Utilitarianism In Criminal Justice

Crime and violence is rampant throughout the world. Laws exist to maintain order and peace and provide for the safety and well-being of all members of society. Acts that disrupt and threaten this system of order are deemed criminal in nature and are punishable by law. It is believed that criminal types operate from a self-centered framework that shows little, if any regard, for the safety and well-being of others (Merton, 2006).

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

• Integrity: each police officer is presumed to do the right thing, at all times, regardless of the matter at hand, those involved and any other influences. Officers are held to a higher lever of integrity and expected to perform above all else, at all times (Baker, 2011).

The relationship among ethics and professional behavior in the direction of criminal justice is one, which is very vital. The point of the matter is that these individuals who are in places of power entails that he or she must equalize a balanced of business professionalism in accordance with the laws alongside a code of ethics that live inside and for the law along with their individual private morals and ethics. Numerous could dispute the battle among the ethics of a lawyer on behalf of somebody that they know to be guilty and they would have a usable disagreement in regard to what way ethical it is. A lawyer has the decision to not defend an individual if they feel so motivated to do so. Still, in this state one has rules in one’s laws that

In order to answer this scenario, I need to look at the underlying ethical system and the moral rules leading to my judgment. As in many scenarios, there are conflicting moral rules that could justify different judgments. While police officers are supposed to enforce laws, they are also primarily expected to protect life and property (Nakate, 2011). Public safety is the primary concern of police officers. Therefore, unless a law involves mandatory reporting, then an officer is expected to exercise some discretion involving those laws. The theory behind requiring permits in order to hold a rally is that some rallies can lead to dangers for the public. Therefore, in this scenario, I would have to determine whether there was a reasonable likelihood that the rally might become violent. It is important to realize that even if the sponsoring group would not advocate violence, any rally about a controversial issue has the ability to become violent. Whether or not the tipster is providing accurate information is not of critical importance, because planning to hold a rally without a permit is not illegal; holding a rally without a permit is not illegal. As a police officer, I could ethically respond to the tip by going to the head of the group and ask if they were planning to hold a rally the next day and remind him of the permit requirement. I could do this without neglecting my

The criminal justice system is a system of law enforcement that is involved in prosecuting, sentencing, and punishing those who have committed a criminal offence. When every member of society is aware of their individual rights and the laws enforced, the criminal justice system is very effective, but when a contributor to society is mentally insane and commits a criminal offence everything changes. In Frontline’s A Crime of Insanity, a twenty-six year old psychology student, Ralph Tortoricci, walked across the Albany campus of the State University of New York with a hunting knife and a Remington .270 rifle. He took a class hostage and later wounded a nineteen year old sophomore. Ralph obviously committed a crime but the problem is: was he

No matter what job you have in the criminal justice system there will always be ethical dilemmas that arise. As a person who’s job is to enforce the law there is always a way to step over the boundaries whether it be unfair treatment to citizens, inmates or agencies. There is always areas of the career to consider and in order to make everyone happy there are steps that need to be taken. From the police officer on the street to the parole board there is always something that could come up which could have consequences for either decision so which is the right one?

This has to be one of my favorite assignments since becoming a student at Kaplan. I have been interested in the Criminal Justice since I was a small child. I come from a long line of military, however, my passion has always been Criminal Law. I remember even as a young girl in the 2nd grand, I had dreams and aspirations of becoming a lawyer. Now that I have an ex husband, and two children of my own and find the justice system a little “Leewayish” (if that’s even a word) on dead beat fathers, my dream has now become to be a “Ball busting District Attorney for deadbeat moms and dads. I am sick and tired of

Since the 19th century, plea bargaining has become an important part of the criminal justice system. This is because prosecutors have often been overwhelmed with a tremendous amount of cases. At the same time, the cost and time involved with conducting a trial can become an added burden. To address these challenges, most district attorneys will use plea bargaining as way to dispense justice and reduce their backlog in cases. (Fisher, 2004, pp. 40 62)

In Just Mercy, the criminal justice system is alluded to being unjust. In today’s society, the justice system still remains in a corrupt state. The justice system today versus in the book Just Mercy is similar because of certain laws, criminal cases, and societal issues.

It is no secret that the criminal justice system, as a whole, has some major problems that could be fixed. Some of us may not agree with some laws, but one thing is for sure, no one is above law, or are they? Three areas of the system that could use some revision include police discretion, plea bargain and jury nullification.

In contrast, breaking the law is not unfair if it can benefit the greater good. Utilitarianism is a general ethical theory which states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the amount of happiness or wellbeing it produces. This theory can then be used as a basis for the state in the following way. For example, “breaking the law is exactly what Nelson Mandela did to bring about change. At first he tried to end Apartheid through peaceful negotiations, but when that failed, violence erupted. He was prosecuted and sentenced to 27 years in prison for his actions. He did not give up, however, on his dream to end Apartheid in South Africa. After his release in the year 1990, he again took on a peaceful approach for ending this

There are several different ethical dilemmas given in this scenario. The fact that there is a possibility that you are going to let a criminal free because you heard the prosecution say that he confessed to the crime is the main one. Could you go back to the jury room during deliberation and honestly ignore what was instructed to you to ignore by the judge, even if that mean allowing a murder go free.

This situation is similar to the one above. My reasoning, is that they have a “what if” aspect to them. That is one of the problems of utilitarianism, predicting what the outcome could be is highly unlikely. Nine out of ten times, citizens would respond that the officer should pull over and investigate what is indeed happening. Even I believe that he should pull over and teach the rookie cop how to handle the situation. I view it being beneficial for the rookie cop to learn something. Simultaneously, it could also be beneficial for the teenagers and lead them to generate exceptional decisions, for instance, not smoking pot in the open. When it comes to the utilitarianism approach, it is based on what people perceive as right or wrong. Were

In any event, motives and consequences are two different factors that place a judgement on a course of action. Motive is the influence of choices and actions which is characterized as an input; whereas, the output would be the consequence or result of the actions. Furthermore, there are limitations to both of the concepts because motives are interchangeable due to various circumstances. For consequences, it cannot be precisely be determined by contemplation. Thus, motives are more suitable in answering the question- Should we judge actions by motives or consequences- because there are reasonable explanations and the choices that one makes is the reason why one is human.