Ethics:
You are a city prosecutor, and a terrible crime has been committed in your city. A 7-year old girl
has been kidnapped, brutally raped, tortured, and strangled to death. The case has become
something of a cause célèbre, and people are up in arms, outraged, clamoring that someone be
caught and prosecuted. All investigations have turned up no leads. Your police chief advises that
he has determined that unless something is done soon riots will occur, with extreme violence
planned, and that several deaths are to be expected; many other reports confirm this. Yesterday a
severely mentally retarded homeless man was picked up by the police, after a complaint by a
restaurant that he was lurking about the premises, eating scraps out of the dumpster. There is
absolutely no evidence against this man of the crime against the child. If you frame him, and
plant or fabricate evidence that may result in conviction, you will be able to avoid the riots and
probable deaths that might otherwise result.
Would this be moral or immoral? Why? (125 wds)
Solution
This would be immoral to convict a mentally retarded person of this heneous crime. Just to avoid
roits, no authority has the right to arrest and convict any person of the crime that he has not done.
Doing this might avoid the roits and all the damage that will be caused but this will also make
that person who actually comit this crime let loose in the society to do such crimes again. Doing
this will just deliver a message that people like the convict can commit such crime, kill the
victim and no one can even touch them. Instead, cops will just arrest any random person to avoid
hastle and roits..
EthicsYou are a city prosecutor, and a terrible crime has been co.pdf
1. Ethics:
You are a city prosecutor, and a terrible crime has been committed in your city. A 7-year old girl
has been kidnapped, brutally raped, tortured, and strangled to death. The case has become
something of a cause célèbre, and people are up in arms, outraged, clamoring that someone be
caught and prosecuted. All investigations have turned up no leads. Your police chief advises that
he has determined that unless something is done soon riots will occur, with extreme violence
planned, and that several deaths are to be expected; many other reports confirm this. Yesterday a
severely mentally retarded homeless man was picked up by the police, after a complaint by a
restaurant that he was lurking about the premises, eating scraps out of the dumpster. There is
absolutely no evidence against this man of the crime against the child. If you frame him, and
plant or fabricate evidence that may result in conviction, you will be able to avoid the riots and
probable deaths that might otherwise result.
Would this be moral or immoral? Why? (125 wds)
Solution
This would be immoral to convict a mentally retarded person of this heneous crime. Just to avoid
roits, no authority has the right to arrest and convict any person of the crime that he has not done.
Doing this might avoid the roits and all the damage that will be caused but this will also make
that person who actually comit this crime let loose in the society to do such crimes again. Doing
this will just deliver a message that people like the convict can commit such crime, kill the
victim and no one can even touch them. Instead, cops will just arrest any random person to avoid
hastle and roits.
