Reaction post

 Reaction Post 

I learned several important facts from Francesca's case study on State v. Mann that I had never heard of. She began by asking that the Court use the economic logic that one Justice used rather than making a moral choice in this case. That caught my interest because this case is based on someone else's moral opinion. 

Her first argument analyzed a really smart part of the case that, before she raised it, I hadn't ever thought about.  According to her, a slave is owned by someone and can be used anyway that person wishes.  Since the slave was an investment, they would simply be responsible for carrying the loss if they killed the slave. However, as Mr. Mann did not own the slave he hurt, it was not his property, and he refused to accept the loss. Instead, Elizabeth Jones, the owner, did.

In her next argument, she points out that slave owners who gave away their slaves to those who were in need used to think about this. This suggests that a safeguard for such a risk was already in place by the market. Furthermore, she told the Court that in the event that the contract failed, it should not eliminate this protection. 

Her fifth point, in my view, was something to take into account.  This specific instance would serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future. 

This means that every subsequent case will follow the same conclusion if the Court decides to drop the claim that a hirer murdered a slave. This is ridiculous because it gives the hirer the same level of immunity as the slave's real owner. 

In closing, Francesca stated that clear differentiation between the hirer's and the owner's capabilities would result from an appropriate use of economic thinking.