Earlier this month, actor Alec Baldwin was formally charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in connection with an accidental shooting of a cinematographer on a film set in New Mexico in 2021. As far as I can make out from the known facts, it will probably be an uphill task to convict him. Though his initial claim not to have pulled the trigger was indefensible (guns do not fire themselves), there seems to have been gross neglect on the part of the film’s armorer and crew members. Baldwin did break two cornerstone rules of firearm handling (“Don’t point the muzzle at anything you’re not prepared to shoot” and “Don’t put your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire”), but he should be able to make a strong case that he reasonably thought the gun to be in a completely safe condition.
But what if he can’t, and is convicted? The more serious of the two counts carries a prison sentence of up to five years. If he gets such a sentence, I want to ask out loud, why?
When Pope Francis announced in 2018 that capital punishment was “inadmissible” from a Catholic perspective, despite its having been admissible for nearly two millennia, it rekindled a debate among moral theologians and average Catholics alike over the purpose of punishment. Following St. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic thought has focused on several reasons for punishing crime:
- To prevent further evil. This is done by a) rendering the criminal harmless (by taking away his freedom or life); b) deterring others from committing similar crimes; and c) rehabilitating the criminal.
- To redress the evil committed. Crimes in society require a retributive response that balances the public order.
Advocates for abolishing capital punishment tend to focus on reasons 1a and 1c. Catholics in that group will often quote Evangelium Vitae, in which Pope St. John Paul II wrote that we “should not go to the extreme of executing the offender except . . . when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” Even though the same paragraph of this same document says that redressing disorder is the “primary purpose” of punishment (56), in the popular discourse that followed, it became not-uncommon to hear—in Catholic media, in online forums, in religious-education settings like the RCIA class where I was volunteering at the time—that the Church now teaches that the death penalty (and by extension all criminal punishment) exists primarily to defend society.
It seems to me that the Baldwin case throws this question into relief. Let’s apply the purposes of punishment to him.
Would imprisoning Baldwin “defend society” by preventing further evil? No, because no one thinks that he is a threat to accidentally shoot someone else. Indeed, after this experience he is more likely to be the safest gun-handler in Hollywood.
Would imprisoning him deter other actors from accidentally shooting people? Well, the notoriety of this case has already spurred reform of prop-firearm practices on movie and TV sets. And Baldwin has already settled with the victim’s family for what is certainly a large sum (another disincentive). Whether Baldwin also serves five years in the clink seems unlikely to move that needle much further. What’s more, accidents are accidents—no one intends to do them, so they can’t be deterred.
Likewise, you can’t rehabilitate someone away from doing something he didn’t will to do in the first place. He has made a few truly awful movies, but no one argues that Baldwin has criminal tendencies that only a few years in the slammer can fix.
So far, not only do none of the purposes of criminal punishment apply to Baldwin’s case, but we must also admit that punishing him would also cause a significant further evil by depriving his wife and many young children of his presence. You must justify that, too.
The only purpose left is retribution: redressing the disorder that crime causes in society. It would literally be the only reason for incarcerating Alec Baldwin if he is convicted.
Maybe you think Baldwin shouldn’t go to jail at all if he’s convicted of this crime. But it seems to me you can’t support such a sentence and say that criminal punishment is only about defense of society and rehabilitation of criminals.