Ethical dilemmas and the law - Research Paper Example

Ethical Dilemmas and the Law in Sleepers To sustain an ethical society, people depend on the criminal justice system. However, at some point, the criminal justice system may be used not to prosecute the accused, but to plotting revenge against enemies who have inflicted hatred and shame to one’s memory. The film Sleepers that was written and directed by Barry Levinson presented a unique approach to attacking what could have been just an ordinary murder case involving two notorious gang leaders. The story revolved around the lives of the four main characters namely Lorenzo Carcaterra (also known as Shakes), Michael Sullivan, John Reilly, and Thomas (Tommy) Marcano, who became victims of abuses of people in authority. Ethical Dilemmas and revenge Various ethical dilemmas were depicted in the movie. One of these dilemmas refer to how Michael had used his position as a prosecutor not to convict his friends for the crime they had committed. Michael had full knowledge that his childhood best friends were the ones being prosecuted for a wrongdoing, but in spite of this, he had acted as prosecutor to the case as if he had actually defended the victim although he did not. In the first place, there was already a plan on Michael’s part to use the case to chase the remaining jail guards, who had molested and tortured them, while they were incarcerated at the Wilkinson Home. As a prosecutor, Michael was obliged to present evidences that will prove John and Tommy’s involvement in the crime. It was Michael’s responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his were friends were not innocent, and that he, as a prosecutor, will not tolerate a wrongdoing even if it had been committed by someone close to him. However, this was not the case because Michael was certain of his conviction to help his friends, whatever it takes. Crucial decisions that take into account the due process of law need to depend on ethical considerations (“The importance,” 2004, p. 4). Prosecuting lawyers should have their own set of ethical standards to avoid instances, when a defendant will be convicted of a crime he or she never committed (Tucker, 2012). The prosecutor is to provide complete facts and not express biased judgment in arguing a “case against the defendant” (Tucker, 2012). While these ethical considerations or standards are applicable to the job of a prosecutor, it may become different if the prosecutor uses his position in the case to let the defendant escape the punishment of law or to reverse the case in favor of the defendant’s party. This scenario was the main ethical dilemma in the film. The oral argument between the defense and prosecution was part of the play Michael organized to have his friends acquitted and to expose the abuses and brutality taking place at the juvenile facility. On one end of the spectrum, there are these two criminals who were acquitted of a crime that they are guilty of, and on the other end there is this yearning on the part of Michael, the prosecutor, to punish those unscrupulous people, who were the reasons why John and Tommy became criminals; as heartless and cruel as Nokes (the one murdered) when he was at Wilkinson. The pursuit of revenge provoked the lead characters Shakes and Michael to using the criminal justice system as an instrument to realize their plans. Evidently, the ethical dilemmas were born out of their desire to seize the opportunity, the opportunity to take revenge. In the film, revenge appears to be the only way for Shakes and Michael to move on with what has happened to them in the past. Despite knowing that all they were doing were for revenge, even the priest, Father Bobby Carillo was influenced to lie and detail false facts in front of people. These instances in the film lead to the shaping of an argument in due regard to the role of the criminal justice practitioners in bringing about authentic justice. Since revenge served as justification to the actions of Michael and Shakes, then it is not justice, but revenge that has driven these individuals to using the criminal justice system even at their own expense. What was depicted in the film may or may not happen in reality. However, since the focus of the ethical dilemma is revenge, in the midst of a proceeding manipulated by someone close to the accused, then the assumption would be that revenge has taken its course through the cooperation of the criminal justice system. Formalism in the Sleepers At the end part of the film, revenge and not justice prevailed. John and Thomas were acquitted because the court did not find the evidences presented by the prosecution enough to convict those accused. The defense lawyer succeeded to making a witness from the prosecution (a close friend of the victim) reveal the hidden secrets of some jail guards at the juvenile facility, and to convincing Father Bobby to telling an alibi that will place John and Thomas to a place that is far from the scene of the crime. By and large, the film was used to conveying the message of how revenge may take its toll on the person being subject of the plot. Using the film as a manipulative medium to communicating a message dwells on the formalist theory. Formalists believe in the capacity of a film to becoming an art (McKibbin, n.d., p. 1). More than an art used to expressing emotions, a film that is designed based on the formalist theory communicates ideas and tends not to focus on its theme (Andrews, 2008, p. 148). In formalism, there is an emphasis on the style of communicating ideas and the manner of combining the components of a film (Andrews, 2008). With the film Sleepers, most of the scenes presented tension, especially the scenes during the court proceedings. This was done to achieve the message that the movie seeks to convey, which is revenge. To even the score The most apparent reason for the pursuit of revenge was to even the score between the sleepers (Shakes, Michael, John, and Thomas), and the jail guards, who have made their lives miserable. Thus, to even the score means that one seeks to get revenge on someone who has inflicted harm. In the case of the sleepers, it was time to let the guards suffer, and it was the right time for them to even the score. The goal was more of taking revenge, than to achieve justice. Because if they had allowed justice to go on its own way, then John and Tommy may have been convicted for their wrongdoings, and Shakes must have not allowed the priest to lie only for the sake of acquitting his friends. Ⅱ. When Juvenile Offenders are Waived into the Adult System Juveniles may be waived to the adult court system by the juvenile court system (Bilodeau, 2009). This happens when the juvenile offender is seen by the juvenile court as unresponsive to the rehabilitation program provided by the government (Ainsworth, 1996). Hence, the juvenile court will no longer have any jurisdiction to the case, and the decision will be at the discretion of the adult criminal court. The aim of waiving a juvenile offender into the adult system is to impose a tougher punishment that will let the offender learn the lessons of the wrongdoings (Bilodeau, 2009). However, in most instances, a juvenile offender that is prosecuted as an adult is likely to fall back into the previous pattern (Bilodeau, 2009). As a consequence, there is no significant change in the number of juvenile offenders. Studies, like the meta analysis conducted by Lipsey, (as cited in Bilodeau, 2009) have not included this juvenile waiver system to the methods government may apply in order to decrease recidivism. Hence the waiver system has not proven its efficacy in penalizing the wrongdoings of the juvenile offenders. The severity of the punishment given to juvenile offenders, who have been tried as adults, is likely to depend on the gravity of the offense and on how they have been responding to rehabilitation while they stayed with the juvenile system. Still, in most cases, juvenile offenders are given a lesser sentence compared to the actual adult offenders (Ainsworth, 1996). In addition, juveniles are “granted full due process rights and equal protection of law,” once they are waived by the juvenile court (Bilodeau, 2009). Nevertheless, the fact that a juvenile offender is tried in the adult court implies the possibility of a punishment gap, which means that they receive sanctions more severe than those in the juvenile court (Bilodeau, 2009). This further implies the bias of the waiver system to respecting the rights of juvenile offenders, who should have been given just punishment that is rightful enough in order not to take away their innocence. Virtue ethics in criminal justice Ethics in criminal justice is difficult to ascertain. What is rightful or wrongful in the normal day to day interaction of people is in a considerable way different from what is rightful or wrongful in a criminal court. For instance, when a defense lawyer handles a case of a serial killer, the lawyer will have to do the job of defending the accused despite the solid evidences that prove the serial killer’s participation in the crime. Even if, defending the serial killer is against the will of the lawyer, there is no choice, but to do the responsibility. If virtue ethics is applied in court litigation involving juvenile offenders, then the notion of human flourishing will also have to be considered. Human flourishing or eudaimonia in Greek terminology and in its simplest form refers to happiness. Living a life of lasting happiness, through wisdom, love, and respect are the essential ingredients to realizing human flourishing. For people, like Shakes Michael, John, and Thomas, human flourishing, in the context of the criminal justice system, may not be easy. These people have endured so much pain that they no longer have a concern over the unethical actions they had to do to get even. Happiness to them would be the victory they will achieve through means of getting revenge. The concept of happiness by virtue of Aristotle’s eudaimonia gives priority to an individual’s morals and values. That is to say that happiness, by taking revenge is not pure eudaimonia, but an immoral action. The virtues of men help them to having a life of eudaimonia or enduring happiness, but this is not always the case since men do have varying beliefs of what virtue is and what real happiness is all about, just like the lead characters in the film Sleepers. The Challenge The challenge in applying virtue ethics and the notion of eudaimonia lies on the function of the criminal justice system as a catalyst for justice. If people seeking for justice believe in the essence of virtue ethics, then happiness to them would depend on how they did rightful actions to win the case. On the one hand, if people seeking for justice have lost their belief to the morals and values of life, then justice to them is easy to achieve if they had gotten revenge, even without considering any moral values. Justice on the part of people, who have been victimized by juvenile offenders, will be based on how these offenders are sanctioned. To these victims, being happy means getting the justice they deserve. However, it is different when these juvenile offenders are waived into the adult criminal system. If, through the due of process of law, they are proven guilty of a crime, then punishment must be served, but it must not be the same level as the adult offenders. Juvenile offenders also deserve second chances, and they too deserve happiness. Virtue ethics in the criminal justice system is truly hard when the issue of justice and revenge clashes. Society has the criminal justice system to confide to when seeking for justice, but it has become an avenue for people seeking for revenge. Diversely, the point of applying virtue ethics in the juvenile court is not to spare the juvenile offenders to being punished, but to allow them to have this chance of keeping their innocence despite what they had done. If juvenile offenders are given just punishment, then most likely they will realize that society still values them. By so doing, juveniles will not consider themselves a menace to society, but as normal people, who are also worthy of happiness. References Ainsworth, J. E. (1996). The courts effectiveness in protecting the rights of juveniles in delinquency cases. The Juvenile Court , 6 (3), 64-74. Andrews, D. (2008). Communication & Multimedia Technology. Ontario: Digital Overdrive. Bilodeau, S. (2009). The death of innocence: Juveniles in adult court. Retrieved from http://voices.yahoo.com/the-death-innocence-juveniles-adult-court-4972910.html?ca t=17 Levinson, B. (Director). (1996). Sleepers [Film]. United States: Warner Bros. Pictures. McKibbin, T. (n.d.) Formalist theory. Retrieved from http://tonymckibbin.com/course-notes/formalist-theory?output=pdf The importance of ethics in criminal justice. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/4031_Banks_Chapter_1_Proof.pdf Tucker, K. (2012). The importance of ethics to the criminal justice practitioner. Retrieved from http://work.chron.com/importance-ethics-criminal-justice-practitioner-6542.html Read More