****Citations are not required**** Week 3 Assignment Choose 1 and Write a 1-page Summary (Worth 4 points):W3 Assignment:All ethical decisions affect others (by definition) and, as Aristotle points out, ethical decision making is achieved consistently only through practice. Given the outline of virtue ethics provided by Aristotle (i.e., seeking the real goods via the moral virtues), evaluate the moral permissibility of the conduct in question in each scenario. Important note on method: Critical thinking requires the ability to evaluate viewpoints, facts, and behaviors objectively to assess information or methods of argumentation to establish the true worth or merit of an act or course of conduct. Please evaluate these scenarios, first analyzing pros and cons of alternate views, before you come to a conclusion. Do not draw a conclusion first, and then try to find facts to support itthis frequently leads to narrow (and incorrect) thinking.To properly evaluate the moral permissibility of a course of action using critical thinking skills Begin with an open mind (no preconceptions!) Isolate and evaluate the relevant facts on both sides, Identify the precise moral question to be answered, and Apply ethical principles to the moral question based on an objective evaluation of the facts, only then drawing a conclusion. Qs. 1. The Informants Among UsPolice corruption in the United States is a much smaller problem compared to that in other nations where entire police forces may be corrupt. Nevertheless, instances of corruption in U.S. policing do occur and often have serious consequences. An important issue is the treatment of those who expose this corruption. Those who blow the whistle, or become confidential informants for the FBI or other agencies, are often ostracized by their peers. In a New Jersey case, a local police officer contacted the FBI and wore a body wire for 18 months to tape bribery and corrupt activities (under the supervision of the FBI). It resulted in the largest police corruption investigation in the history of the state. A total of 34 people were indicted, including the police chief. The charges included taking bribes to protect prostitution, illegal gambling, and liquor sales, and extorting money from towing companies. Most of those indicted pleaded guilty. The local officer who gathered the evidence was threatened by fellow officers, moved six times out of fear for his safety, and was fired from his job as a police officer. The department claimed that he was fired as a result of disciplinary charges, and the officer is suing to try to get his job back.How ought co-workers treat those who inform authorities of illegal activities in the agency? Examine this question from the perspective of virtue ethics, formalism, and utilitarianism. In response to this case, former New York City police officer Frank Serpico said, Its always worth it to be at peace with yourself. Does this imply reasoning from a particular school of ethical thought? Qs. 2. Mandated Changes to City PoliceThe U.S. Justice Department reached an agreement with the city of Newark, New Jersey, the largest city in the state, for federal oversight of the city police department. The Newark Police Department had been found repeatedly to violate the rights of its citizens, especially blacks, and it became the 13th police department in the nation to submit to federal oversight following discovery of a pattern of unlawful activity. The federal review found that police failed to provide sufficient reason in 75 percent of its pedestrian stops. Blacks make up 54 percent of the citys population, but accounted for 85 percent of pedestrian stops and nearly 80 percent of arrests. In addition, more than 20 percent of police use of force was found to be unreasonable under law. Thefts by officers were also found to occur from those arrested. Under the agreement, the city promises to train officers on how to carry out stops and arrests that are constitutionally permissible. The federal review also documented so-called contempt of cop arrests, used to describe people charged with a crime solely because they lawfully objected to police actions or were disrespectful. The monitoring will continue until the U.S. Justice Department is satisfied that remedial changes have been made. You are hired to develop the ethics component of the reforms to be introduced in the Newark Police Department. Explain how you would incorporate specific ethical principles in some systematic way to police training and accountability.Qs. 3. Criminals Testifying for the ProsecutionThe use of criminals as informants to testify against other suspects in exchange for leniency is fraught with peril. On one hand, informants might be untruthful in order to give the prosecution what it wants in their testimony and thereby insure leniency in their own cases. Their testimony is essentially bought and paid for, said John Wesley Hall Jr., president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. On the other hand, prosecutors believe that deals to obtain testimony from informants are necessary evils, and often the only practical way to obtain information about secretive organized crime figures. Often the people who are in the best position to be witnesses in a case are the people who themselves have been involved in the criminal activity, said Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein. The evidence shows that the testimony of criminal informants has resulted in the convictions of many serious criminals. However, the evidence also shows that the inability to independently confirm that the testimony of most informants has resulted in wrongful convictions. In addition, trading the liberty of one criminal (the informant) for another (the defendant) may not always be in the publics long-term interest in safety, because leniency is based on cooperation rather than culpability. Evaluate the moral permissibility of the prosecutors decision to use convicted criminals, whose sentences are not yet final, to testify against another suspect.Qs. 4. Lawyer-Assisted SuicideAlthough the death penalty has been abolished in most countries around the world, 31 states in the United States allow capital punishment for the conviction of certain crimes. These usually involve cases of homicide or treason. There are a record number of prisoners on death row in the United States, and successful appeals to reduce death sentences or review the facts of cases are rare. Courts and legislators have also restricted the possible grounds and opportunities for appeal in recent years. This situation has led some death row inmates to give up hope and not pursue the appeals allotted to them by law. Even though there are hundreds of documented cases of death sentences of innocent persons, the lack of hope for offenders on death row is pervasive. The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1997 that terminally ill patients have no constitutional right to assisted suicide, but death row inmates appear to have the legal right to expedite their own executions by foregoing appeals. What should the offenders lawyer do if his or her client does not wish to appeal? Should that choice be respected? If it is, can this be considered lawyer-assisted suicide? The choice by a death row inmate to expedite the execution process may be a rational one. Life on death row is both undesirable and uncertain. Expediting the states execution is much more certain and perhaps unavoidable, given trends in the outcomes of death penalty appeals. As one attorney has characterized the situation, In the real world this death row client has only two options: the state can kill him now, or it can kill him later. He chooses now. Should a lawyer pursue appeals, despite the wishes of his or her client? If so, can this be considered state-assisted suicide? If the offenders attorney does not challenge the case facts or the penalty, it could make future executions easier by lowering further the legal and procedural barriers to executions. Should the attorney represent the clients wishes, even if those wishes lead to certain death?Evaluate the moral permissibility of the lawyers possible actions under these circumstances. What would you do as anattorneyin this situation? What would you do as anoffenderin this situation?
The post ****Citations are not required****Week 3 Assignment Choose 1 and Write a 1-page Summary (Worth appeared first on .
CLICK HERE TO GET THE BEST PAPERS. HIGH QUALITY.
No Plagiarism in Our Company.