Does Bentham think we should punish to make the victim feel better? If not, then why should we punish? (See esp 13:2, fn 1, p. 171)
Bentham lists various cases 'unmeet for punishment': Would he include the case of the harmless rule-violator that Mabbot's headmaster thinks should be punished? Would Bentham think we should punish a masochist who enjoyed being punished? (cf 15:14) If the victim consents, should the victimizer be punished? (13:4)
Does Bentham think we should punish people who get intoxicated? Why or why not?
How would Bentham respond to Kant's argument that it would be wrong to reduce the sentence of a criminal who agrees to undergo useful medical experiments? (See 13:16, p. 177)
Bentham seems to assume that people will commit crimes unless the cost is greater than the benefit (eg p. 179: "will be sure to be committed notwithstanding"). Do you agree with his understanding of what motivates human action?
What counts is the apparent punishment, says Bentham (15:9, p. 193). Does this mean Bentham would agree with faking a punishment instead of really meting it out? And if he did agree, is this the right view to take?
What is Bentham's view of the death penalty?
What is Bentham's position towards the insanity defense or a defense of 'passion', and how is it like or unlike Hegel's position? (Be sure to read the footnotes on pp. 167, 173-4, 188)
Bentham says that we should take into account in setting a punishment the "other offences of the same sort as the offender is likely to have already commited without detection" (14:17, p. 183; cf. Rule 9 on p. 184 (14:20)). Do you agree? How would Kant, Hegel, and Mabbot respond?
