Ethics is applied in decision making in criminal justice for effective and just decisions. Normative ethics is crucial in decision-making in the criminal justice system and it is based on the notion that one should act morally using reason to determine the suitable way of conduct of self. Ethical relativism is part of normative ethics and it argues that what is morally right or wrong varies in a great deal from one person to another. The standards of conduct and methods of doing things differ from one society to another and there can never be a single standard of conduct for all societies; we must make ethical decisions therefore based on each situation. Relativism requires that we judge an individual who acted immorally by the standards of his culture and not our own (Cook, 1999).
He or she would judge that the offender is immoral in some way and, therefore, make a personal judgment that is separate from the law. For these reasons, I believe that moral relativism is ideal for those who work in the field of criminal justice. The law, as it stands, is to be enforced free from the moral judgments of the criminal justice community. A community that bases its morality on personal experience and does not pass judgment on the morality of an offender is a more professional force than a group of people with varying moral views who are tempted to apply a personal system to the enforcement of the
Rather, it is based on standards at which we guide our behaviors and determine what should be done and what shouldn’t. Kant, one of the greatest philosophers who have discussed ethics, argues that acting in an ethical way requires differentiating between, “right” and “wrong” and then performing the right option. It is all about every individual’s view for a condition and the morality. Morality has a concern when it comes to norms, values, and beliefs that are embedded in social process. This defines right and wrong for an individual or a community.
Ethical theories appear in different contexts, so they address diverse issues and they also represent some ethical principles. There are various ethical theories, however there are generally two major kinds of ethical theories which are deontological and teleological ethical theories. On the whole, while teleological theories refer to consequences, deontological theories are interested more in duty. As regard to deontology, it is concerned with the application of absolute, ethical principles so as to arrive at rules of conduct. Deontologist derives from the Greek word ‘deontos’ which means ‘what must be done’.
For example, should only the consequences or our duties or our character matter? While normative ethics attempts to evaluate individual choices as being better or worse, good or good, metaethics does not, although it may have profound implications in regards to the validity and meaning of claims made in normative ethics. Metaethics, however, tries to understand and comment on what is going on in the situation itself, it does not attempt to make any rules. Thus, it takes a step back from ethical practice and tries to make sense of what is going on when we use moral speech. This is why metaethics is truly meta, and a second order discipline.
If this bias exists in the tort system, it constitutes an ethical problem because the tort system supposedly must uphold the principle of factuality: “liability should be based on a factual determination that the defendant failed to meet certain standards” (MacCoun “Is There a ‘Deep-Pocket’ Bias in the Tort System?” 1). It also promotes two objectives: just compensation and deterrence against future harms (1). If bias exists against deep pocket parties, this system is
First, I would like to explain the differences between the concepts of policing and law enforcement and the pros and cons of each concept. The difference between policing and law enforcement is that policing main reason of being established was to enforce the laws, investigate crimes and apprehend offenders, help provide the community with enforcement related services. Policing also has the community help the police by participating in the process of reducing crime and improving the quality of life. While the law enforcement was created to have the unwavering appearance of procedures and rules. This means that law enforcement was made to enforce the laws and focused
Therefore, Lord Devlin based on consensual morality has focused more on the enforcement of morality according to the general concept of society. To understand the relationship between law and morality, Lord Devlin has proposed a set of rules. Firstly, the requirement of general sense of right and wrong in a society which is known as common morality as it is a right-minded value that should be maintained by the law. Secondly, there may be bad laws, bad morals or bad societies due to the reason that the law might not serve the society but destroy it even though it is a valid law and provides profit to some people in the
Undoubtedly, law exists to protect the rights of the members of a society and to ensure that they do not have to protect those rights through their own actions. I believe, in order to protect the individuals, private lives should be interfered by the law occasionally, considering the requirements of a society. However the most important question about this claim is when law should interfere with the private lives. If law interferes with the private lives more than adequate amount, it means our freedom and our ability to choose are restricted. Then, we have to understand the principle that can be used to determine what part of moral law should be embodied in the criminal law.
In all crimes, a motive is present. Motive is defined as the emotional, psychological, and material needs that impel and are satisfied by behavior (Turvey, 2011). It is the driving force of our choices and actions, therefore, when it comes to criminal investigation, establishing a motive can help solve crimes. However, some motives are not apparent during the early stages of an investigation and before court proceedings. Without a motive, it would be difficult to prove guilt since the number question needed to be answer for juries are the “whys” in crimes.