Judge Jeffery Owens faces an ethical question of whether to enforce a maximum prison sentence on Woodrow Wilson or sentence him to a mental institution. According to the evidence against the defendant and the witness, Wilson is guilty and his crime. He has also been terrorizing business owners who demand maximum prison sentencing of the defendant. Thus, he deserves to be punished according to the sentencing guidelines for such offenses. However, Judge Owens has ascertained that the defendant is experiencing untreated acute addiction and mental disorders. This information changes the degree of punishment; the judge needs to consider the legal and ethical guidelines in sentencing offenders with mental disorders. Therefore, the ethical dilemma is whether to satisfy the business owners' wishes or sentence him to a mental institution because of his psychological state. The motivations for the course of action Judge Owens is expected to take include sentencing guidelines and ethical consideration in handling such offenses. When a defendant is convicted or pleads guilty, a judge will decide the appropriate punishment by reviewing sentencing guidelines for such offenses. According to the sentencing provisions for armed robbery, Wilson deserves 5-7 years of jail time. On the other hand, ethical or moral factors involved in the case changes the outcome of the sentencing. According to the ethical principles of sentencing a mentally impaired offender, mental instability reduces an offense's blameworthiness. Also, sentencing mentally ill convicts health is an unsuitable vehicle for sending a deterrent message to the community. Even though Judge Owens should punish Wilson, he has an ethical responsibility of ensuring the defender's mental health. Each option in the case has its consequences. For instance, by sticking to the sentencing guidelines and sending Wilson to the state correctional prison system for 5-7 years, business owners would be pleased with the outcome. It is an appropriate legal punishment that fulfills the principles of sentencing, including proportionality and parity. According to these principles, and overall punishment must be proportionate to the offense's gravity, and similar sentences should be imposed on similar offenses and under similar conditions (Demleitner et al., 2018). The sentencing is even suited to fulfill sentencing purposes as stipulated under Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act of 1991. It is a just punishment for an offense committed; it is a specific and general deterrence; it condemns that type of conduct. Most importantly, it protects the community from the offender (Demleitner et al., 2018). Because of all these elements, business owners demonstrating in the court isle would be satisfied. The second option involves looking out for Wilson's mental well-being and sentencing him to the county jail for 18 months or less. In this option, the judge weighs the significance of the defendant's mental condition and its role in punishing his offense. With such considerations, Judge Owens understands that the condition reduces the offender's moral culpability regarding the offense. Two, the need for Wilson to get treatment for his behavioral and psychological condition. Three, understanding the offender has an impaired capacity to learn from the court's ruling. Four, the correctional prison system would deteriorate the defendant's mental health. The ruling would prioritize Wilson's mental health over the need to impose maximum punishment for his crimes. Such sentencing would not sit well with the demonstrating business owners. Out of the two options, the best course of action Judge Owen should take is sentencing Wilson to the county jail for 18 months or less. Sentencing guidelines for people with mental disorders and learning disabilities differ from those of normal people. Thus, having ascertained that Wilson has a mental disorder, the judge must handle Wilson as a mentally impaired offender. In some cases, people with mental health issues may be found unfit to stand trials or even not guilty of their crimes due to their mental state. For this reason, today's criminal justice process demands the health report of defendants to determine whether or not they have the capacity to stand trial. The purpose of the medical reports is also to determine the role of mental disorders in their crime. A sentencing judge will determine whether to take an offender's mental health into account. According to Jill Peay (2016), offenders with proven mental health problems should be given lenient sentences with the option of accessing quality care. The rationale behind the lenient sentencing is the amount of responsibility an offender retains for a crime considering the state of their mental health and how it affects them. The pre-sentence investigation report links Wilson to various violent acts in the past due to his acute addiction and mental problems. That being so, it is possible that his psychological state played a significant role in the offense. Lenient sentencing is not enough. As Jill Peay (2016) further suggests, the guidelines direct a judge to determine whether an offender should be given a rehabilitation treatment instead of a prison sentence. Since Wilson had never been treated before despite being in a critical state, sentencing him for 18 months with treatment is reasonable punishment. An ethical theory that reflects the ethical basis for the decision is deontology. The model suggests that when making critical decisions where ethics is concerned, a person should adhere to their duties and obligations. This deontological rule is credited to Immanuel Kant, who believed that the right results are achieved when the right rules and moral intents are followed. According to Kant and proponents of the model, a person presented with an ethical dilemma will follow their obligations to society or an individual because upholding such duty is perceived ethically correct. As a professional judge, Owen took an oath to follow the law in all criminal proceedings. That being so, sentencing Wilson to a correctional prison facility to please a group of business owners would not be the right decision but considering the facts and conditions of the case and sticking to sentencing guidelines. The case presents practical problems of prosecuting public officials, especially where law enforcement officers are involved. Jessica, as a district attorney, wields tremendous power as a prosecutor. In the country's legal system, she has the legal authority to compel testimony from witnesses and subpoena documents when seeking justice. Interestingly, her promise to prosecute police misconduct with criminal charges played a major role in winning the campaign to a significant degree. On the one hand, she feels the police department is not cooperating largely because the police chief did not support her campaign. On the other hand, there is a genuine concern that the police department is cooperating to their full extent. It is a complicated state of affairs for Jessica since she can only successfully prosecute officers with misconduct cases with their colleagues' cooperation. The motivations guiding Jessica as a local prosecutor include the rule of law and holding the police department accountable for lack of cooperation. The prosecutor's roles and those of the police in the criminal justice system are recognized and confirmed in the rule of law (Simmons, 2015). In this case, the criminal justice system's purpose is to ensure justice to those who violate the law while maintaining the due process. While the police department is empowered by law to conduct investigations leading to suspects' prosecution, Jessica has the power to check whether the investigation follows due process of the law. In other words, the prosecutor has the power to give guidance and instructions to the police department and hold them accountable for when such instructions are not followed. The first consequence of her action is losing public confidence and risk being held in contempt. Her ticket to securing the prosecution position was a strong critique against the incumbent's unwillingness and inability to prosecute police misconduct in the city. Also, the main reason she was elected is the promise to hold police accountable for various criminal misconduct in the city. Thus, the inability to bring various law enforcement officers suspected of criminal activities to justice would fail to fulfill her promise to the community. Because of this, the public will lose confidence in her and also hold her in contempt. Generally, the public demands accountability, especially in sensitive electoral public positions such as district prosecutors. The public often demands evidence that a prosecutor is fulfilling the responsibilities of her position. The second consequence includes increasing the conflict between her and the police department. Already, Jessica and the police chief have different perceptions and attitudes regarding the prosecution of law enforcement officers. They are both public officials, and the two are required by the nature of their work to work together in the criminal justice system. That being so, maintaining her strong views and commitment to the prosecution of officers involved in unlawful criminal misconduct would see a huge divide between the prosecution office and the city's police department. So far, they are losing criminal cases, including serious criminal cases due to uncooperating police officers. That can be understood as an act of demonstration or boycotting on the law enforcement part, affecting the city's justice system. The only way to avoid further divide is to end the prosecution of the police. The right and the ethical action to take is to continue bringing criminal charges against polices officers. That is not because it is one of her responsibilities as a prosecutor but also because it ensures accountability in the police force. The pursuit of justice among law enforcement officers deters police misconduct and involvement in criminal activities. However, this will come at a price that includes jeopardizing the work relations between the prosecution office and the police department. Also, achieving justice in police misconduct cases is a huge challenge because the police department is also in charge of investigating and presenting evidence. Thus, Jessica should work around solving the conflict of interests existing between her and the police department. The ethical basis for the above decisions includes the prosecutor is an administrator of justice, the court's officer, and a zealous advocate. Jessica has a primary responsibility of seeking justice within the bounds of the law ("Standards for the Prosecution Function," 2020) . That being so, including the fact that the people elect her, Jessica serves the public's interest and should act with balanced judgment and integrity to increase public safety by pursuing and prosecuting criminals ("Standards for the Prosecution Function," 2020) . These criminals include police officers involved in one way or another, in unlawful practices. By all means within the rule of law, a prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and public in general by convicting the guilty. An ethical model that reflects the ethical basis for the decision above is deontology. As described earlier in the discussion, deontologists believe an ethical decision involves adhering to duties and obligations. In law enforcement and the criminal justice system, practitioners get involved ethical dilemmas requiring them to make critical decisions. In such situations, making the right decisions becomes a significant challenge, especially for prosecutors who can easily misuse their powers. Thus, as per the principles of the theory of deontology, the right decision is one in which an individual follows the guidelines of their duties and responsibilities. Jessica made a promise to the public, a promise that is aligned to the responsibilities of her professional position. She must fulfill the promise. The moral or ethical question in the case is whether or not to report a criminal offense. Scot is a rookie at a police department. Like every other profession, aw enforcement has some new employee orientation program. The nature of the job that involves complex duties and responsibilities demands a probationary or orientation period lasting weeks. The purpose of the probation as far as policing is concerned is twofold: first, to ensure recruits familiarize themselves with law enforcement practices. Second, assess the degree to which recruits demonstrate the ability to perform their duties effectively and efficiently. Failure to meet standards of performance may lead to dismissal. That is a threat that Scot faces, and reporting his findings could result in his dismissal from the police department.
The motivations on whether or not to report the incidence to include his duty to perform police work or the risk of being dismissed from the department since he is under probation. According to the probation provisions, the extent to which Scot can exercise his authority includes topping motorists for legitimate but minor traffic offenses. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens and suspects from unreasonable searches of their properties (Ferguson, 2019). Scot has no authority to search the motorist without a legal warrant. The act along can contribute to his dismissal without trial. The two motivations also establish the central ethical dilemma in the case. Because of the consequences involved, Scot is torn between arresting the motorist and reporting everything he has discovered or ignoring everything. Arresting the motorist or reporting the criminal offense could see his dismissal. The search constitutes unreasonable search and seizure, which is unconstitutional since it violates the Fourth Amendment (Ferguson, 2019). Usually, evidence obtained through unreasonable search and seizure may not be introduced in a court of law. That being so, the motorist may not be charged with any crime. In some cases, such practices, depending on the extent to which the evidence is obtained, may be interpreted as police misconduct. Thus, the act's legal ramification on an officer includes prosecution or the risk of losing their job. In this case, Scot risks losing his position as a rookie officer if the matter goes to the police department and beyond. The other option is to ignore everything and let the motorist free. Letting an agitated individual who hurls obscene references and racial slurs free sounds unfair even if it means Scot getting to keep his job. It would paint a picture where it is okay for citizens to throw verbal insults towards law enforcement agents even when they are on the wrong side of the law. Most likely, Scot acted out of anger due to racial slurs and insults from the motorist to ignore the law's process. This is a classic example of police ignorance and mistake of law under the Fourth Amendment. Pursuing the case would only complete things for him. On the other hand, letting the motorist go would also mean allowing narcotics and potentially criminal activities into the community. The best course of action is to arrest the motorist and report the issue under the exclusionary rule's exceptions. Some evidence obtained without a search warrant is admissible to the court of law under exceptions to the Fourth Amendment as far as investigation is concerned. For the case of Scot, they include automobile exception and stop and frisk. The law views vehicles as highly mobile, and because of this, they can be used to perform various criminal activities such as transporting illegal drugs or firearms. As such, a police officer has the right to search a car if they have probable cause to believe it contains crime evidence. If they have reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, an officer can stop a suspect and search their car. However, probable cause is critical in both the exceptions, something that Scot lacked in his search. Therefore, he still risks losing his job. The decision is based on ethical principles, as outlined in under the law enforcement code of ethics. A typical law enforcement agent has a fundamental duty of serving the community in various ways. First, safeguarding lives and property from potential criminals and criminal activities. Second, protecting the innocent against deceptive, oppressive, and violent activities (Ferguson, 2019). Third, respecting the constitutional rights of everyone. Scot would be protecting the community by putting the motorist under arrest; he would be preventing the distribution of illicit drugs in the community. As such, by arresting the motorist and confiscating the drugs, he would be performing his duty as a law enforcement officer. Nonetheless, all this would come at a price. Since the evidence is obtained illegally, which involves police misconduct on his part, he would lose his job.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The ethical basis above is consistent with the principles of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a theoretical framework that determines whether an action right or wrong by focusing on the outcomes. According to Udoudom et al. (2018), the utilitarian theory can be viewed as a consequentialism theory. The theory postulates that the most ethical theory will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. An example of applying the theory includes dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was an ethical decision because it saved more lives than it lost (Udoudom et al., 2018). In the case above, arresting the motorist and confiscating the evidence is a choice that produces the greatest good to the greatest number. That is because the community is protected from drugs and possible criminal acts that may follow even though Scot risk losing his job.
References
Demleitner, N., Berman, D., Miller, M. L., & Wright, R. F. (2018). Sentencing law and policy: Cases, statutes, and guidelines . Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Ferguson, A. G. (2019). The exclusionary rule in the age of blue data. Vand. L. Rev. , 72 , 561.
Peay, J. (2016). Responsibility, culpability, and the sentencing of mentally disordered offenders: objectives in conflict. Criminal Law Review , (3), 152-164.
Standards for the Prosecution Function . Americanbar.org. (, 2020). Retrieved 1 October 2020, from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/.
Simmons, K. C. (2015). Increasing police accountability: restoring trust and legitimacy through the appointment of independent prosecutors. Wash. UJL & Poly , 49 , 137.
Udoudom, M. D., Idagu, U. A., & Nwoye, L. (2018). Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics on Capital Punishment. Journal of Sustainable Society , 7 (1), 5-11.
