IMMORALITY
The assurance of retribution is a historically critical foundational tenet in criminal justice systems and dates back to the earliest human civilizations. This assurance, grounded on custom, often justifies the prosecution of crimes without any time limitations, particularly in sexual offenses. It is on this premise that the prosecution seeks my client’s conviction over charges of theft and manslaughter, crimes allegedly committed twenty years ago. Despite these historical justifications, it is plausible that these kinds of excessive delays are prima facie offensive to justice, thus warrant the adoption of alternative mechanisms. In full appreciation of the promise of philosophy to decolonize individuals from their narrowness of the minds by seeking the reconstruction of the current norm, my client pleads not guilty to both charges owing to the change in self, and the reincarnation of the alleged victim.
Conventional wisdom dictates that life is a perpetual state of continuous change, with human beings and their personal identities being part of it. As postulated by Dewey, persons are not fixed entities but are continually transforming themselves from the selves recently acquired to new ones they will soon become (Jacobsen, 2016). For instance, the progression from childhood to adulthood consists of radical changes to a person’s personality during adolescence. Diotima further solidifies this in his assertions that a human being is not the same person, even in a single lifespan over (Jacobsen, 2016). Notably, the shedding and acquisition of selves are informed by the ongoing negotiations with the society, and themselves. Therefore, it is highly erroneous to punish my clients 40 years self over the sins committed by his younger 20year old self, especially in light of their extreme characteristic differences.
The prosecution would seek to demerit the preceding argument by noting that human beings possess a central unchanging self, hence should still be subject to retribution (Jacobsen, 2016). Such retribution would not only serve to mete out the deserved justice but also act as a deterrence to others. However, the flaw in the prosecution argument is that it is not cognizant of the underlying fact that an individual’s carrying out an offense elicits a moral obligation to redress it, as retribution. It is in the observance of this moral obligation that my client, obviously frightened by the events, sought rehab, and is now a successful drug counselor who has helped hundreds of people overcome their drug dependency. It is therefore undeniable that my client has already endured penance for his actions through redressing them, albeit in an alternative way. Ideally, it would be unfair to subject him to any further punishment on similar facts.
The immortality, evidenced in the reincarnation of the relative, prima facie negates the charge for manslaughter. Plato alleges that human beings possess unchanging souls, with the physical bodies only being mere mediums (Jacobsen, 2016). Notably, the defense may allege that a person does not remain the same person in any single lifespan, owing to the assumption of new bodies and other qualitative characteristics that fundamentally change the person (Jacobsen, 2016). However, the concept of numerical identity negates these assumptions, as a thing retains its essence despite any changes. Therefore, it is deductible that my client is not guilty of manslaughter since the consciousness of the alleged victim exists in another physical body; thus, no life ended.
The preceding establish the innocence of my client owing to the change in selves, and the reincarnation of the victim, arguments with underpinnings in philosophy. Arguably, such conceptions should reflect in the judicial process to ensure the delivery of justice. Notably, even though the assurance of retribution serves as a deterrence, justice and fairness constitute overriding concerns.