Case Studies
Chapter 1: Ethics, Crime, and Justice: An Introductory Note to Students
Though apprehensive and nervous about your first experience as a juror, you quickly button your jacket and head into court to await the proceedings. When you received your notice for jury duty in the mail, you sighed with exasperation and complained to your coworkers at your new job. Fresh out of college with hopeful eyes, you were determined to bring positive change to your community as a social worker, and jury duty seemed like an unnecessary interruption in your plan. Now, you are about to confront this disruption and seek to do so hastily.
You assumed that the case was cut-and-dried when you heard that an 18-year-old boy shot and killed his two mentors in an afterschool youth program in the Bronx. Because this area has been plagued by a vicious cycle of poverty and crime, you believed that the murders of these two prominent white men probably had to do with monetary motives, but during the first hour of trial, the defense attorney presented facts that changed your perception of the young man accused of first-degree homicide.
Though you had presumed that the defendant, Jackson Carter, grew up in a difficult world far from the manicured lawns in your neighborhood, you were not expecting to hear that his mother passed away when he was 15 and that he was forced to move in with his grandmother. Jackson’s father had been in prison for most of his life, so Jackson acted as guardian of his little brother and three sisters. While he was a great student during his freshman year of high school, he became sullen after the death of his mother and was suspended for fighting in school and for drug possession. As time passed, he struggled to work two part-time jobs to support his siblings and grandmother, but was unable to remain dedicated to his schoolwork. Consequently, a teacher recommended that he partake in an afterschool activity to add structure to his life.
At age 15, Carter started his participation in the program where he met Gabriel Smith and Jack Henderson, two white, middle-aged men who dedicated their spare time to the program. Unfortunately, Carter soon learned that their intentions were not so innocent, and he endured sexual abuse at their hands for three years. There were various times when Carter attempted to report the abuse—at times to teachers and once even to the police—but nothing happened. Shielded by a seemingly impeccable reputation, these two men were highly valued in the community, and every report that Carter made was ignored and regarded as an attempt to get out of the program. During Carter’s last year in the program, his little brother was introduced to the program. Carter feared that his brother, too, would become a victim of abuse. After witnessing the two men whispering with his brother, Owen, he brought a gun to the school one afternoon and shot both men in an attempt to end his abuse and protect his brother.
As you and the other jury members deliberate, you seem to be one of the few who empathize with Carter and the circumstances that led him to commit murder.
Questions:
Carter was trying to end his own abuse, but most importantly wanted to protect his little brother from enduring similar treatment.
The social context of justice informs us that we must be concerned with offenders before they commit crime. In this case, the social actors failed Carter by not helping him out of his abusive situation.
Yes, the officers who ignored Carter’s reports of abuse acted unethically by contradicting the social context of justice. Carter was legally unable to receive justice with regard to the abuse he endured, because his complaints fell on deaf ears.
Chapter 2: Utilitarian and Deontological Approaches to Criminal Justice Ethics
As you finish curling your hair, you hear Jennifer calling up the stairs to you. It is your second year in the sorority, and you were late getting home from working at a local restaurant, so everyone else had already left for the mixer at the largest fraternity on campus. Eager and impatient, Jennifer steps outside and jokingly threatens to leave you if you are not outside within the next few seconds. Quickly, you throw some shoes on and run down the stairway to meet up with Jennifer before walking to the fraternity together. While approaching the fraternity, you see lots of other college students roaming the streets, most of whom appear intoxicated. You have been so busy working and attending class lately that you relish the opportunity to join them in their festivities.
An hour passes in the fraternity and you notice that the majority of the sisters have all linked up with a fraternity member, but you continue looking for Jennifer. You are approached by two fraternity brothers. They notice you have been drinking a little, but continue to encourage you in drinking games. Eventually, you become intoxicated to the point that you cannot walk. The two men pick you up and carry you upstairs. Scared and confused, you start calling for your sorority sisters, but do not have luck finding any of them until you reach the second floor. There you see Jennifer with another fraternity brother and reach your arm out for her to help you. She just smiles and raises her glass up to you in a congratulatory manner. “Have fun, Carly,” she chants.
In the morning, you wake up and find you are in a bed in the fraternity house. All you wanted last night was to go home, but you find out from one of the men who brought you upstairs that you had sexual intercourse with both men. Legally, this constitutes rape, as you were intoxicated and unable to give consent. Knowing that the fraternity members are respected and extremely popular around campus, you ponder the consequences of reporting the rape to the authorities. You know that in most rape cases, the victims are blamed, and you already feel guilty enough about your alcohol consumption on the night prior.
Questions
As it is concerned with consequences, utilitarianism would require you to report the crime to prevent others from being victimized. After due consideration, the action that is morally correct is the one that produces the greatest good (amount of happiness) for the greatest number of people.
Deontology, the study of duty, would have you report the crime as your duty to society (i.e., protecting other women from future crime).
Jennifer could have satisfied deontology by fulfilling her duty as a friend and protecting you, as well as utilitarianism by defusing the situation and preventing the fraternity brothers from having the opportunity to engage in sexual behaviors with you.
Chapter 3: Justice, Ethics, and Peacemaking
As a 20-year veteran of the local police department, you have started to “burn out” on the typical grind of patrol work. As the years have passed, the thrill and excitement of the job have gradually turned to cynicism and resentment toward the public. You have always patrolled a particular district that is known for its poverty and high crime. Your lieutenant has recently begun a community policing program that requires officers to walk the beat or patrol on bicycle instead of in patrol cars. The intent is to get to know the residents and improve relationships with police.
The lieutenant senses that you need a new challenge and asks you to become one of the community policing officers. Initially you are reluctant, saying “I already know everyone because I have arrested most of them before.” However, despite your initial cynicism, you agree to participate.
After a month on the new assignment, your attitude begins to change as you see a different perspective of the residents’ lives. You take particular interest in one woman named Sue. You arrested Sue two years ago for drug use, and she has just returned to the community after incarceration. After talking to her, you realize that she is emotionally scarred from her prison experience and is unable to find an employer that will hire a convicted felon. She remembers you as the arresting officer and is very hostile to you. During your term as a patrol officer, you have become acquainted with many of the business owners, so you begin to search actively for a job suitable for Sue. This action draws criticism from many of your former patrol friends, who mock you for “quitting real police work in order to waste your time finding jobs for criminals.”
Questions
According to the peacemaking perspective, the officer—as well as everyone in the community—has an ethical duty to care for and attempt to improve Sue’s adjustment back into the community.
The peacemaking perspective holds that we are all connected, and that everyone in society will benefit from Sue finding a job.
According to the peacemaking perspective, the officer should not seek retribution for Sue’s behavior. Rather, he should care about the situation and work to improve it. If the officer can successfully practice conflict resolution in this situation, the tension may lessen over time, which would benefit the officer, Sue, and the community.
Chapter 4: Learning Police Ethics
You are a police officer, and you position yourself beside your new partner. You feel both nervousness and excitement. You have recently graduated from the police academy and are starting your initial assignment with the field training officer (FTO). You have excelled in your education and have been hired by the department. You will be the only officer in your agency with a Master’s degree. This has resulted in some resentment by fellow officers during your time at the academy, as you have a strong desire to move up the ranks of the department as quickly as possible. Many of the officers, however, fear that higher education is not a substitute for “real life” learning, which can only be obtained by experience as a patrol officer.
You have worked diligently in the academy to prove that in addition to being an excellent student, you also have the skill set to excel in the field. You have graduated from the academy at the top of your class in each area, yet realize that the field training officer orientation is what starts your life as a “real cop.”
As your first shift is coming to an end, the FTO makes a routine traffic stop of a blue truck that has been swerving across the road. As your partner is conducting the stop, it becomes apparent that the driver is intoxicated. The driver indicates that he lives only five blocks away, and politely asks if he can simply drive home. Your FTO allows him to drive home, but follows the truck until it reaches its destination. This course of action departs from the official “zero tolerance” policy of the department, aimed at removing officer discretion in DUI cases. When you question the FTO about allowing the driver to continue driving while intoxicated, he responds by saying: “The paperwork on this DUI would have taken me two hours. Besides, we followed him home, making sure nobody was injured.”
Questions
As a new officer, you are facing the encounter stage. At this stage, the material learned at the academy is reinforced and often replaced with “real” police work.
You are placed in a difficult situation. The desire to prove yourself as worthy and to “fit in” might add to the pressure to ignore the field training officer’s actions.
The value of loyalty might be considered, as unconditional loyalty to fellow officers must be maintained in order to be accepted into the police subculture. Discretion is also important, as enforcement of the law should be based not only on what the law says but also on individual circumstances.
Chapter 5: Deception in Police Interrogations: Ethical Issues and Dilemmas
After a 20-year stint as an FBI special agent, you have recently been promoted to lead interrogator for the counter-terrorism unit. Your new responsibilities include handling the interrogation for suspected domestic and international terrorists. Suddenly your phone rings, and you see that it is your supervisor. He says, “Bill, we have a man in custody that is suspected of attempting to blow up the federal building in town. Worse, he claims that he is a part of a terror ring that is planning on conducting numerous attacks within the next few days. It is important to determine the identity of these individuals, or many lives are sure to be lost. We have adequate evidence that there are others involved, but the attacks will probably take place before we are able to track down the remaining suspects from the evidence that we have currently.”
Your recent promotion places great pressure on you to gain the needed information and stop the attacks. Failing to illicit the information might result in a demotion. After you inform the suspect of his Miranda rights and interrogate him for hours, the suspect is still not providing the information you need in order to locate the remaining terrorists. Finally, you imply to the suspect that his legal position will be improved if he provides the information. The suspect responds by stating he needs a written agreement that charges will be dropped to a misdemeanor if he turns over the other attackers. Aside from the fact that it is against FBI policy to promise charge reductions, you are concerned about the prospect of the suspect getting off so easily as a result of this proposed deal. Feeling frustrated, and also now knowing that the suspect does indeed have the information you need, you decide to use physical techniques. Grabbing a broom stick, you turn off the camera that is videotaping the interrogation and enter the interrogation room.
Questions
No. The Supreme Court in Brown v. Mississippi ruled that confessions obtained by brutality and torture are violations of the suspect’s due process rights.
This case is an example of an interrogation, as the investigators are trying to elicit information that will be used against the suspect. Miranda rights are read during interrogations.
No. Direct promises of leniency have been ruled unconstitutional. Police can only imply that such leniency will be given.
Chapter 6: Using Ethical Dilemmas in Training Police
Officer Tom Bukowski has been assigned to a foot patrol position in New Jersey for the past five years and is respected and loved by the community he serves. Every morning on duty, he gets coffee at a little, family-owned restaurant and often decides to order breakfast to go. Without fail, Meredith, the owner, insists that his meal is free.
After he has talked with the regulars at the restaurant, Officer Bukowski always turns the corner and walks a few blocks until he finds Earl. Earl is an older, homeless veteran who can be found with his scruffy dog and tattered blanket at various locations on the street. The conversation usually goes the same way: “Good morning, Earl,” Office Bukowski enthusiastically greets. “Morning, Officer Tom. Thanks for the bacon and eggs,” exclaims Earl, as he pulls apart some of the toast the officer gives him to feed to his dog, Henry. The two men then share some conversation before Officer Bukowski continues on his beat.
Recently, the young officer has noticed that a new Latino man and his family have joined the community. He suspects that they are illegal immigrants, but is not sure what to do about the situation. Additionally, the man just started working at the little restaurant the officer frequents each morning. Officer Bukowski looks the other way. He knows that if he turns the man in, the family could lose their only source of income. He also knows that turning the man in will probably cause the restaurant owners to stop providing him with the daily free meal that he donates to Earl.
Questions
According to the text, yes, because it could lead to more serious unethical conduct. This could be open to interpretation, as some forms may not seem as serious, but all gratuities actually hinder the legitimacy of the police.
In this situation, as an example, Officer Bukowski has accepted gratuities for so long that it seems it has induced him to turn his back on illegal activity. This is a form of corruption, and it could escalate into more serious issues. It also creates a perceived special status among certain individuals and their relationship to the police.
As Officer Bukowski’s duty is to protect and serve, deontology may rationalize his kind generosity toward the homeless man, but it would also criticize him for using the restaurant/café owners as a means to an end (i.e., to get the free food to give to Earl).
Chapter 7: Police Ethics, Legal Proselytism, and the Social Order: Paving the Path to Misconduct
During your third month as a Los Angeles police officer, the police chief requires all officers on your shift to attend a meeting bright and early in the morning. The sun is shining through the windows, and you are excited to see what the day will bring. Your partner, Officer Gideon Dean, winks at you and pats you on the back as he passes through and takes a seat up front. It is obvious that this meeting must be of importance, and you prepare yourself for the potential thrill of a new and exuberating adventure. Chief Ramirez walks in, and the room noise dulls to a silence. As the Chief clears his throat, he reminds the assembly of the recent gang activity in the area. He has been working with an informant, and he alerts you all to the possibility that there could be a meeting between members of a drug cartel and a well-known Latino gang in town. Though the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has not yet taken interest in the meeting, you and the other officers are encouraged to handle the situation seriously and are assigned to different patrol beats to monitor any suspicious activities.
That evening, you and Officer Dean are walking down a sidewalk when you suddenly see a man who seems to be of Latino descent run into a convenience store with a black bag in his hand. Suspicious, you both walk toward the store and, just upon entering, witness two additional Latinos in suits walking into the tiny store. After entering the store, you approach the man you saw with the bag. He appears to be in his early twenties and wears baggy clothing, similar to that often sported by the gang members discussed at the morning meeting. Officer Dean places his hand on his gun, in an attempt to be ready if danger arises. The man with the bag, now at the cash register completing a transaction, looks up at the two of you and then back at the two men in suits. As he turns to walk out of the store, Officer Dean starts to follow him. You decide it would probably be best to support your partner, so you follow him out into the street. When you least expect it, the man with the bag runs down an alley. Both you and Officer Dean chase him down until he reaches a dead end. He turns back and stares at you, but when Officer Dean starts yelling at him, the man looks confused and puts his hands up in the air. He ignores commands from Officer Dean to get down on the ground and instead places his hand in his pocket and begins to pull a large black item out of it. Without hesitation, Officer Dean repeatedly shoots the man until the man stops moving. When you check the man’s pulse to assess the situation, you discover that the black item he was pulling out of his pocket was his wallet, which contained documentation. The black bag, which you and Officer Dean both found suspicious, was filled with newborn-sized diapers.
Although police officers are granted permission to use lethal force under special circumstances, the chief demands that both you and Officer Dean are to be investigated and temporarily placed on suspension pending results from the investigation.
Questions
It is likely that the “thin blue line” mentality contributed to the officers’ perception of the man as a gang member. The police had been instructed to monitor Latino gang members for illegal activity, and this created a mentality of good-vs.-evil that led the officers to assume that the man was engaging in illegal behavior.
Officers often claim that the situation of abuse or misuse of authority could not have been avoided, and that they were led into the behavior. In this case, Officer Dean so firmly believed that there were Latino gang members participating in illegal activities that it clouded his judgment. The need to find these gang members and the “us-vs.-them” mentality caused him to misinterpret the actions of the individual. He assumed that the man had a gun and that he needed to shoot him to protect himself and others.
This largely depends on whether the shooting is deemed legally justified. An unjustified shooting may result in legal action, including prosecution. This might be an example of legally permissible but unethical conduct, as the officer may have unnecessarily placed himself in a position which then required deadly force. A minor punishment may not be enough to remind the officers of the victim who was affected. A minor sanction would legitimize their behavior and ignore, or place fault with, the victim.
Officers could be required to undergo training every so many years during their service as a police officer to remind them of the humanness of the individuals with whom they interact. There could also be a longer session of ethics during training in the police academy.
Chapter 8: Whatever Happened to Atticus Finch? Lawyers as Legal Advocates and Moral Agents
You are a public defender of a medium-sized court district. “I’ve got a new case for you, Terry,” says your legal assistant. “It seems that this defendant, Jim, has been accused of sexually assaulting one of his employees.” You recognize the victim, Suzie, immediately, as you are aware that she was involved in a similar case four years ago. In that case, Suzie had accused her former employer of sexual assault after she scored poorly on a performance evaluation. During that trial, evidence was presented to show that Suzie had feared for her job, and raised the sexual assault allegation simply to obtain a monetary settlement. In fact, there was never any proof that the sexual assault had taken place.
At first, looking over the current case, the situation appears similar, and you suspect that Jim has been falsely accused by his employee. However, Jim admits to the sexual assault during your first consultation. Jim states that he was aware of Suzie’s former case, and that he also knew that your state permitted evidence of past accusations in criminal courts. Jim evidently saw Suzie as an easy target, knowing that admitting this evidence would raise serious suspicions with any jury.
Back at your desk, you contemplate the case. Jim is correct in assuming that a jury would likely use the previous case against Suzie. Moreover, the physical evidence in this case is very weak. Questioning the propriety of Suzie’s personal life and informing the jury of the previous case will likely result in an acquittal. While this will be a relatively simple case to win, you are concerned both about Jim’s behavior and also with damaging Suzie’s reputation unnecessarily.
Questions
Cohen would advocate for the defense attorney to be a moral agent. Among other things, being a moral agent requires avoiding the harming of others in the process of representing your client, being loyal to your client, and making your own moral decisions to the best of your ability.
The legal advocate would likely have no qualms about bringing up such evidence, as he or she must prioritize pursuing the client’s interest in creating reasonable doubt.
The role of the defense attorney is to test the evidentiary weight of the prosecution’s case and to offer up any evidence that would create reasonable doubt.
Chapter 9: Ethical Challenges for Prosecutors
Grace Nelson was starting her fifth year as a prosecutor and was transitioning into a newly renovated office space that overlooks the city.
Working diligently with the police and politicians, Grace had securely convicted every case she had prosecuted and had earned a glowing reputation. However, although nothing was ever overtly said to her, she could sense that some of the male lawyers resented her success. One of the county politicians recently hired his nephew, who was highly praised by the community and the Democratic Party. Grace was assigned to overlook the nephew’s transition to the new office and tasked with providing him with assistance until he had adjusted to his position.
The nephew, James Monroe, was approaching his first wedding anniversary with his wife, Lauren. They were also expecting their first-born child, a boy they planned on naming Elijah. Lauren eagerly supported her husband’s career and seemed ecstatic about their future together. When Grace and James met, they seemed to get along, and Grace felt comfortable that James did not resent her. It was not until a month later, when James acted inappropriately, that Grace started to question the young prosecutor and his judgments. While using the copying machine for a case she was working on, Grace heard James talking on the phone as he walked past her. A few seconds later, he followed her into her office to ask how she was and grabbed her buttocks as she went to walk away. Stunned, Grace pulled away and asked him to leave her office.
For a couple of days, Grace debated whether to say anything or make an issue out of the inappropriate incident. She knew that she was already not favored by many of her colleagues in the field, as some of the men seemed not to appreciate her independent nature and dedicated drive. She figured that if she did say anything or try to press civil charges that the men would label her weak and the politician who had hired James would be unappreciative, to say the least. Yet, she knew that she would be protecting herself and would potentially be saving future women from enduring sexual harassment at the hands of James. While contemplating her decision, Grace decided to stay away from James’ office and kept to herself while working.
One day Grace heard laughter from a female coming from James’ office. When she walked by, to her surprise, she saw it was a woman other than Lauren, and the woman was buttoning up James’ shirt. Troubling her was not only the infidelity James appeared to be committing with regard to his pregnant wife, but the fact that she knew this woman as a call girl who targeted high-end officials. Now, Grace was faced with additional decisions to make.
Questions
Yes, Grace should present the information to those in power. If James were sanctioned, it would help to legitimize the honesty of the lawyers in the office and would possibly protect women in the future. While the men in the office might resent her, or mistrust her claims of sexual harassment, Grace should report both the behaviors of sexual harassment and possible improprieties with a prostitute.
Varying responses are acceptable to this question, depending on your opinions, but if James is unethical outside of the courtroom, it might make the entire system seem corrupt. Considering that he may be involved in illegal behavior, it would be difficult for many to trust that he could fairly and effectively do his job. Moreover, if his corruption progressed into more serious deeds, it could lead to even more illegal behavior.
If he is already committing crimes (i.e., soliciting prostitutes), then it is not farfetched to assume that James would continue on to commit more serious unethical behaviors. The second part of this question is opinion-based. Your opinion should be justified; answers could include personal gain, favoritism and bias, abuse of power, flawed personal life, deceitfulness, denial of due process, and neglect of duties.
Chapter 10: Balancing Harms: The Ethics and Purposes of Criminal Sentencing
Dwayne Cooper and Jacob Denver are both being reviewed by the parole board after displaying exceptional behavior and progress during their years in prison.
Cooper, a 25-year-old African-American male, completed high school only through his sophomore year. Though he earned his GED while in prison, he does not have any additional education. Unfortunately, he has not received any training for jobs and will most likely return back to the same impoverished neighborhood in the Bronx. Luckily, he has received some rehabilitation during his prison sentence and has been educated on the harmful effects of drugs, and also understands that marijuana is not as dangerous as the majority of other drugs on the street. Though he has positive support systems, he and his friends have not seen anything wrong with the use and distribution of marijuana in the past, and it is possible that he will return to this behavior again in the near future.
Denver is a 30-year-old Caucasian male, who received his associate’s degree in business and grew up in a middle-class, suburban neighborhood. Denver has previously used marijuana to relax, and has informed the officers upon his arrest that he needs it for medicinal purposes, though he could not provide documentation to support this claim.
Both Cooper and Denver were convicted on drug charges, specifically the possession and distribution of marijuana. You are on the parole board and have to predict their possibility for a safe and positive transition back into society.
Questions
This answer is opinion-based, but you might believe in the legitimacy of parole due to “good time” and positive behaviors, especially if you want to steer away from prison overcrowding. On the other hand, you may believe in truth-in-sentencing because of its simple fairness.
There is much more that could be done to prepare offenders for success on the outside. Some individuals have not been given the same educational opportunities as others. The U.S. criminal justice system could work to ensure that individuals receive rehabilitation treatment, as well as academic and vocational classes while in prison, and could make certain that parole officers monitor parolees strictly upon release. Job placement could also help parolees steer away from criminal behaviors and keep them away from the negative influences that surround them.
An offender who is a risk for future criminal behavior but is incorrectly labeled as safe is considered a “false negative.”
Chapter 11: Punishment, Crime, and Ethics
You sip your coffee and rush to make sure your kids have their lunches before heading to the courthouse for work. During your 10 years as a judge, you feel you have seen just about everything and still try to remain compassionate toward all of the individuals who face criminal convictions. Once at work, you see a large crowd in the courtroom and are ready to face the various cases before you. After lunch, you hear the case of Noah Washington, who is accused of violently assaulting a 27-year-old woman. You learn that Washington is 40 years of age, has two previous felony convictions, and was under parole supervision for the second felony when the assault took place. Suffering from hallucinations and delusions, Washington often cannot function normally when he is not taking his medication.
You are torn with regard to the decision you have to make. Under the state’s three-strikes law, you could give him a life sentence for this new charge. As an alternative, you could process this case as a parole violation instead of a new charge, which would result in Washington getting out of prison at the end of his original sentence. As a third option, you could keep Washington on active parole supervision but mandate an intensive rehabilitation program aimed at those with mental illnesses who need counseling and supervision. This was not mandated by the original parole board decision to release Washington, but you feel that it could be of some benefit.
According to the retribution argument of an eye-for-an-eye, you should give Washington a lengthy term to account for the trauma the victim endured. However, you know that individuals with special needs, especially those with mental illnesses, do not benefit from the harsh environment of prison and are more likely to be targets of abuse from other prisoners. You also worry that a prison sentence may not reform an individual with mental illnesses, but would instead exacerbate his problems.
Questions
Due to prison overcrowding, some facilities rely on solitary confinement when dealing with misconduct conducted by mentally ill inmates.
To some, a rehabilitative sentence may seem too light of a punishment, but the text asks us to consider what justice we are providing if we cause Washington to be subjected to similar treatment in prison. In prison, the mentally ill may not receive the treatment needed and may potentially come out of prison as more dangerous individuals.
This would be an attempt at specific deterrence, as you are trying to prevent reoffending by making Washington aware of the serious consequences of future criminal conduct.
Chapter 12: To Die or Not to Die: Morality, Ethics, and the Death Penalty
You sit as a juror for the capital case of Reggie McAllister, who is to be tried for first-degree homicide. Reggie, who is 18 years old, went to get medicine for his mother, who was very sick with cancer. He said he brought a gun with him, knowing that he would need protection on the street on which the pharmacy was located. On his way there, Reggie ran into a member of a rival gang. It is alleged that when the individual started arguing with him, Reggie pulled his gun out and shot him. The prosecution described Reggie as cold, calculated, heartless, and mischievous, but you wonder if this is accurately descriptive of him as a person. You look around the room and see his mother, who is still fairly sick, hugging his two young sisters as they sit and watch. They all have tears streaming down their faces. It appears that Reggie’s father had not been present in his life for many years, which may have led to making a gang alliance attractive.
In addition to his family, some teachers and a high school football coach testified to Reggie’s good character, pledging that he was a conscientious student and friend, with potential to promote positive change in the community, if given the chance. His victim, a 20-year-old male from a rival gang, belonged to a white supremacy group that frequented the neighborhood. When Reggie testified, he alleged that he did not intend to kill anyone, but brought his gun for protection in a violent neighborhood. After lengthy deliberations, you and the other jurors declare Reggie guilty of first-degree homicide. During the sentencing stage, you consider that mistakes are often made and that putting an offender on death row is a long and extremely expensive process.
Questions
Unreformed death row is characterized by isolation. Prisoners are mostly kept in their cells and are released only for short periods to exercise or shower.
The Furman cases show that paroled murderers are not likely to commit murder again, and only 10% even recidivate with a felony. Answers should take into account the successes of the paroled murderers from the Furman cases. The low recidivism rate suggests that these individuals were reformed.
The peacemaking principle would encourage the criminal justice system to see things from Reggie’s point of view and would promote forgiveness. The goal would be to have a positive impact on Reggie as well as the family of the victim and the offender.
Utilitarians who favor capital punishment argue that capital punishment is a general deterrent, holding that it is so severe a penalty that it deters or frightens individuals who might be contemplating committing a murder out of committing one. However, most studies show negligible deterrent impact of the death penalty.
Chapter 13: Ethical Issues in Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections
Charlie Higgins was recently released from prison into an intensive supervision parole program. Charlie grew up in Boston. He was incarcerated in prison for 15 years for an armed robbery he engaged in with his friends while high on cocaine. Though he had successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program during his sentence and seemed to be doing well, the parole board was hesitant to release him and was extremely concerned for his well-being after release. They feared that he would commit another crime or get hooked on drugs again, which would likely perpetuate the cycle.
During the parole board’s meeting, one man arose and praised the intensive supervision program for its success in reducing recidivism rates. After much deliberation, with the man’s praises of the program in mind, the parole board decided they would assign Charlie to an intensive supervision program.
They assigned Charlie to a bright-eyed, excited new parole officer, Officer Nicholas Burnby. After the first month of parole, Nicholas subjected Charlie to a drug test and found that Charlie had been using marijuana. Nicholas now has to decide whether he should report Charlie or find a way to ensure that Charlie stays away from harder drugs. Though he was eager to start the job, Nicholas is now exhausted and feeling hopeless about the future of his career as a parole officer.
Questions
Intensive supervision has not been found to reduce recidivism any better than traditional probation and parole methods. In fact, the results are about the same. Moreover, intensive supervision imposes upon offenders such strict standards that parolees are more likely to go back to prison because they have a greater likelihood of being caught committing a violation of their parole/probation.
This answer is opinion-based, but since the test detected marijuana only, Nicholas could play the waiting game suggested in the text and arrange to come another day in order to prevent the need to send Charlie back to prison. Nicholas could also attempt to monitor Charlie to ensure that no other drugs are being used, but this may be hard to do.
One suggestion in the text is that officers team up, with one officer performing the duty of the enforcer while the other assists the probationer. However, studies have shown that this does not necessarily work.
Chapter 14: Restorative Justice and Ethics: Real-World Applications
As the executive director of a progressive restorative justice program in a small rural region, you constantly struggle to convince the various local juvenile court systems to refer delinquents to your program. However, the idea of restorative justice is slowly being accepted by an increasing number of the local city and county court systems. You are particularly excited that you are receiving the first referral from the adjacent county court system, which has so far been reluctant to emphasize restorative justice methods.
As you open the case file, you notice that the clients are two teenage females. One was badly beaten in an unprovoked attack. This type of offense is typically handled by a victim-offender reconciliation meeting, which encourages both parties to interact and resolve the issues, with you acting as the mediator. From the very beginning of the meeting, however, you realize that this is not your typical case. The offender refused to show remorse to the victim and will not accept responsibility for her actions. This makes the victim uncomfortable, forcing you to end the reconciliation meeting early.
After the parties leave your office, a decision must be made on the best course of action. You write a letter to the referring judge explaining how the meeting went. This is frustrating to you, as this unsuccessful meeting will likely lead the judge to regret handling the case by restorative justice means and make her less likely to refer future cases. You are also aggravated with yourself, as perhaps another restorative justice method would have worked more effectively than the reconciliation meeting.
Questions
This case could be handled by either a reparative board or a victim-offender panel.
This answer is opinion-based, but there are many possible benefits to restorative justice that make it worth attempting an alternate method. Even if the offender is uncooperative, a victim-offender panel might still benefit the victim.
Restorative justice would be appropriate in this type of case as long as the parties are willing to participate. Requiring or coercing participation in restorative justice programs will likely not be effective.
Chapter 15: Keeping an Eye on the Keeper: The Impact of Corrupt Practices on the Prison
Christopher Reynolds is an experienced warden at an adult correctional facility in North Carolina. Lately, the correctional facilities have been under storm as a result of claims of prison corruption and prisoner abuse at the hands of correctional officers. Warden Reynolds has been worried about the reputation of the facility for quite some time. Rumors have surfaced that there have been incidents of theft, trafficking in contraband, and misuse of authority, but there has been little evidence to support these claims. Still, the warden knows it is his responsibility to ensure that the public maintains their trust in the system and that the prisoners receive adequate treatment and protection.
Unfortunately, Warden Reynolds has had to operate the prison on a fairly low budget for the past year and, as a result, has the financial support to let go and replace only one correctional officer, even though he suspects two have been involved in these corrupt activities. Until he can hire another correctional officer, he will be able to fire only the one he deems most culpable of corruption.
As he walks into the lunchroom, the warden comes into contact with April Owens, one of the prison guards suspected of corrupt behavior. Officer Owens looks up and smiles at the warden, who politely requests to speak with her. When they are talking, she confesses to her part in the corruption at the facility. In fact, she states that she often would provide prisoners with cell phones and extra reading materials for a small fee. She apologizes and states that she only wanted to make the prisoners feel more comfortable during their incarceration. In the same conversation, she informs you that Officer Travis Malone has been suspected of physically abusing his inmates to maintain control over them and has required that they pay a fee to receive protection from him.
Questions
Officer Owens is guilty of misfeasance, because she provided cell phones and extra reading material for inmates. Officer Malone is guilty of malfeasance, because assault is an illegal activity.
Answers will vary, but the text would suggest that the warden should fire Officer Malone because his corruption physically harms the inmates and constitutes a form of assault, which would be classified as malfeasance. Officer Owens, who simply wanted to help the inmates, but did so in the wrong way, participated in corruption that is categorized as misfeasance.
Officer Malone has physically harmed inmates and thus should be held accountable for violating their civil rights.
Chapter 16: Ethics and Prison: Selected Issues
Zachary Hopkins is a 24-year-old inmate in a California correctional facility. Before his arrest and incarceration, he had been raised in a poor neighborhood and deprived of educational and vocational opportunities. After high school, Hopkins became employed part-time at a McDonalds. He witnessed the birth of his daughter, Ada, a year later. Though he and his girlfriend both worked part-time jobs, over the years, they struggled to support Ada in the way they felt she deserved. As a result, he robbed a few convenient stores for extra money. He was subsequently convicted on robbery charges and received a prison sentence of 10 years. Zachary’s daughter was only two years old at the time he was incarcerated, and will be approximately 12 years old at the time of his release.
You are in charge of surveying California prisons and evaluating their conditions to either propose reformations or confirm that the prisons are adequately serving their inmates. As you enter this particular facility, you notice Hopkins in a cramped cell with another inmate. There are two pictures in the room, one of a young child that belongs to Hopkins and one of a scantily clad woman that belongs to his cellmate, a large man with a stern face. When you pass through their cells, you realize that there are no televisions and the mood is eerily quiet. The warden approaches you and boasts a proud grin. He shakes your hand and giddily explains that you are about to witness the prisoners enter a chain gang where they will work on the highway. You confirm that you will be in attendance. Upon arrival at the scene, you witness Hopkins and 39 other men shackled together, lining the highway for the public to see. Cars and trucks pass by, sometimes with drivers honking or screaming obscenities, and you see embarrassed looks on the faces of the inmates. While others may recognize them solely for their criminal activity, you understand that they are human beings and are sons, daughters, mothers, and brothers. The warden brags about the shackles and provides excuses for the fact that the majority of those in the chain gang are African-American.
Later, after the prisoners’ second and last meal of the day, you are able to interview inmates to gain additional insight into the conditions they face. One of your interviews is with Hopkins. He greets you politely and then shyly awaits your questions. When you ask about his family, tears form in his eyes, but he quickly wipes them away. He informs you that he never had a chance to get a college education and that in the prison he and his fellow inmates are not allowed to watch television, attend classes, or visit with their families.
Questions
This answer depends on the individual responding. Some believe inmates should receive additional accommodations because they have already been scrutinized enough. Others disagree, especially those in favor of a “tough on crime” approach.
The authors suggest that chain gangs may promote negative stigmas from society and may only humiliate criminals. This is harmful because it encourages prisoners, too, to believe that they are only criminals and nothing more. The chapter also notes the similarity of chain gang conditions to the conditions U.S. slaves endured in the past.
This answer is opinion-based, but according to the text, faith-based interventions could promote hope among particular prisoners by affording them the opportunity to seek forgiveness and find meaning in their lives.
Chapter 17: Crime and Justice Myths
You receive a text message from your best friend urging you to turn on the local news station. Even though you are busy studying for your last final, you could use a distraction. As you head into your living room and turn the television on, you see the name of your university plastered across the screen, with two of your classmates’ names following. You turn the sound up out of curiosity. You hear that Julia McCauley and Tyrese Cornwall have been arrested for marijuana use. These two students have been in some of your general elective classes, and you have attended parties with them.
Apparently, a police officer had been walking through the vicinity of their apartment complex late Saturday night and reported smelling marijuana. In response to the odor, the cop walked around the corner, where he heard a group of people laughing in the front entrance of an apartment. He looked at the street, saw that there were a lot of cars, and assumed that a large party was taking place. When the officer entered the residence, the students complied with his directives and were respectful toward him. Though there were a lot of college students there, and a large majority of them were partaking in marijuana use, the officer arrested only the two whose names were on the apartment lease.
The news reporter describes the students as dangerous and irresponsible, claiming that rates of marijuana use are out of control and that these two “criminals” are examples of reckless college students. Even though the news media seem to be making them out to be dangerous criminals, you know these students to be hardworking. They receive As and Bs on all of their assignments, dedicate their time to philanthropic organizations, and serve as positive role models to their younger siblings. Suddenly you question the stories you have heard on the news before.
Questions
Race may well have played a factor in the media’s portrayal of the students. The text notes that researchers have found that local newscasts disproportionately represent racial minorities as criminal and were found to distort images of criminal defendants by race through predictors such as firearm usage, length of the story, and showing handcuffs.
The first laws prohibiting the cultivation, selling, and possession of marijuana were not created until the twentieth century, and then primarily as a means of controlling immigrants who were coming into the United States. As the war on drug persists, police often target minorities.
The dominant media and political agendas focus on criminalizing drug and street crimes, and thus take attention away from corporate crime, which may be more serious and harmful. If white-collar crime were to be given more attention, nonviolent crime such as marijuana use may not be treated as harshly or regarded as contemptuously.
Chapter 18: Juvenile Justice Ethical Issues: How Should We Treat Juveniles?
On your boring Monday shift at the precinct, you get a call alerting that patrol may need backup. “Finally,” you think to yourself, though you find it strange that a serious call has come in at 10 o’clock in the morning. You eagerly jump in the patrol car and smile over at your partner, Kristina Ramirez. You both engage in jokes about what could be so pressing in such a small town. As you drive through town, you see that many people surround the Taylor house. Outside of the home, five other squad cars line the driveway, with sirens blaring. Betty Taylor, who recently separated from her husband, is standing outside, screaming “Joshua” repeatedly. The other officers have tried to console her, but nothing seems to be working. As you walk toward the front door, you can see detectives and crime scene investigators walking through the living room.
Upon entering the home, you see the family’s youngest child, Andrew, sitting solemnly between two officers talking to him. You see a body lying on the hardwood floor in the dining room, just beyond the living room. Even though you have seen dead bodies before, you are hesitant to go closer to see who it is. You ask the detective what happened. Detective Powers turns to you and says “Little Andrew over there shot and killed his father, after finding out that his parents were about to get a divorce. I guess the kid couldn’t deal with the chance that his father, Joshua, would leave the family for his new girlfriend, their 26-year-old neighbor, Claire.”
Andrew just turned 15 years old and until the event was a seemingly happy kid who loved playing soccer and going on hikes with his dad and their golden retriever, Duke. Now Andrew would be facing serious criminal charges and experiencing emotional trauma following his irreversible actions. You know that the prosecutor will try to obtain a waiver to adult court to try Andrew for first-degree homicide, in order to ensure that the punishment will be severe. You worry that the adult courts would destroy the innocence still left within Andrew and prevent him from recovering emotionally.
Questions
This answer is opinion-based, but based on the information in the chapter, recidivism rates are higher for juveniles housed in adult facilities. Furthermore, juveniles are at increased risk for physical and sexual assault when incarcerated in adult correctional facilities.
Yes. Depending on the state, life without parole is a possible sentence in homicide offenses. However, mandatory life sentences are unconstitutional. In other words, the judge or jury must have the discretion to consider other punishments.
Many deontologists would argue that society has a duty to punish a serious offense with a harsh punishment. Other deontologists, however, would argue that society has the duty to take into consideration the lack of full brain development and the fact that juveniles are more often able to be rehabilitated than adults.
Chapter 19: Corporate Misconduct and Ethics
Growing up in the impoverished outskirts of Tampa, you worked hard to reach your goal to become manager of your hometown’s branch of a large mortgage company. Your company offers good pay, but the job also comes with a very competitive workplace environment. Specifically, your salary is commission-based, dependent upon how many mortgages are successfully processed through your branch. Further, the company routinely reassigns managers whose branches underperform in terms of the numbers of successful mortgages.
Growing up in this area has imbedded a deep appreciation for the community that you serve, and you strive to provide them the best possible customer service. Unfortunately, the economic reality of your hometown makes it difficult for your branch to process the same number of home loans as branches that are located in more affluent neighborhoods. Many of your friends, relatives, and acquaintances come to your bank for mortgage needs, but you are aware that their financial situation does not allow them to quality for a mortgage.
While you would never consider directly falsifying financial documents, you consider whether it would be advantageous to simply not put forth much effort in substantiating the income that borrowers claim that they make. You know that this is a tactic often used within your company. In fact, last year’s corporate meeting specifically mentioned the overburdensome nature of the income verification process and the ways to circumvent the requirements without being caught. While you technically have the legal obligation to authenticate the borrower’s income, being lax in this area will allow you to keep the manager position that you have worked so hard for, help your community afford better homes, and help your company (which has implicitly endorsed this tactic) make a better profit and therefore increase the stock price.
Questions
As is typical with corporate misconduct, the misconduct does not occur in a vacuum. The compensation structure, as well as the practice of removing managers of underperforming branches, has created an environment of intense temptation to maximize profits using unethical methods.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) makes it easier for whistleblowers to report fraud without fearing retaliation from their employer. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act (2010) allows for whistleblowers to share in some of the funds recovered in fraud settlements.
From a utilitarian perspective, the criminal prosecution of the company could do massive amounts of economic damage to innocent and unsuspecting citizens. The action that produces the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people might be a deferred prosecution agreement. However, a deontologist might argue that it is the government’s duty to prosecute the corporation the same as they would an individual.
Chapter 20: Ethics and Criminal Justice Research
Alicia is interested in studying the effects of domestic violence on children for her dissertation. Aware of the possible issues that would arise from interviewing young children (including possibly resurfacing traumatic memories), Alicia has decided to volunteer at a local women’s shelter to gain insight into the relationships between the mothers and their children. She hopes that the experience will avoid traumatizing the children, but also hopes it will afford her the opportunity to witness how children of various ages cope with the abuses they or their mother have experienced, their displacement from the home, and the fear they may have of their fathers or other abusers.
Alicia did not tell the employees at the shelter of her plan before entering. She knew that if she did she would probably be directed toward other topics of research. She figured she would only be using this experience for observations.
The first month was a blur to Alicia and she remembers only the lengthy training sessions she had to attend. After that time had passed, she was allowed to enter the shelter to work providing food and toys to the families and ensuring that all had fresh linens and extra blankets for cold nights. The family that impacted her most was a young Latina mother, Maria, and her daughter, Isabella, who was only three years old. Alicia spent a lot of time with Isabella. At times, she could see the youthful joy in Isabella. At other times, though, she saw that the young child had already been traumatized by the abuse of her mother, as she often seemed afraid when her father was mentioned. After becoming attached to this family, Alicia reconsidered using any information from this experience and felt guilty for attempting to gather information without their knowledge.
Questions
Which ethical consideration(s), outlined by Cook, was/were violated by Alicia’s original intentions?
Alicia violated the concepts of involving people in research without their knowledge, deceiving the research participants, and invading their privacy. Had she asked any questions or attempted to gather information on the particular situation the family had endured, she would also have potentially caused them additional mental stress.
Alicia could have used an Institutional Review Board and found willing participants for the research. This not only would have legitimized her research, but it would also have protected her research participants from emotional vulnerability.
This answer is opinion-based, but the text suggests that the invasion of privacy and causing the research participants physical or emotional stress are the worst ethical considerations that could be violated.
Chapter 21: Ethical issues in Confronting Terrorism
In the years following the September 11 attacks, Agent Henry Bernard has been assigned to an inmate at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There he preached a need to control and extract information from suspected terrorists, particularly because he suspected that particular individuals knew of impending plans for terrorist attacks against the United States. Under the “means justify the ends” argument, Agent Bernard felt he was entitled to provoke the answers out of the subjects through tactics that border on torture. He asks you to come along with him to interrogate one man from Afghanistan.
As you walk into the empty room with a bright light, you see the suspect sitting awkwardly in an uncomfortable position between two chairs. Once Agent Bernard raises his voice, the detainee jolts his head up as if he had finally fallen asleep. It is 2 o’clock in the afternoon. From that point on, Agent Bernard persists in a relentless effort to obtain information that never comes from the subject. The man, who appears malnourished and weak, is forced to sit in a chair as Bernard shouts at him continually. When the man does not cooperate, Agent Bernard informs you that he will need your help “getting water for the bucket.” When you go to get the bucket of water, you feel a sickening knot in your stomach and fear you will witness a human being subjected to waterboarding. You cautiously bring Agent Bernard the bucket and prepare for the worst. Luckily, a phone call summons Bernard out of the room.
Questions
Proponents of the dirty hands approach argue that it is right in this circumstance to employ methods that are typically considered wrong because it benefits the greater good of protecting the United States.
The Attorney General’s office did provide a legal framework for waterboarding in the torture memos. However, any confession obtained through the use of these techniques is not admissible in criminal court.
The two systems of justice include the civilian criminal justice system and the military tribunal approach. As described in the text, each system has several advantages and disadvantages.
Chapter 22: Criminal Justice: An Ethic for the Future
“The small town of Laverne has sure seen its share of crimes, Miss Betsy,” stated little, old Shirley Nickleton as she flipped through her newspaper on the porch of the diner. “Yeah, surely you can’t expect the news to be good. The man ought to fry,” replied Betsy Painter. The two sat for hours overlooking the quiet town, which had willow trees lining the streets as they greeted the town folk and waited for the verdict to come from the Ericson case.
In just the past year, their little town had seen unexpected tragedy in the form of murder. David Ericson, a homeless man from a neighboring city, was convicted of killing a young woman, Katelyn Rodgers, when she was walking home alone after she left work. Katelyn, a bright 19-year-old who had just finished her first year of college, had always been known for her sweet, outgoing manner. People said she had probably trusted the man too much for her own good, Katelyn’s family is wealthy and white, and comprised of several lawyers, judges, and doctors who have considerable power over the political agendas of the little town. Because of the conflict of interest, a lawyer from a different town prosecuted the case, but the Rodgers family still had power over the prosecutor’s actions. Everyone in town seemed to resent the homeless man for his alleged crimes, and he was treated harshly, especially by the arresting officers, correctional officers, and fellow cellmates, and potentially by the jurors who would decide his fate.
Debate had arisen about how harshly he should be treated, as he does not have functional social skills or a formal education. When the jurors declared a verdict of guilty, the town erupted in joy.
Questions
The author believes that everyone is connected, and would recommend that the townspeople and the Rodgers family try to remain compassionate and understanding toward Ericson because of this connectedness.
Employing the peacemaking principle would have ensured that police officers, correctional officers, cellmates, and the general public still treated Ericson with respect and understanding. This principle holds that harsh treatment, such as what is encouraged with order keeping, would serve to separate everyone further.
Answers should encompass a discussion of change at the societal level and in the principles on which the country prides itself. According to the text, a sincere shift away from the “tough on crime” approach would need to take place for this gap to be bridged.