Name
Professor
Class
Date
Ethical Dilemmas
Situation 1: If am riding a motorcycle, and I think it is much more enjoyable to ride without a helmet. Apart from that if I also believe that my vision and hearing are better without a helmet yet my state has just passed a helmet law, and I have already received two warnings. I will not abide by the state laws. However if my child were also riding on the motorcycle I would advise him or her to abide by the state laws. This is because I believe I am competent enough not to cause accidents. However, my position would have been different if I had any previous accidents and had been hurt. This is because the discussion of morality should not be limited to human behavior rather this discussion should be based on behavior that comes from free action and free will (Pollock 244).
The reason why I will let my child put on the helmet is because moral culpability cannot be assigned to individuals who are not adequately aware of the world around them in order to rationally decide the good from the bad. Two cohorts that are conventionally exempt from liability in such a scenario are young children and the mentally handicapped. This is synonymous with the case scenario when ascribing legal responsibility. Arguably the morality of their behavior cannot be judged because it is perceived that they do not have the ability to reason. Consequently they lack the capacity of making a rational decision of being either moral or immoral. Although a two year old may be punished for striking a baby. This is done in an effort of socializing or educating the kid rather than punishing him or her. In the case above I rationally knew that I cannot cause an accident given my visual impairment while cycling I had to make a rational decision to avoid accidents (Pollock 244).
Situation 2 Being a legislator who believes absolutely and strongly that abortion is a sin, I have polled my constituents and am surprised to find that the majority believe that the government should legislate the private decision of women to have an abortion. I have decided to vote with my conscience rather than the will of the majority of my constituents. This is because; actors in every justice system have the capacity to make moral or immoral judgments. Their decisions can be judged by the public as either ethical or non ethical (Pollock 244).
However, decisions made by these actors who range from the legislators that write the very laws that supervise ethical conduct to the law enforcing agencies could be different. This stems from the fact that they experience varying degrees of power, discretion and authority. Being a legislator I have the power to define behavior as unlawful and therefore punishable. I have the moral responsibility of criminalizing behavior if I perceive that it is likely to threaten people’s safety. I also have the authority to set the amount of punishment. Ethically, abortion is wrong and I have the mandate morally to criminalize it as a law maker in spite of my constituents’ attitude towards it. However, there are set moral definitions that define which behaviors are lawful and which ones are not. The underlying principal behind all laws is the protection of public morality and this should inform all decisions in relation to the abortion law (Pollock 244).
Situation 3 Being in the position of a district attorney prosecuting a burglary case and I find a defendant who is willing to plead guilty in return for a sentence of probation. I get to believe that this is fair punishment because I realize that my evidence may not support a conviction. However, the victims are upset and want to see the offender receive prison time. They insist that I try the case. Being a person of moral standing I cannot continue with a case that has no enough evidence to incriminate the defendant (Pollock 244).
I have to exercise a great amount of discretionary in my authority to avoid being seen as an interested party in any case .This is so because of my calling as a district attorney whose moral obligation is to enforce laws that have been created by the legislators. I also know that a case could turn out against the state if the defendant is found not guilty by the jury due to lack of incriminating evidence. Such a scenario could not only be heart breaking for me as an individual but it is also the lowest moment in the profession of a district attorney (Pollock 244).
However, as a district attorney I do not face a lot of public scrutiny compared to other criminal justice professionals. This essentially is paradoxical since I have more discretion when it comes to making decisions on which case I should target for prosecution and how I should prosecute such cases. I also have the liberty to decide which charge to pursue and which one I should drop. Since I have the ethical obligation to follow justice instead of prosecution I will not be influenced by the victims or any other factors other than the objectives of justice (Pollock 244).
Situation 4 Being a prosecutor with the unwelcome task of prosecuting a 12- year old for a particular brutal assault. I personally believe that the child basically went along with the older brother in the assault. Apart from that, I think that he should have been left in the juvenile system. However, the juvenile court judge waived him to the adult system. The media and the victim’s family are now demanding that he be tried as an adult. I am faced with making a decision on whether to try him for attempted murder, assault, or some lesser crime. I could deny the waiver and send the case back to the juvenile court (Pollock 245).
However, I have decided to let the child be tried as a juvenile and not as an adult. This is because I do not determine my duty to please the victims or the society rather I do everything in relation to my own conscience. Being a prosecutor I hold considerable power over other individuals and in most cases I usually face a lot of dilemma. This stems from the fact that I hold the power to make decisions that could deprive people their property, life or freedom. However, since my professional calling as a prosecutor is to enforce the laws I have the moral and ethical obligation of doing so without fear or favor (Pollock 245).
In my decision to let the 12 year old boy be prosecuted in a Juvenile court and as a Juvenile and not an adult I in essence accept the fact that in my duty as I prosecute any case I must as a law enforcing agent protect the constitutional provisions that are the basis of any legal system particularly as far as due process is concerned. This is because due process protects every citizen from errors made by any state’s denial of property, life or liberty (Pollock 245).
Situation 5 Being a judge I believe that individuals should be allowed to choose when to die. I personally had to watch both my parents die long and agonizing deaths because my state does not have a right to die statute. Before me is a doctor who is being prosecuted for giving a lethal dose of morphine to a patient dying of terminal cancer. The family of the patient did not want him to die. The prosecutor believes that if there is a law in place, it should be enforced. The doctor has opted for a bench trial. My conscience being clear I would prosecute the case in accordance with the law and not in accordance with the compassion I have for my deceased parents (Pollock 245).
Since I am a public servant and my salary stems from their purse, I have more than a job. This is because I have been entrusted special duties that involve public trust. In prosecuting this case I will therefore strive to free myself from conflicts of personal interest. This can only be done through being diligent in following the provisions of the law concerning euthanasia and being accountable where I would endeavor to uphold open and democratic decision making. This is because the ethical and moral demands placed upon my office as a judge are very high and I cannot let my personal interests ruin my job and reputation (Pollock 245).
Works Cited
Pollock, M. Joycelyn. Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice Seventh Edition. (2007): 244-245.
