The Paul Bernardo Trial

From a Kantian point of view, the police in the Paul Bernardo trial, made a wrong decision that has no moral worth, as the punishment of Karla Hamolka did not fit the crime. It is important to know that for Kant a murder is a violation of the Categorical Imperative because one failed to respect humanity as an end (Class Notes). In addition, every individual has a free will, thus a murder could not be justified by any form of excuse (Class Notes). According to this information, we can conclude that in Kant’s eyes, both Bernardo and Hamolka did not respect the Categorical Imperative and thus deserved to be punished. For instance, Kant states, “wrongdoers must be punished, and the punishment must fit the crime” (Rachels and Rachels, 143). Therefore,

we can easily conclude that the police, from a Kantian point of view, did not choose a wise decision because Homalka’s punishment did not fit the crime, i.e., 12 years of imprisonment, and justice was not served (Torny, 200). A utilitarian may argue that Hamolka’s contribution allowed the imprisonment of Paul and thus ensured public safety. However, Kant would say that the direct consequences are irrelevant in this case and that “if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done” (Rachels and Rachels, 143). Without further explanation, one could directly conclude that Kant would be categorically opposed to the police’s decision as their action was wrongful and Hamolka was not punished correctly.