Balancing Individual Rights and the Public’s Protection
The success of criminal justice is partly determined by its ability to strike a balance between social order and the protection of the public. All these must be done with a strict respect and maintenance of rights and liberties of individuals. The most appropriate philosophical approach would be on the application of the tenets of utilitarianism and deontology. The principle that freedom of a person can be limited in the case where one wants to promote the common welfare can be relied upon in this case ( Souryal, 2010). This can be vital for the protection of the citizens and ensure that the principles of social order are adhered to. If the principle is not clear with regards to how the common welfare and social order will be influenced, the utilitarian approach can best be used. This approach will be essential in seeking a balance between the positive and the negative results focusing on the extent of limiting the right of an individual and the consequences it has on the common interest. A good example to justify these assertions is in a scenario where an individual wants to perform a terrorist act. It would be justifiable to limit the rights of this individual to protect the interests of the general public and in the process restore social order.
Balancing the Use of Reward and Punishment in Criminal Justice
The criminal justice has some ethical perceptions with regards to reward and punishment. When analyzing reward in criminal justice, two approaches can be looked at. One is the utilitarian approach where the reward that is given is based on the consequence and second is justice that defines rewarding as an aftermath of a certain effort. Punishment, on the other hand, can also be looked in various tenets. According to Worrall (2014), retributive punishment occurs when the offender receives a punishment that matches the type of crime committed. Utilitarian punishment is used to deter or caution potential criminals from committing a criminal act. The third type of punishment is based on restitution, which focuses on compensating victims for their setbacks, suffering or losses. The reward for results approach should be applied whenever the consequence is successful. The reward for effort approach can be applied if the outcome was changed due to unavoidable circumstances. In the case of punishment, the best approach to use is the utilitarian approach which acts to deter and prevent potential criminals from carrying out an offensive action. Such an approach would ensure social order due to the fear of punishment. An example can be on the use of castration on people who are charged with rape. The fear of castration will prevent potential rapists from engaging in such practices hence guaranteeing a sense of order. In rewarding, the police or other law enforcement agencies can reward individuals based on the results, which may, in this case, be identifying or testifying against criminals.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Use of Immoral Means
Criminal justice has in many cases used immoral means to attain various desires. It has been proven that it is challenging to reach desirable ends by employing right ways. Focquaert and Schermer (2015) asserted that some of the immoral means that can be used include lying, bribes, and torture among others. Also, it is difficult to resist offenders without applying immoral means. It is, however, ironical to note that the use of immoral and unlawful means puts the professionals in the criminal justice at a similar position with the offenders. It is, therefore, a major dilemma that in my view, I would approach it circumstantially. The first philosophical approach to use is that the results should not be questioned, but when one fails to reach the desired results, then the means should be thoroughly questionable. Secondly, the moral means should be understood that they cannot lead to any desired results. Thirdly, the results should be treated as to be so urgent that failing to use any means at one's disposal alone qualifies to be an act of immorality. An example is when dealing with a criminal suspect who has vital information concerning an impending terrorist action and has refused to open up about the matter. The only reasonable way to acquire information is the use of torture to force them to surrender the information. Failure to do so can be considered immoral because it puts the lives of many citizens at risk.
Ethics of Care and Peacemaking
Ethics of care and peacemaking are important in forming the basis of decision making in matters criminal justice. They are important especially in cases that provide ambiguity. The professionals in criminal justice can apply deontological principles that include primacy of the law, protection of common good, and the maintenance of social order as the basis of their judgment. Such ethical considerations can help in determining a decision whenever there is a conflict between the rights of an individual and the welfare of the public. The utilitarian means can also be applied in the use of immoral means to achieve the results that are desired in the criminal justice. Therefore, when a professional is deciding a means to use, they have sufficient information concerning the consequences of their actions. The ethics of care and peacemaking provide the professionals in the law enforcement agencies with several guidelines that they are supposed to use in ensuring that there is harmony between them and the suspected criminals. It outlines how the law enforcers should relate with their suspects in a manner that is cognizant of the law.
References
Focquaert, F., & Schermer, M. (2015). Moral enhancement: do means matter morally?. Neuroethics , 8 (2), 139-151.
Souryal, S. S. (2010). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth . Routledge.
Worrall, A. (2014). Punishment in the community: The future of criminal justice . Routledge.
