Ethical Theories In Solving Crime - Essay Example

Ethical Theories In Solving Crime al Affiliation Deliberate on an action I would be surprised of my new powers; however, Iwill take them positively. In the case of the terrorist neighbor in the streets and other criminals, I will not use my powers at first sight to calm them down. I will endeavor efforts in talking with these individuals on the importance of not engaging in crime. However, in the case where they are other human causalities, I will apprehend the individual and take him to the police station. Before taking the individual to the police station, I will try to communicate the individual and possibly find out why he or she is involved in crime. I will further try to explain to the individual whether he understand the consequences of crime. The goal is to ensure that the individual has first hand information on the dangers of inflicting criminal offenses to other individuals. Response As illustrated, I will think of initiatives that can bring long lasting peace. I will communicate with the individual about the need to act in decorum while in the midst of other members of the society. I will initiate dialogue at different levels. The goal is to ensure that the individual is principally aware of the damage he causes to the society while he is involved in evil deeds. I will as well, think of initiating counseling as away to understand why the individual might be involved in crime at the first place. As well, Maximize the amount of candy in the world. Principally, I will deliberate on peacemaking as way to maximize the amount of candy in the world. We live in a villainous world, where crime surrounds almost all humankind. As well, humankind responds to pain being inflicted in a villainous manner. Chief in his response is revenge. I will therefore not use force as a way to respond to these villainous acts. In fact, I will apply diplomacy to communicate with the individuals involved in crime. I will attempt to show these individuals that there is a need to act in decorum at all times. Different moral theories As you can see my strategy champions’ diplomacy and deliberate on what you should do. I will use my skills and interventions to sponsor a superior counseling strategy. Part of the plan will be to apply normative moral theories that I have with time learned from class to ensure that I properly solves the situation. To understand the scenes of crime in each case, especially the woman involved in crime, I will use consequentialism theory to understand what prompts the thoughts of crime. That is, what is the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness and the wrongness of the conduct (Sserekumar, 2012, p. 278) I will further invite Jeremy Bentham Bentham and Burns (2000, p. 43) believe on utilitarianism, which argues that people driven by their fears, hence they take precedence of their fears. Supportively, Eggleston (2014, p. 45) argues that an action an action is moral when it produces the greatest amount of happiness. However, a problem will arise when the greatest happiness is achieved at the expense of a few. For that reason, utilitarianism would seem to endorse crime when it produces the greatest total amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In application, we will begin with utilitarianism. Largely, utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory. We will decide the legitimacy of deceptive tactics based on the consequences of using these tactics. In particular, we must weigh the positive results against the negative results in deciding what to do (McCain, 1991). On the positive side, we investigate the entrapment, bugging operations and undercover operations. The results of these tactics, is that I have power to the let the criminals go free or deter future crime in different ways. There is a need to keep known criminals behind bars where they unable to commit further crimes. Secondly, we will demonstrate by example what happens when she breaks the law and thereby deter other citizens from risk of incarceration. As noted, the purpose of criminal law, one of the utilitarian-based justifications is incapacitation. If I apply this theory, I will catch the wrong doer, incarcerate him and end crime in that community (Darity, 2008, p. 43). For that reason, the young woman will not be free to commit further crime since she is incapacitated. The same difficulty that led to the rejection of utilitarianism persists although it would have been rephrased as an object to a theory of criminalization rather than as object to the theory of punishment. Reflectively, the unjust violation of rights is not the punishment of a person who has not committed a crime. For that reason, Jane is guilty of an offense. The unjust violation of rights is the punishment of a person for a crime that should not exist. That is, crime, which lies beyond, legitimate boundaries of the penal sanction. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, which enables the legitimacy of deceptive tactics based on the consequences of incarceration process. I will therefore compare positive results against the negative results in each case. After researches supported by Hooker (2012, p. 43), I will process mentorship points. For instance, Kant would approach the issue from a different reference point, as deontologists, he would approach the issue on the perspective crime. As well, what are the consequences likely their occurrences. Rather on focusing on the results of the behavior, the crime does should reflect on the consequences of the crime itself to the community. Mentored by Kantanian, one would ask himself would I consent to having my telephone bugged if there were reasons to suspect that I was guilty of a crime. If I were to attend to the second formulation of the categorical imperative, a Kantian will ask do the use manipulative techniques of law enforcement constitute treating individuals involved in crime as mere means to our ends. In summary, utilitarianism appears to have a difficulty with certain injustices concerns, while Kant’s deontology seems to have a method of handling cases of conflicting duties. Objection Largely, the utilitarianism approaches encourages ruthlessness in solving crime. That is, the wrong doer should be incarcerated. I principally do not support incarceration as a punitive measure since the wrong doer fears the crime but does not understand the consequences of the crime. This might encounter one to measure the extent of punishment as the incarceration rate per serious crime, where solving crime in that country is difficult since the authorities will be less considerate to character which prompted crime (Albanese, 2006). The problem of change because of one’s involvement in crime challenges the incarceration process. By using utilitarianism as an incarceration strategy, there will be questions whether we are going to be as well disrupting the family life of the individual. Hence, in summary, the incarceration process will automatically have diminishing returns that lead to the reduction of crime. References Albanese, J. (2006). Professional ethics in criminal justice: Being ethical when no one is looking. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Bentham, J., & Burns, J. (2000). The collected works of Jeremy Bentham (Electronic ed.). Charlottesville, Va.: InteLex Corporation. Darity, W. (2008). International encyclopedia of the social sciences (2nd ed.). Detroit, Mich.: Macmillan Reference USA. Eggleston, B. (2014). The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Hooker, B. (2012). Developing deontology new essays in ethical theory. Malden, MA: Wiley, Blackwell. McCain, R. (1991). Deontology, Consequentialism, And Rationality. Review of Social Economy, 168-195. Sreekumar, S. (2012). An Analysis of Consequentialism and Deontology in the Normative Ethics of the Bhagavadgītā. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 277-315. Read More