An Introduction Of Ethical Theories

For example after a late night booty call the other wes moore had, he had got into a late night altercation,and how he responded was his choice.” Wes went inside,but he had no intention of staying there.He ran to his room and straight to his closet.reached to the top shelf and pulled out his 9mm Beretta and a few full clips”. The way the other Wes chose to respond was under his full control, he could have let it go,but instead he decided to act on it and soon got arrested.Another time the other Wes chose to act without thinking the changed his life,was when he encountered an undercover cop that tipped that he was by asking the following “Do you guys know where I can buy some rocks” wes knowing that he replied “nope”,but the thought of money is what kept him involved. Wes chose to do the exchange “approached the booth,he reached into his pocket and pulled out two dime bags of crack cocaine,twenty dollars worth”. Wes was arrested for selling drugs,if he had stayed streetsmart he wouldn't have been

This is known as a “passive mood”. (Jayne & Buckley, 2004) Throughout this stage the suspect is on the defensive and may withdraw and focus their thoughts on punishments. (Buckley, 2000)

This paper is about ethical decision making that involved a case study in a movie based on a true story. It is about a child named Lorenzo Odone, his disease, adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) and how both his parents relentlessly pursued to find treatment for him. Aside from Mr. and Mrs. Odones’ decision making, the doctors and scientists involved in Lorenzo’s treatment were just as affected. These characters were faced with ethical issues that arose when deciding proper course in finding treatment for Lorenzo’s ALD. This paper will discuss the four ethical theories of decision making seen in the movie and the effects it had not only on Lorenzo but everyone that was involved.

All crimes consisted of an act is carried out with minds that have planned a guilty thought according to common law. Criminal intent can be the basis of fault and punishment according to intent is a solid promise of the criminal justice according to modern society. Crimes that lack the intent element are less common and are usually graded lower, as either misdemeanors or infractions. Specific intent is the intent with the highest level of culpability for crimes other than murder. Specific intent means that the defendant acts with a more sophisticated level of awareness (Connecticut Jury Instructions No. 2.3-1, 2011).When you hold someone liable for an offense without considering the carelessness of the person then we refers to it strict liability. In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. Concurrence in the law is the requirement that a guilty mental state coincide with a guilty

In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.

It is believed to be said that people commit crimes because of various reasons and aspects in their life. The community offers their citizens a secure and safe residence to live in. However, some argue that particular individuals are born with specific traits that determine how they react in a negative condition. Individuals make decisions in life that can lead them down the wrong path. An individual may choose to commit a crime, only looking at how it will benefit them. I also believe that people think before they commit any criminal activity. When an individual commits a crime, they act on their own free will. They’re aware of their consequences of their punishment. Also, people can commit crimes due to their society. Such conflicts arise

Have you ever made a decision and later completely wonder why it is you made that decision? “Sway The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior” by Ori Brafman and Rom Brafman examine moments of our lives where we could easily be swayed. The Brafmans discuss topics like commitment and value attribution. With examples of what attracts us into making a bad decision. The brilliant authors make it easy to understand the analyzations of the situations. Where there is a possibility of being swayed. With proper analyzation we can prevent these situations from taking place again. Almost everyone has made a decision we misunderstand and behind that decision is an irresistible pull of irrational behavior. No one is perfect, and no one can avoid being swayed into an irrational situation, not even me.

There are several types of judicial culpability: strict liability, knowingly, full moral agency, recklessly and negligence. If the person is found to be culpable, he or she can be blamed and held criminally responsible for the behaviors which were considered to be criminal in nature Smit (2005). The measure of culpability was found to be a vital part of many legal arguments and sentencing decisions. In rare cases, like strict liability crimes or engaging in conduct where his/her mental state is irrelevant, the accused will always be held responsible, regardless of their assumed culpability Smit (2005). According to Smit (2005), when someone committed a crime knowingly or in cases where the person was very certain that his/her conduct would lead to a certain result, their actions were often looked at as being the most serious form of blameworthiness. Also if the accused was also determined to have had what was called full moral agency or the ability to make moral and ethical decisions, he or she was considered to be culpable for the crime in question Giedd et al (1999). Each of these types of legal capabilities could be used to assist legal officials in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused person. Some criminals willingly engaged in activities that they know will possibly lead to a criminal event, become a danger, threat or cause harm to

Though the offender still believes that crime in general is wrong, they will justify or excuse their crime as necessary, morally correct or otherwise acceptable. Offenders might suggest that their crime was acceptable because they are not responsible (“Denial of Responsibility”), no harm occurred (Denial of Injury), the victim deserved to be victimized (“Denial of Victim”), the authorities have it out for them (Condemnation of the Condemners) or there is a higher good served by their actions (“Appeal to Higher Loyalties”). The offender in all of these cases recognizes that their actions were deviant, but argue that it was justified (Sykes and Matza , 2011). Under these theories, humans are considered to naturally want to commit crime, but generally believe that crime is wrong. When they do offend, they consider their offense to be justified exceptions to their belief in the wrongness of crime, the result of a lack of self-control or social bond.

Shestokas (2012) states, there are basic principles underlying the prosecution of a crime. A crime is composed of elements. These elements include a mental state, prohibited action and lack of legal justification. The government beyond a reasonable doubt must prove each of these elements. If any element is not proven, the person charged must be found not guilty. Let us discuss the three elements that forms the basis in the prosecution of a crime. The first element is mens rea, meaning the defendant state of mind when he engages in prohibited conduct. The four types of mens rea are: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent. The second element is actus reus. As you know, there is no punishment for thinking about a criminal act. Generally,

According to 1) denial of responsibility, the individual tells they did it and that it is wrong but they deny being responsible. For example, well it was not my fault because I came from a bad home. Secondly, 2) denial of injury claims that no one was hurt, it was a victimless crime. Some examples include, trespassing, vandalism, stealing from a corporation, doing drugs, and vice crime (prostitution, gambling). Moreover, 3) denial of the victim states that the person that was hurt is not a real victim. An example would be, I punched him in the face because he kissed my girlfriend. Next, 4) condemnation of the condemners addresses rejecting the rejecters, pushing back. For example, stealing is not wrong to feed a child. Lastly, 5) appealing to higher authorities means sacrificing social values, appealing to higher authorities, always excuses their behavior, excusing v. justifying depending on norms. An example would be, I know it was wrong but I did it for my family. People neutralize their violence of crime because society expects them to and are expected to account for their deviant/criminal behavior.

It is important to examine individual’s behavior during an investigation and to examine any claims of automatism. Automatism is when individual’s thoughts or intentions do not consciously perform the correct behavior or normal actions. Automatism also means that individuals may have committed a crime or did something involuntarily. There are many individuals who believe that automatism is a defense. However, some researchers believe that automatism is not a legal defense. There are cases of impairment and involuntary criminal acts, such as hypoglycemia while driving that warrant for the automatism defense. In addition, individual’s behavior before, during, and after a crime can determine the cause of crime. It is important within the criminal justice field to determine if these claims are true and so that they can be ruled out as a defense. According to Child and Reed (2014), “Having recognized that automatism plays an inculpatory role within the law, we have then analyzed this role and concluded that it is defective: prior fault automatism lacks the equivalent blameworthiness necessary to fairly substitute for even missing basic intent offence elements” (p. 185). The automatism defense and individual’s behavior can determine the cause of crime, but does not always give a legal defense in a case.

By contrast, rational choice theory does not apply to certain offenses such as, involuntarily manslaughter or unintentional assaults that delinquents are less likely to consider about the possible benefits. For example, involuntarily manslaughter can occur when a delinquent is intoxicated and accidentally ran over a pedestrian. Certainly, this accident is irresponsible behavior, but the adolescent is not rationally outweighing the consequences and the benefit; thus, the rational choice theory would not apply to this offense. Unintentional assaults may occur if kids feel threatened by their friends, family, or peers and decided to attack them in order to protect themselves or their love ones. In this scenario, adolescents are not motivated by

What is the aim of moral (ethical) theory that you learned from the reading? Elaborate on this by explaining how you think that having a clearer understanding of ethics can affect your life.

As the nineties began, the general theory of crime became the most prominent criminological theory ever proposed; furthermore, it is empirically recognized as the primary determinant in deviant and criminal behaviors. Known also as the self-control theory, the general theory of crime can most simply be defined as the absence or lack of self-control that an individual possesses, which in turn may lead them to commit unusual and or unlawful deeds. Authored by educator Michael R. Gottfredson and sociologist Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1990) essentially “dumbed down” every theory of crime into two words, self-control. The widely accepted book holds that low self-control is the main reason that a person initiates all crimes, ranging from murder and rape to burglary and embezzlement. Gottfredson and Hirschi also highlighted, in A General Theory of Crime (1990), that low self-control correlates with personal impulsivity. This impulsive attitude leads individuals to become insensitive to deviant behaviors such as smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and gambling (p. 90). The extreme simplicity, yet accuracy, of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime (self-control theory), make it the most empirically supported theory of criminal conduct, as well as deviant acts.