Analysis of Ethics Case concerning Domestic Violence - Essay Example

?Harris Kamran Ethics Worksheet 4 October Ethics Worksheet All the information used in the worksheet has been provided in the case scenario. Q1:In the given scenario, the two officers are convinced that the couple they are interrogating is lying, and that the husband is guilty of driving while intoxicated, and perhaps even of domestic violence. However, they do not have the sufficient proof to convict the husband. Q2: The officers visited the house because the wife called and reported domestic violence. This fact should be enough to carry out an investigation. However, legally, the officers should be able to observe visible signs of violence, which are absent. The wife is, obviously, lying for her husband and trying to protect him. Socially, she has not done any wrong in doing so, and since the police have not been able to convict the husband, they are bound by law and cannot carry out further investigation without due cause. The other issue at hand is the belief of the police officers that the husband was driving while intoxicated. They checked the hood of the car, which was warm, suggesting that it had been very recently used. They also observed the husband drop the car keys and put them in his pocket while he was walking up to the front door. After carrying out a check, they retrieved a set of car keys from his front pocket, but the husband denied driving and said he was out walking. The wife maintained she had not driven either. However, it was obvious that the husband was lying. The husband failed to pass the intoxication tests satisfactorily, and it was established that he was, indeed, intoxicated; his alcohol was on the scale of 0.20 on his breath. It is socially unethical, and legally unlawful, to drive intoxicated. However, since the officers did not observe him driving themselves, they are unable to take any action. Q3: 3A: Claimant 1: The husband. He is the person who would be convicted of two crimes, domestic violence, and intoxicated driving, if the crimes were to be proven. Therefore, he would prefer that the police do not find sufficient evidence to convict him. To that end, he has got his wife to lie for him as well. From the perspective of the moral agent, the obligation of justice is owed to the husband. All the preliminary evidence points towards him being guilty. He is on socially and legally unethical grounds, and to make it worse, he is lying about it. He should be dealt with justice, and convicted. 3B: Claimant 2: The wife. She has a minor role to play in the case. She was the victim of domestic violence, but now she denies it, and there are no visible signs of violence about her to convict the husband for that. She is also lying for her husband. For the sale of her husband, she would prefer the authorities not to find him guilty, and she would prefer the police not to find sufficient evidence to convict him. That is the reason for her lying. The obligation owed towards her is beneficence, and she should be dealt with it. If indeed she is the victim of violence, then she should be taken into protective custody and her problem solved. She should also be given the confidence that she can still live her life with her husband convicted, so that there is no need for her to lie to protect him. 3C: Claimant 3: The police officers. They have strong belief of the husband being guilty based on their observations, and they would prefer for the husband to be convicted of the crimes, because they believe he is lying about them. The experience of the older police officer also point towards this verdict. However, since they do not have sufficient proof, such as visible signs of domestic violence and the actual observation of the husband driving while intoxicated, they should deal him with the moral obligation of non-injury, since they can protect bringing unnecessary harm to the couple. Q4: Alternative 1: The police do not convict, based on insufficient evidence. Best case scenario, the husband does not repeat the mistake again. Worst case scenario, the husband continues with his habits, being careful the police never get enough evidence to convict him. The society might be at risk if the husband continues to drive intoxicated, and the wife might be harmed if he is actually guilty of domestic violence. This alternative is invalidated on social grounds, but is validated legally as the police is following proper legal protocol of not arresting the husband without sufficient evidence. Alternate 2: The police file a report to convict the husband based on their belief that he is guilty and the fact that he is obviously lying, despite insufficient evidence. Best case scenario, the perpetrator is dealt with justice. Worse case scenario, the wife is left alone and helpless. She files a complaint of insufficient evidence against the police. The wife may be harmed in that without sufficient evidence, the police arrested her husband, and now she has nowhere to go. This alternative is invalidated on legal, social, and personal grounds. Legally, the police cannot arrest the husband without the required evidence. Alternative 3: The police try to negotiate with the wife and convince her to tell the truth, and then based on her true statement, they should convict the husband. Best case scenario, the wife tells the truth and cooperates with the police, and the husband is convicted. Worst case, she adheres to her false statement, and the police is left with the first two alternatives. The wife will be spared of harm from domestic violence if she cooperates with the police, and she would be given proper police support. This alternative is validated ethically, and on personal, social, and legal grounds. However, it completely depends upon the statement of the wife. Q5: Alt 1: The good does not outweigh the harm, as the good favors the couple only, while the whole society is at risk because of the husband’s drunken driving habits. No other harm is brought. The society and the wife are defenseless against the husband. This is completely based on the best interest of the couple. This should not become a rule or policy. It is supported by the lies of the wife, so it is using the wife as a means to an end. The intent of the action of the police is free from ulterior motive. The police is being legally correct, but detrimental to the society. It does not show concern, it is simply legal. Alt 2: The good outweighs the harm, as it is society versus the couple. No other harm is brought. No defenseless party would be harmed. It is completely against the best interest of the couple. This alternative should not become a rule or policy. It uses the couple as a means to an end. The intent of the police is free from ulterior motive. The police would be unlawful but ethical if they would adopt this alternative. The unlawful attribute is more likely to be perceived. It demonstrates a genuine concern for the well being of the society and the wife. Alt 3: The good outweighs the harm. No other harm is brought. No defenseless party would be harmed. It is against the best interest of the couple. It has potential to become a rule or policy. It does not use anyone as a means to an end. The intent of the police is free from ulterior motive. The police would be lawful and ethical by adopting it. It demonstrates a genuine concern for the well being of the society and the integrity of the couple. Alt 3 would generate the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Q6: The third alternative should be chosen. It demonstrates the greatest good for the society by convicting the husband, and the concern for the wife by taking her into confidence and keeping her protected from further domestic violence. It is ethically and legally sound. Q7: Respected Sir, This letter is written in order to impress upon you the fact that the third alternative, as has been presented and discussed, is the best course of action for the police, as it is in the favor of both the wife and the society in general. It is obvious that the husband is guilty of the crimes that he is being convicted of. Nevertheless, both the husband and the wife are lying in order to protect the husband. In this situation, to ignore the evidence and to let the husband go would mean continued incidences of violence against the wife, and the risk of drunken driving that the society would be exposed to because of the husband. On the other hand, if the husband is arrested without sufficient evidence, this will be a breach of their ethical rights and their integrity, not to mention the unlawful nature of the action. The only possible course of action is to take the wife into confidence, and to try and convince her to tell the truth to the police. If she chooses to cooperate, her statement would be enough to convict and arrest the husband, removing the threat both from the wife and the society, while maintaining lawful and ethical grounds, and providing due support to the wife. However, if she adheres to her false statement, then the police would have no choice but to let the husband go. Therefore, this alternative is fair, lawful, and ethical, and as such, should be adopted. Regards, Moral agent References All the information for the worksheet was provided in the case scenario. Read More