Video response on training day - Essay Example

Video Response on Training Day Video Response on Training Day Introduction Training day explores the seedy street justice of LosAngeles and drug enforcement. The film is set within the 24- hour period of a day for rookie police officer and his partner, mentor, potential boss, and teacher. The police officer’s academy teachings and moral fiber are put to test and comes to the realization that Alonzo (the supervisor) goes to any length to make sure that the job is done irrespective of whether it entails breaking the law.

Alonzo justifies his questionable police practices by asserting “this is what an effective narcotics officer does.” Alonzo does not manifest respect for the law and justifies his unethical behavior by stating “police can do whatever they want.” Alonzo manifest minimal obligation to the constitution since the laws derives from the constitution, which is the supreme law. The paper explores the film relative to the ethical framework of relativism and legal moralism.The concept of “street justice” relative to the ethical framework of relativismEthical relativism infers the theory that asserts that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture, meaning that whether an action is right or wrong hinges on the prevailing moral norms within the society (Banks, 2004).

The definition of Alonzo’s concept of Street Justice takes the view that is not worth dealing with petty crimes, which entail drug sales and crack addicts. He continues that, his mandate entail dealing with the “big fish” rather than the “maggots on the street.” In line with this observation, street justice represents a brand of outlaw behavior embodying taking the law into a person’s own hands, whether the decision arise out of frustration, madness, rage, or an authentic belief that this is the right thing to do (Banks, 2004).

The concept of “street justice” seen relative to legal moralismDefenders of legal moralism assert that governments also manifest an unchained right to enforce harmless immoralities. Nevertheless, all governments can utilize their coercive power to prevent individuals from engaging in diverse harmless activities that perceived as immoral. It is evident in the film that Alonzo values the informal norms of his department that sanction corruption, street justice, and police misconduct. Alonzo is of the view that his decisions are supreme that he can be the law (Pollock, 2010).

Street justice is linked to handling deviant behavior by circumventing the provisions dictated by the criminal justice system, whereby justice viewed as swift and the punishment rendered suits the crime committed. As such, revenge is frequently related to this concept; instead of depending on the police and the government/federal authorities to handle criminal activities.Establishing limits to the extent of legitimate criminal law can herald a balancing act between street justice and law enforcement.

The criminal justice system should be limited by the harm principle. The criminal justice system should not be viewed as just another policy instrument for reducing the incidence of undesirable behavior (Pollock, 2010). Similarly, the criminal justice system should be based on newfangled accounts of legal moralism. Although, individuals are not entitled to single out certain individuals’ for censure and punishment simply so as to deter undesirable conduct, the law enforcement officers have bear right to undertake in a way of appreciating genuine moral wrongdoing on the part of the subjects.

Instead of treating the subjects as a means, the actions of the criminal justice system should be perceived as respectful of the offender’s agency, holding them responsible for their moral wrongdoing. The core business of the criminal justice system should be enforcing the demands of morality.Pros or cons of legal moralism in relation to the different scenarios from the filmLegal moralism acts as a support for a society based on the principle that, in order for society to function effectively, then it must be capable of enforcing collective morality.

The law also becomes more accessible as a direct representation of common morality. The disadvantage of this approach details that it is grounded in the presence of a common morality within the society and assumes that the society bear a single common morality (Duff & Green, 2011). This is hardly the case. As demonstrated by Alonzo and Hoyt, the society is composed of multiple distinct identities groups with differing views of morality. As such, it is impractical to attain a desirable level of harmony in a broad collection of moral issues.

Moreover, not all laws manifest a moral dimension.ReferencesBanks, C. (2004). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.Duff, A., & Green, S. P. (2011). Philosophical foundations of criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pollock, J. M. (2010). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.