Robert Smith has been a successful sheriff who has held the position for six years after being elected twice to the post. Well known for his firm yet observant demeanor, he is a respected man overseeing hundreds of cases and arrests in his state. Smith loves his job and, most importantly, values service to the people. However, last week at 5 a.m., he received a call from one of his officers about a twenty-five-year-old girl (Sheila) who killed her three-month-old child. From further investigations within the week, they discovered that the victim had sent a message to one of her closest friends, outlining that she would commit suicide by overdose. Sheila has also suffered a series of depressive episodes following the birth of her child with no support from the child's father or extended family. Upon delivery, the child had myelomeningocele, a congenital disability that results in spinal Bifida that, when untreated, increases the chances of mortality rate for children. Coincidentally, Smith and his family welcomed a newborn last year, and this case is close to him. He cannot imagine how a mother would take away the life of his child. The public is taking an interest in the case, and the department is under pressure to find Sheila, who has been missing since the murder. Indeed, ever since the killing, Smith works from day to night, trying to minimize the number of cases in his desk and ensure justice for the baby. Indeed, with his wife at home, they both believe the mother should be charged with murder, and he is a determined man to make that happen once he is done with other cases. At the moment, he does not consider the case high on his investigations list. Hence, should he ask for telephone and internet records that are considered an intrusion of privacy? Should the Sherriff charge the woman with murder given her mental condition? Is the sheriff justified to put the case on hold due to a massive caseload at the moment? With regard to the first question, it is a Yes. To locate the location of the mother, the Sherriff department should seek access to telephone and internet records from telephone companies that, in this case, interfere with personal privacy but is necessary to the intended objective. Such presents the moral dilemma since the modern world brings in technology whose intrusion to access their own devices is highly sensitive and unethical. For example, such access will reveal the text messages and emails that, for most people, are confidential such that we go to the extent of using passwords for the same purpose. However, although the fourth amendment is clear on guaranteeing people’s places and effects, it also states that the government cannot violate privacy without a good reason (Dunham, 2018, p. 5). Nonetheless, in this case, there is a good reason as to why the intrusion must happen hence making it unethical but legal. Through the regulatory investigatory powers act (RIPA), police can access data from Sheila's friend. By sending a request through a single point of contact team (SPOC team), they can request a communications company for data access that could reveal Sheila’s phone and perhaps whereabouts. Moreover, through the stored communications act (SCA), the disclosure of the information must be relevant to the crime which the government agencies can legally use to determine the case. Hence, intrusive powers might never be moral, yet, Smith should solve the murder case, and the intrusion helps in the provision of justice as provided for by the law. Should the Sherriff charge the woman with murder regardless of the mental state? No, despite Smith's feelings to the case, if found, the mother can be charged with infanticide, which is a lesser charge than murder. Being impartial in a case that is close to home and a real-life situation is a dilemma that the officer must decide. Regardless of his view, the law is the law, and the mother killing her child in cold blood is immoral but, charging her with murder might be unlawful. A mother killing their child is considered dishonest and unethical, keeping in mind that babies are innocent, and people are willing to take care of them in shelters and children's homes. The public considers such mothers as psychotic and monsters that should face murder charges [sic]. Infanticide is the deliberate murder of a child who is less than a year old. Sheila is suffering from postnatal depression, given the child's marital status and condition, hence the lesser charge. The act remains immoral, but unintentional given the circumstances. Porter and Gavin (2010) assert that women subset of women who kill their children are indeed psychotic at the time but very conscious of their actions in that they are aware of their wrongdoing. Nonetheless, the mother was ill and has been proved to be so through medical diagnosis due to depressive episodes. The immoral action cannot face the same legal judgment as a stranger killing the baby or a mother who has not suffered from postnatal depression. Also, given the condition of the baby, I believe the mother deserves a lesser charge. Although Smith considers the act immoral deserving of a murder charge, the baby could have lived a life of misery, and the mother choosing to take away her child's life was a challenging yet, selfless act. I believe infanticide should be considered relative to the probability of turn of events that could worsen the child's living conditions. Although technology ensures that babies born with defects survive a more extended period, those who do not receive treatments upon birth have lesser survival chances. Indeed, Francis and Silvers (2013) argue that children with myelomeningocele that are not treated are less likely to make it to their seventh birthday. In Sheila’s case, her baby did not receive the treatment and was less likely to celebrate his seventh birthday. The quality of life also matters since we intend to live a life that we enjoy without feeling that we do not serve a purpose. Society being the moral judge, they cannot let perceptions and ideas of what one considers right by her to dismiss human rights; in this case, the rights of the child to live. Asserts that infanticide should be committed through informed consent that considers the emotional difficulties the decision has on the parent. Nonetheless, since Sheila seems to have decided to live with the baby, deciding to kill him after taking the child home should be met with a lesser charge since the decision was an ill-informed while. Is the sheriff justified to put the case on hold due to a massive caseload at the moment? No, Smith is not justified to put the case on hold because it is a serious case that has seen a mother missing, a dead child, and public interest in the case. When it comes to determining the facts to focus on, officers in charge have to decide what matters to solve at the expense of others, especially when departments have heavy caseloads. Nonetheless, officers have the mandate to determine the solvability of the situation by looking at the variables that, in this case, are given a lead with Sheila's phone and an unstable mother who might not be very good at hiding. It is essential to value all human rights without undermining other victims' rights because perceptions inform judgments. Robert (2013) outlines that heads should have a clear way of handling cases by assigning individuals who specialize in the case, attaching it to whoever is on duty and assignment according to rotations to minimize chances of prolonged justice for victims. It is essential to understand that the more cases are prolonged, the more likely information gaps hinder active investigations that lead to the solvability of claims within a short period. Therefore, the Sherriff has to find ways to manage the caseloads in a manner that ensures justice. For instance, having case numbers to solve the case later does not act as a solution to the situation since new investigators are assigned to matters that are straightforward compared to complex cases.
References
Dunham, M. (2018). Arbitrary and Outdated: Reforming the Stored Communications Act. SSRN Electronic Journal . 10.2139/ssrn.3258774.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Francis, L., & Silvers, A. (2013). Infanticide, moral status, and moral reasons: The importance of context. Journal of medical ethics . 39. 289-92. 10.1136/medethics-2012-100767.
Porter, T., & Gavin, H. (2010). Infanticide and Neonaticide: A Review of 40 Years of Research Literature on Incidence and Causes. Trauma, violence & abuse. 11. 99-112. 10.1177/1524838010371950.
Robert T. (2013). The key to optimal investigative teamwork, Part 1 of 2. Fraud Magazine . https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294978626
