Reaction Post

Francesca's case study on State vs. Mann taught me some interesting things I have not known before. She opened her speech by asking the Court not to rule on the morality of this case but to apply the economic logic that one Justice invoked. I thought that was interesting because this case is based on the moral decision of someone else.

Her first argument looked at a really good angle of the situation that I had never thought of until she brought it up. She stated that a slave is owned by someone, that someone can do whatever he/she wants to do with the slave. If they were to kill the slave, they would just have to take that loss themselves since the slave was a investment. But, Mr. Mann did not own the slave he harmed therefore it was not his property and he did not take the loss. The owner, Elizabeth Jones did instead. 

Lydia's killer, Mr. Mann

In her next argument she brings up how this was already thought of amongst slave owners who lend their slaves to people who need them. This means the market had already built a safeguard around that possibility. To add on, she told the Court that it should not remove that safeguard when the contract failed.

I thought the fifth point she made was really something to take into account. This very case would be considered a precedent for future cases like this one in the future. This means that if the Court decides to dismiss the charge for the murder of a slave committed by a hirer, all the cases in the future will follow the same ruling. This gives the hirer equal amount of immunity than the actual owner of the slave which is crazy. 

Francesca concluded her speech by saying that if the economic reasoning is applied correctly then it will shape a sharp line between the abilities of the hirer versus the owner.