An ethical dilemma, moral dilemma, or ethical paradox, refers to a problem in the process of decision making between two choices, both of which lead to a wrong path; neither of the available options is morally accepted (Banks, 2016). Despite people facing several ethical and moral problems, a significant number often come with straight forward solutions. However, some situations pose ethical dilemmas that present incredibly complex challenges, and the solutions inherent to are disturbing. Finding optimal solutions in such circumstances is deemed critical to everyone. As Marxist ethics suggested, ethical dilemmas are conflicts between alternatives where for every preferred option based on some chosen criteria, there is a compromise of moral principle. Successively, the ability to analyze the situation, available options, and their respective consequences and developing the basis for tradeoffs and priorities facilitates the essential background for decision making (Braswell, McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J., 2017). It is more often than not to revisit similar situations that occurred in the past and the alternative undertaken, including the consequences that followed. People encounter an ethical dilemma in several aspects of their lives, for instance, personal, social, and professional experience (Banks, 2016). In law, the moral dilemma permeates criminal justice, where each option prioritized with the exercise of discretion influences the fate of the defendant, and the value and norms of a community. The following circumstances subject us to ethical dilemmas, and based on thorough analysis and tradeoffs between factors available options, the course of actions is distinguished.
1. The Judge
The felony case presented before judge Jeffery Owens, of an offender who has been found guilty of armed robbery, subjects him to an ethical dilemma. While considering the mental condition of the defendant, the moral question is that is it for the judge to follow the rule and present judgment of seven years in state prison without the prospect of treatment to a sick criminal? A person committing a crime because of acute addiction/mental disorder, or justice delivered to a victim who was hit on the head and robbed of his money?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are two motivations for this case. The first one is mercy for the mentally ill criminal who has found himself captive by breaking the laws the society has put in place. The second motivation is presenting justice according to the rule of law; the business owners are demanding justice for their robbed colleague. The pre-sentence investigation has reported cases of violence by the defendant in the past, although they were not criminal acts. This situation worsened when the report confirms that no treatment program had been organized to curb his condition. The indication suggests a worsening trend in the defendant's state. The allegations assert that the defendant robbed with the handgun, although no evidence presented confirmed this claim.
Should the judge prioritize mercy for justice, then the defendant will be served with eighteen months in the county prison and receive treatment. The decision, however, will be noncompliance to the established guidelines stipulated in the society. The victim will be, in a way, denied justice, as claimed by other business owners. The judge, through this decision, will have taken unethical routes. There shall be possible demonstrations or appeal by the victim. If the judge considers that option, the following cases might follow a similar approach and possibly an increase in felony cases as a consequence of decreased penalty. Otherwise, if the judge convicts the defendant to a maximum sentence of seven years in the state of the prison, he may receive insignificant treatment or worse no treatment at all. The jail term will end, but the defendant's condition will remain or worsened, and there are higher chances that he may re-offend after the end of his jail term.
The judge, based on case analysis tradeoffs and consequences of each path, should present a maximum jail term of eighteen months in the country prison to gamble on the treatment of the defendant's condition. By doing this, he will be committing a lesser evil to avoid a significant crime. However, the leniency should not legitimize robbery with violence but as an act of preventing future crimes through mercy (Siegel & Worrall, 2018). One should note that it is unethical to warehouse critically ill inmates as a result of financial constraints. The law should condemn acts of state demeaning the rights of prisoners. The integration of a value-based approach should aid in deciding the felony case. The first being, it is of greater importance to jail someone for a few months and reverts future acts than longer terms without treatment and experience similar acts.
Also, cash salvaged should be returned to the victim. Beneficence, as a form of ethical theory, calls for one's ability to predict the consequences of action (Siegel & Worrall, 2018). Based on this theory, the choice that yields the most substantial benefit is ethically correct (Braswell, McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J., 2017). In this case, eighteen months in the country, prison envisages considerable advantages in comparison to state prison with limited treatment. The theory attempts to generate the most significant ratio of good over evil in any given scenario. The good engendered as a result of this decision is the treatment received from county prison in case the defendant will get rehabilitated. Stringently, with evil acts of robbery with violence, the defendants ought to have been sentenced to 5-7 years in states prison has been traded off.
2. Attorney General
Jessica, an Attorney General, is in the middle of trouble for her inability to prosecute police officers who commit offenses. The dilemma witnessed has been in several recent cases, and the condition is reportedly getting worse. The main reason is that the chief of the police does not share the same ideas as Jessica and community beliefs. Jessica, therefore, feels that an overtly protective autocratic police chief is bullying her. At the same time, Jessica has come to learn that she can never be successful in prosecuting criminals unless the top officials cooperate. So should Jessica seek the cooperation of the chief and betray the community, or should she fight for fairness and justice for the community? The police chief, strongly disagrees with Jessica, in fact, he never supported her bid for Attorney General. Cooperating with him means Jessica will have to consider fines, devotions, termination of contracts, and suspensions as enough punishment. Proceeding with her move to prosecute police officers is impossible unless she gets rid of the chief of police.
Jessica's motivation began during her campaign. She won the position on a very conservative platform utilizing the incumbent's inability to prosecute police officers. Jessica would not have secured the job without the ambition of suing police officers, and she represents the position of the community. Community breeds virtue of fairness and justice for all, why should the police officers commit crimes to receive preferential treatment? There is no law protecting police misconduct; officers receive protection from the administration headed by the police chief. As a result of the court's inability to punish law offenders among police officers, the expected results are rising cases of police misconduct, and the situation is indeed getting worse. The recent felony cases are being lost thanks to mere excuses. For instance, police detectives are too busy to receive calls, or the officers are unable to attend court proceedings because they are on duty, and even worse, some are unable to remember critical details of what transpired while on assignment. Jessica has yielded no success in the cases she has so far submitted. One being theft of an officer who was spotted swapping tires of a patrol car with a personal vehicle. Another being assault charges against an officer when Jessica learned that a suspect needed medical treatment on hands wrist brought by the abrasive action of tight handcuffs.
Jesicca is indebted to the community; she rose to the position of Attorney General because the community believes that no misconduct should be left unpunished irrespective of rank, occupation, or other classifying factors (Braswell, McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J., 2017). Jessica should fight for the prosecution of police wrongdoing and breed fairness and justice to the community. Given that the chief is overly protective of criminals, he must also be arraigned in court and consequently punished. If Jessica is in a position to demote or terminate his job, the chief of staff should be changed to pave the way for justice.
The theory utilized in this ethical dilemma is a utilitarianism approach. A utilitarian takes note of the possible consequences of available options, and the path that leads to more enormous benefits to most people is ethically correct (Carroll, & Sanchez, 2020). Although the decision may solely base on mere predictions of the consequences, in this case, it is a factor of community wellness. The community consisting of a large number of people agrees with Jessica that police misconduct should be brought to justice. Prosecuting police offenders leads to the most significant benefits to the community through equality and justice. It also reduces cases of police misconduct and assaults.
The scenario is coinciding with the position of a police chief who is autocratic and overly protective. It is also far much better to convict police chief and save the community from future acts of police felony cases. Jessica has to gamble that the incoming Chief of Police will cooperate with her. The approach, therefore, utilizes rule utilitarianism where the observation of rules and laws are observed as a route that benefits the most people. The happiness and satisfaction of a thousand people are more significant than the pain and troubles brought to the chief of police. Also, prosecution of police assaulting members of the community is deemed more beneficial to the community. Lack of Jessica's decisions to prosecute criminals will be disobedience and betray the community trust who unarguably voted for her bid for the position of Attorney General.
3. The Officer
Scot is an officer on probation and has committed an illegal search in the line of duty. Given the current terms of his employment, he can be dismissed at any given time for any reason and would not be entitled to a trial board or hearing before dismissal. An ethical dilemma arises as Scot faces a potential termination. Should he be honest and admit his mistakes to the police department, or else lose his position. If Scot decides to keep his mistakes or cover them up to safeguard his job secretly, he shall have committed ethical crimes of dishonesty and assault on the motorist. Despite the motorist having abused Scot, the department and the established guidelines do not permit the hearing of the case. The search staged by Scot is legitimate because the motorist committed a minor traffic violation. However, the motorist believes he has been stopped for absolutely no reason and consequently proceeds to abuse Scot. A series of events and negligence have prompted Scot to commit a crime that has the potential to end his career.
Scot is motivated by the security of his job and the illegal search as a consequence of indecent motoris t references and racial insults. One of the potentially dire consequences is losing a career as a reason for being honest and subscribing to the rules established by the system. Scot is critical and is aware that any leak of information to the department of police decides his future as an officer. No information has to found its way by all means. He, therefore, has to warn the motorist of relaying any information about his misdeeds. Subsequently, he needs to bribe the motorist to accomplish this is by bribing the motorist, which seems almost impossible to cover up the blunders without committing another. What if Scot decides to admit his mistakes, Scot will, without doubt, lose his position despite the motorist having abused Scot, he has higher chances of going scot-free.
Based on this case analysis, prediction of consequences of available options and tradeoffs between alternatives, Scot should choose his job instead of moral values of obedience and corruption established by societal norms. The reason behind this is majorly the consequences of the action and the police department's inability to facilitate hearing before his dismissal. Arguably, the driver's response, for instance, adopting obscene references and racial slurs, provoked Scot to become agitated, and he opened the trunk. In this case, the driver's actions lead to the opening of the trunk. He is the reason behind Scot's actions. Also, Scot may be forced to let the driver away with the offense and instruct him to remain silent on the deeds of the police officer to stage a cover-up.
The theory linked to Scot decisions is the least harm theory (Rivas, 2017). The theory argues that the actor when faced with situations in which no choice is beneficial, the most ethical choice is the one that leads to the least harm. In this case, a minor traffic offense is less harmful than an illegal search, a search that has a potential for job dismissal. Also, acts of dishonesty are less damaging than losing a job without hearing. The value-based approach is also significant in Scot decisions. Although it is impossible to quantify the feelings of the motorist as a result of Scot dismissal, the value of someone's job is more significant (Carroll, & Sanchez, 2020). In this matter, the motorist rights and the owner's product confidentiality have been rendered insignificant. After all, the driver provoked him to commit an illegal search. Scot case should not, by any means, used to legitimize acts of dishonesty, disobedience, and other misconducts (Siegel & Worrall, 2018).
In conclusion, humans are faced with dilemmas every other time. Since it is a must make decisions between alternatives, each alternative has to be critically analyzed. The option chosen should permits better gains both ethically and in value. It is not a natural part to decide on ethical dilemmas, which is a big test for everyone holding offices whose decisions present a significant impact on a large group of people. In most cases, tradeoffs influences individuals' background and moral upbringing, experiences, historical justice, consequences, and constraints attached to their current positions (Loke, 2017). A value-based approach, considering alternatives and refuting dilemmas, are some of the ways utilized in solving ethical dilemmas. The actors facing a moral dilemma should consider making rational decisions in this challenging journey, after all, a decision needs to be made, and, in the end, one should weigh the pros and cons of each option.
References
Banks, S. (2016). Everyday ethics in professional life: Social work as ethics work. Ethics and Social Welfare, 10(1), 35-52.
Braswell, M. C., McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (2017). Justice, crime, and ethics. Taylor & Francis.
Carroll, M. B., & Sanchez, P. L. (2020). Decision making with conflicting information: influencing factors and best practice guidelines. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1-21.
Loke, S. P. (2017). A structural approach to ethical reasoning: The integration of moral philosophy. Electronic Business, 16(1).
Rivas, M. (2017). Marxism and Morality: An Argument for the Inclusion of Morals, Justice, and Rights Within Communist Society.
Siegel, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2018). Essentials of criminal justice. Cengage Learning.
