Question 1
(Judge): You are a Judge presiding over the trial of an alleged bank robber, who you know is innocent. However, something terrible in your life has happened: The enemies of the robber have kidnapped your 9-year-old daughter and have held her hostage. You don’t know where she is. The police have tried to locate her to no avail. The kidnappers have left you an anonymous note saying that if you convict the robber, they will set your daughter free. You fear the kidnappers could be abusing or even torturing your child. What would you do?
Question 2
(Ethic of Care): How would you apply the ethic of care approach to policing in a minority neighborhood with a reputation for high levels of crime? Include in your analysis the individual police officers and the alleged suspects as well as the department. Use case studies from the news media if you wish.
On the other hand, a consequentialist or utilitarian analysis might lead to a different conclusion. The judge's primary motivation becomes preventing the known harm to their daughter. In this framework, the suffering of one innocent person (the robber) might be viewed as a lesser evil compared to the potential torture or death of another innocent person (the daughter). This choice prioritizes the immediate, tangible outcome of saving a loved one over an abstract principle of justice.
There is no morally clean solution. A judge who convicts an innocent person would face the moral burden of having corrupted the justice system, an act that betrays their public trust. A judge who acquits the innocent person would face the devastating personal consequences of having failed to protect their child. The scenario highlights the profound conflict between public and private moral obligations, where loyalty to a system of justice clashes directly with the instinct to protect family.
Question 2: Ethic of Care in Policing
Applying an ethic of care to policing in a minority neighborhood involves a fundamental shift from a justice-based model to a relationship-centered one. Instead of focusing solely on enforcing universal rules impartially, this approach prioritizes empathy, trust, and the well-being of the community as a whole. This affects individual officers, alleged suspects, and the police department at large.
For Individual Police Officers: An officer using an ethic of care would prioritize building personal relationships over punitive actions. This means spending time on patrol engaging with residents, listening to their concerns, and getting to know individuals by name. When responding to a call, the officer's first action would be to de-escalate the situation and understand the context, rather than immediately resorting to an arrest. For example, instead of arresting a young person for a minor offense, the officer might see it as an opportunity to connect them with a local community center or a mentorship program, addressing the root cause of the behavior rather than just the symptom.
For Alleged Suspects: The ethic of care would mean treating alleged suspects not just as criminals, but as individuals whose actions may be linked to systemic issues like poverty, lack of opportunity, or inadequate mental health services. The goal of an interaction would be to maintain the person’s dignity and humanity, even while fulfilling the legal requirements of the job. This could involve seeking restorative justice solutions, where suspects are given the chance to make amends to their victims and the community, rather than being sent directly to prison, which may exacerbate their struggles.
For the Police Department: A department committed to the ethic of care would need to prioritize community policing. This involves moving beyond a simple "us vs. them" dynamic. Success would be measured by community satisfaction and trust, rather than just by arrest statistics and citations. The department would invest heavily in training for cultural competency, emotional intelligence, and non-violent de-escalation techniques.
Sample Answer
Question 1: The Judge's Dilemma
This scenario presents a classic moral tragedy, pitting a fundamental duty to the law against a powerful personal obligation. The judge's dilemma lies in a forced choice between two terrible outcomes, where any action will result in a profound moral failing.
On one hand, the judge has a deontological duty to uphold justice. The judicial oath requires impartiality and a commitment to the rule of law. Convicting an innocent person would be a grave violation of this principle, representing a deliberate act of injustice that would undermine the very foundation of the legal system. From this perspective, the judge's personal suffering, while immense, cannot justify a subversion of their professional and ethical duties. To acquit the robber is to act justly, regardless of the devastating consequences to their daughter.