Cui bono
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cui bono ("To whose benefit?", literally "as a benefit to whom?", a double dative construction) is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for a thing may not be who it appears at first to be. With respect to motive, a public works project which is purported to benefit the city may have been initiated rather to benefit a favored campaign contributor with a lucrative contract.
Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat, for example.
The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his speech Pro Roscio Amerino, section 84, attributed the expression Cui bono? to the Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla:
| “ | L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset.
The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?' |
” |
Another example of Cicero using "cui bono" is in his defence of Milo, in the Pro Milone. He even makes a reference to Cassianus: "let that maxim of Cassius apply". (Cicero, Pro Milone 32.3).
Contents |
[edit] Example
Cui bono is still a standard rule applied in criminal investigations. Effective use of cui bono depends on various factors, which are illustrated here using the hypothetical case of a wealthy man named "Mr. Jones", who was found dead beside a road.
Cui bono can be applied only in cases where some act was planned with the intention of obtaining a benefit. If Mr. Jones died as the result of a random accident (e.g. a heavy object fell off a passing truck and hit him) or without a premeditated act (e.g. struck by a careless drunk driver), cui bono will not be relevant.
Cui bono requires a good understanding of all possible motives. As Mr. Jones was wealthy the police will certainly concentrate on his heirs, but others may also have benefitted from his death. Perhaps Mr. Jones was killed by his wife because he had a mistress, or Mr. Jones was killed by his mistress because he wanted to end the relationship. It is possible that Mr. Jones had a drug habit, and was killed by his dealer in an argument over payment. Jones may have been involved in other illegal activities, and his business partners killed Jones to silence him. Finally, Jones may have been the innocent victim of a mugging.
The understanding of motives requires that even motives existing only in the mind of the killer must be taken into account. Mr. Jones could have been killed by somebody who wrongly believed that he would inherit his fortune, or by a murderously jealous wife, who mistakenly believed that he had been unfaithful. The motives of supposedly insane criminals ("He was an invader from Mars! I saved Earth!") may fall into this category as well.
It is possible that several different people will benefit from the murder, or that the actual murderer would not be the one with the most to gain. Mr. Jones may have been the victim of a violent mugger who wanted the cash in his wallet, and knew nothing about his fortune.
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. (December 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. |
[edit] Use in politics
The cui bono principle is often applied to explain acts of political significance, but may not always be reliable or useful.
Whereas the motives for crime are typically rather simple (greed, jealousy, hatred and fear), politics is far more complex. Ideology, religion, customs, and historical developments (such as long-standing feuds, bigotry, and racism) have to be taken into account.
Political movements typically have more than one actor, and motives can vary widely: The king wants the war to gain lands and destroy a political rival, the priesthood wants the war to destroy the enemy heretics, the nobles want the war because they wish to avenge old wrongs, and the warriors want the war because they want the war booty.
Political acts are often designed to have an effect that is very different from what actually happens. The assassination of a much-hated king can be an attempt to bring down a royal house and start a revolution, but can have exactly the opposite effect: The old tyrant dies as planned, but his successor turns out to be a good ruler who manages to stabilize the monarchy. On the other hand, some act that is meant to satisfy only a minor goal can have far-reaching consequences: A petty feud between chieftains on opposite sides of a border can turn into full-scale war, repeated raids can provoke military retaliation that leads to the conquest of an entire country, a brutal act by a minor official triggers a revolution, etc.
If a conflict lasts for some time, the countries that started it may well exhaust their resources and the final winners are other states who enter the conflict later. World War II started as a conflict of European powers and in the end, the USA and the Soviet Union emerged as the new superpowers.
Even more than with crime, it is very important to judge what really is a benefit. Parties that appear victorious may find themselves in a very difficult position, while others who may not appear to be on the winning side at all can have every reason to feel satisfied. For example, imagine this scenario: two kingdoms are at war, and kingdom A conquers B. According to the history books, A wins. In reality, A has an empty treasury, too many dead knights and a huge, unruly country it cannot control. B is technically defeated, but the king of A needs the nobles of B to rule the land. So, the barons of B enjoy more privileges under the conqueror than under the old king of B, and prosper.
Sometimes, those who carry out a political act have a radical world view which makes them pursue some goal that appears nonsensical to other people. It can be very easy to overlook or misunderstand the benefit desired by such a group.
In politics, many actors may benefit from a certain event. A skilled politician who is able to advance his agenda by using (or abusing) a particular event, or a company that quickly steps in to offer a remedy to some real or perceived problem can benefit greatly from an act they never caused. Cui bono may fail completely if the persons who intended to benefit from a certain act gain nothing or only a tiny benefit, and other players obtain a huge advantage. For example, consider a mugging committed in front of a video camera. The mugger obtains just $50 and is quickly caught. His benefit is tiny. A political faction that wants to roll out surveillance cameras all over the city uses the incident skillfully to gain widespread acceptance for their plan. Their benefit is huge. However, they may be faced with a conspiracy theory accusing them of setting up the entire incident.
[edit] Issues with analysis
The application of cui bono in politics or other large-scale events is even more risky because many other factors have to be considered.
In retrospect, the actual outcome can appear far more logical and straightforward than at the time. Refer to the article on historian's fallacy for more information.
It is especially difficult to judge the motives of people of different ages and cultures. A common mistake is to overlook motives which do not fit the mindset of the observer ("I would not start a war over issue X, so this war cannot have been about X" or "X is a non-issue in my age and country, so X must have been a non-issue in medieval Hungary".)
Actors may themselves distort the truth about events to gloss over their own failings. A general who loses a battle has cause to present himself as the victim of a cunning enemy plan. A general who wins a battle through sheer luck (the enemy makes a really stupid mistake, the weather changes during a naval battle, the enemy commander is killed by a stray bullet) may present a distorted story to give the impression that he was in control all the time.
Historians may themselves report only a distorted version of an event.
History books can overplay the importance of famous persons and fail to mention the effects many less famous people have on history. This may distort the perception of great historical figures because the actions and motives of many lesser players affect history as well. Did Napoleon lose the battle of Waterloo? He did, but mostly because one of his generals, Emmanuel, marquis de Grouchy, failed to neutralize the Prussian army.
[edit] Use in popular culture
- Cui Bono is the Latin motto of the Crime Syndicate of Amerika, the evil supervillain counterpart of the Justice League of America in the DC comics universe. A version of the Crime Syndicate of Amerika appears in Grant Morrison's JLA: Earth-2, where, in their alternate universe, it is the villains who benefit from their power, rather than the humans that their hero counterparts would protect.
- Cui bono is also a major theme in the DC Comics limited series Identity Crisis, in which a recurring character is killed to the benefit of an unusual suspect.
- Qui bono (literally "who with good") is a common nonsensical Dog Latin misrendering.
- Said by Alec Baldwin's character in The Departed, to which Matt Damon's character replies: "Cui gives a shit. It's got a freakin' bow on it."
