The Good and Bad Guys
In “The Good and Bad Guys” Ekow Yankah addresses the central problem of the United States criminal justice system in identifying and punishing offenders. American society succumbs to classifying people as good, or bad, with no in between, as seen in cinema stereotypes, myth, or even in the justification of war. However, this proves to be problematic as the world is not easily divisible into two character-states, moral ambiguity is a part of everyone. The character-based theory in criminal law bases one’s culpability on a fixed character state. Three strikes and habitual offender laws are unfortunately a large part of our justice system- laws that focus on defining an individual’s character as grounds for culpability, instead of the action itself. Dualism illustrates that behavior is affected by psychological, internal, and situational, external, factors, meaning two identical acts can possess different intent and mental states (Yankah, 1038). For example, the motive behind stealing a loaf of bread couple be out of pure malice or to feed one’s family, the latter with a positive moral intent within the action of a crime. Therefore, laws that inflict punishment on character are outdated as character is not a fixed attribute; Yankah argues they cannot accurately assess one’s character and is the wrong approach to criminal culpability.
In the second part of “The Good and Bad Guys,” Yankah introduces an alternative, and superior, approach to determining an individual’s criminal culpability. Act-based theories call for imposing criminal punishment solely on acts, eliminating moral blame. One advantage of this approach is that, “act based theories both eliminate the empirical uncertainty of character theories and undermined the creation of permanent castes,” (Yankah, 1059). It recognizes that people cannot be strictly defined as good or bad, and leaves room for moral ambiguity. The current system of criminalization creates a caste system, excluding those who have been demarcated as ‘bad’ guys, criminals, facing permanent exclusion. Act-base theories argue for the opposite, that once a criminal has paid his or her debt, they should be entitled to political equality once again, in an effort to eliminate disenfranchisement.
Political equality is defined as “the notion that the state owes each of its citizens equal respect and consideration,” essentially, equality before the law (Yankah, 1041) Under current laws, disenfranchisement skyrockets among ex-offenders and people of color. Yankah uses several historical examples to illustrate that political and legal equality did not always equate with moral equality. The founding fathers refused to use titles of nobility and pledged to commit to a republican form of government once splintered from the English throne. Yet, for many years, many people who were seen as moral inferiors could not participate in government, including women, people of color, and landless men. In the 1860s, although President Lincoln advocated for the abolition of slavery and the expansion of political equality, he himself still did not believe in the moral equality between the two races. These examples are evidence of political equality despite presumed superiority. Yankah argues for a liberal theory of equality, that every citizen is entitled to respect from the state and through act-based theories, criminals should retain their political equality and voting rights once the debt has been paid. Punishment should be based on acts, and not if one holds the belief of moral superiority.
In conclusion, the state cannot easily distinguish the good from the bad. Good people are capable of committing crimes and bad people are not always bad. Actus reus claims criminality is rooted in the act, not the mental state, going hand-in-hand with act theories. Unfortunately, with recent events that have occurred, such as the murder of Breonna Taylor, society has proven itself a long way from equality.
