Article Analysis of 'Former Sheriff Guilty in Successor's Killing'
929 Words4 Pages
Describe Dilemma: What was the ethical dilemma the professional faced? Given the information provided in the article, Former Sheriff Guilty in Successor's Killing the most profound ethical dilemma faced by the involved criminal justice professionals is the decision to develop a plea for the actual perpetrators of the crime that allowed immunity upon testifying against the mastermind of the plot to kill the newly elected sheriff. Given the history of the ousted sheriff, Sidney Dorsey there is a clear sense that the prosecution and judges involved developed the opinion that despite the involvement of hired assassins the most dangerous criminal was in fact Dorsey. In so doing they to some degree sacrificed their cases against the assassins by allowing them to testify with impunity after facing acquittals in their own murder trials. Patrick Cuffy, Paul Skyers, Melvin Walker and David Ramsey, all admitted to taking part in the killing but were offered deals that allowed all to walk away with little to no consequences.
Describe Options Realized: What options did the professional identify to resolve the dilemma?
The options the criminal justice professionals faced included at least two scenarios, one where they held the hired assassins accountable in trial at the risk of not being able to then form a case against Dorsey. Though there was also a risk of the criminal trials of the assassins resulting in convictions as well as information that would allow for the successful