s criteria for manslaughter where it discusses what is a reasonable explanation of an actor's action, and that it depends on the actor and his context. For N.A., who believed to have witnessed the "Wendigo", perceived a potential threat to him and his community. Given his circumstances, his actions can reasonably be considered to be Self-Defense. However, the consequence of this belief is troublesome. How many more innocent people will be killed because a tribesman mistakes them for an evil spirit? This issue requires further discussion on the nature of beliefs before one is able to prescribe a just punishment to his action.
Beliefs can be thought of a conclusions/assumptions based from habitually recurring relationships. This way, we can evaluate the sensibility of N.A.'s "Wendigo" belief by imagining whether you, I, or any rational person would draw the same conclusion. If not, this situation demands a type of reflection to further their accepted understanding of their world, and societal behavior. In this sense, N.A.'s actions lead to social reform (if his situation is novel, or unsolved previously), thus justifiable.
Hi Danny!
ReplyDeleteHere is my rebuttal to your argument:
You made a very good point in regards to the context in which the man committed manslaughter. The man acted out of self defense because of his tribe's knowledge and history with Wendigos. There is proof of this.
However, I believe that this context serves as a justification only to a certain, and possibly minimal extent. This is mainly because the tall human he killed was not directly attacking him at that moment. He had to chase him from a distance. If the victim was innocent, of course the man should be held accountable.
Overall, I do agree that there has to be further investigation before a decision is made. We need to know more about the person that was killed and exactly what about him that convinced the Native American to kill him. What are the tribe's defined characteristics of disguised Wendigos and how did they fit the features of the victim? What made the Native American so sure that the man was a threat? How far away was he? With what we know right now, the Native American went out of his way to kill someone who has not directly threatening him at the time. Even if he had reason to believe that he was going to be attacked later on, there are other less extreme precautions he should have taken before resorting to going after the human and killing him. Therefore, he should be held responsible for his actions until further information is released.
Hey Austin, thanks for your comments!
ReplyDeleteI really like your point about proportionality. I agree wholly that there are reasonable steps to take prior to a fatal shot/attack. One example that comes to mind: Imagine torching a harmless spider crawling with a flamethrower. But say that a tarantula/venemous spider took its place. I would be more understanding if one took a fatal blow in fear of their life. Still, I think you're right in that we must make sure that N.A. had taken steps to verify the victim's identity as a Wendigo.
Continuing in defense for N.A., I think there are some utilitarian benefits to his actions. I'll argue that in the perspective of the tribe- a hooded figure running through the woods, along with other superficial characteristics if resembling a typical Wendigo- is a justified killing. What if that man was truly a Wendigo? Then N.A. preemptively saved many more people by killing one man. I think, but am not sure, that this is the justification behind capital , punishment. I don't understand this well enough to have an opinion, but this is where the logic takes me.
Thanks Austin!
Danny, you indicate that the defendant’s tribe does have the belief in the Wendigo, and you point that on the premise of this belief he acted in self-defense. But you also seem slightly hesitant by saying that further discussion is needed.
ReplyDeleteAustin gives a very strong rebuttal. He correctly points out that the defendant was not in imminent danger. You respond, Danny, that in the perspective of the N.A. he may have saved many people’s lives. Do you think his tribes people would agree with you?
If we can clarify two things- I think it reasonable to say that the tribe would hold N.A.'s actions to be justified, and even honorable. (1) Relationship b/t N.A. and his victim (to determine motivation, if any) and (2) If N.A. took reasonable steps to verify his victim's identity.
ReplyDeleteI think its important also to note what kind of means he has to verify the Wendigo's identity. If there are previously confirmed markings of this alleged spirit i.e., hooded capes (in a tribe where this isn't normal clothing)- then its another trigger. And what about visibility? Is the tribe publicly lit with lamposts, or did N.A. have to rely on moonlight? If its moonlight, it makes verification and potentially stopping the perceived-to-be Wendigo's actions much harder to stop. I suppose N.A. could have alerted the rest of his tribe before pursuit, but that would require a telephone or even a horn (of which I don't know if he had either). And finally, does this tribe have law enforcement, or established authority to handle these matters? I would think that there isn't any, and the responsibility rests on the members of the tribe. In that sense, N.A. acted courageously, though the consequence was fatal for what seems to be an innocent victim...Thanks for commenting Prof Albrecht!