Question

In this case analysis you have five tasks:

Explain your understanding of the case.
Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of the ACLU paper, Kant and Van den Haag’s arguments
Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an account of what each philosopher would argue should happen to Bob.
Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
In ONE paragraph, explain how you think we should treat Bob.
Case
Consider Bob. Bob was raised by wolves (literally – don’t ask me how). Although his IQ would probably be normal, there is no way to test it, since Bob doesn’t speak or read any human language. One day, Bob emerged from the wilderness and ended up Downtown -- the snazzy part of the city. He was hungry (presumably) so he “found” some food in the normal wolf way: he stalked a mother walking her baby and, deciding it was easiest to prey on the weaker, killed and ate the baby. There’s no question that Bob is “guilty” of the crime. He did it and there were lots of witnesses. What punishment should Bob get?

Answer 1

Here is my analysis of the case:

Understanding of the case:

Bob was raised by wolves and has no understanding of human society or norms. Driven by hunger, he killed and ate a human baby in public. There is no question he committed the crime, but there is a question of whether he can be held morally responsible given his upbringing and lack of human socialization.

Exegesis of ACLU, Kant, and Van den Haag:

The ACLU argues punishment should be guided by determinations of moral responsibility. Since Bob lacks language, socialization, and understanding of norms, he may not be morally responsible. Kant believes morality requires rationality and autonomy. As Bob lacks these, he may not be blameworthy. Van den Haag argues punishment deters crime regardless of free will. Punishing Bob will deter other potential criminals.

Applying philosophers:

The ACLU and Kant would argue Bob should not be punished since he lacks moral responsibility and rational autonomy. Van den Haag would argue Bob should be punished to deter other crimes.

More successful solution:

I believe the ACLU and Kant offer a more successful solution. Punishing Bob fails to consider his unique upbringing and limitations. More appropriate would be efforts to rehabilitate and socialize him to human norms.

My view:

In one paragraph, I believe we should not punish Bob but instead focus on rehabilitating him through humane education and socialization. Having been raised by wolves, Bob cannot be held to typical standards of moral and legal responsibility. However, intensive efforts to teach him language, empathy, impulse control, and social norms could allow him to eventually function in human society without harming others. While detention may be necessary initially for public safety, the ultimate goal should be restoring Bob's humanity, not punishment.