Solving ethical issues can be a challenging task, which is why it is helpful to develop a method for approaching ethical problems. In order to solve ethical problems, justice must be properly used to make moral decisions that benefit society. I will begin this essay by discussing previous papers I have written in ERH-207W, and if they share a common procedure for addressing ethical issues. Next, I will discuss the ethical issue of choosing to not hold criminals accountable despite their crimes, discuss how administering justice could help solve this issue, and then determine if this approach is useful or not.
This semester, I have written two essays In Dr. Richter’s ERH-207W course (excluding this one). The first essay I wrote was about civil disobedience and if it is just. In this essay, I argued that civil disobedience should not be encouraged, but is justifiable in some situations (McBeth, Civil Disobedience Essay, 1). My second essay was about John Mill’s harm principle. My central argument in this essay was that the harm principle is an “invalid theory” because “some aspects of it make it flawed and difficult to support” (McBeth, Harm Principle Essay, 1). However, neither of these essays share a common method for solving ethical problems. The reason why these essays do not share a consistent approach to solving ethical issues is because they analyze two separate subjects. They attempt to answer two niche questions, and neither essay involves similar themes or methods that are universally applicable to all ethical issues. For example, my first essay may be useful for determining an approach to problems related to civil disobedience and oppression, but my argument in this essay would not be applicable to all ethical issues. My second essay could be used to solve issues associated with liberty, freedom of choice, and people causing harm to others, but the arguments in this text would not be a universal solution for ethical problems.
An ethical issue in society is failing to deliver proper justice to criminals. This is an ethical problem because there are two arguments that make it difficult to come to an accepted solution. The first argument is that the justice system is inherently righteous because it is designed to hold criminals accountable for their crimes. When somone is being prosecuted, it is easy to hold the perception that justice will surely be administered due to the lengthy and thorough process of court procedures. In other words, the justice system should be trusted due to its sole purpose and nature. When a criminal is let off easily, this must be the proper decision because the justice system should not fail. The opposing argument to this is that justice is not always delivered when the justice system is used. Some defendants are able to walk away from their trials scotch free, despite the existence of incriminating evidence that should otherwise lead to their incarceration. This is a major issue with the American justice system and contributes to the idea that people can get away with crimes because justice is not always delivered to criminals. There are numerous United States court cases in which justice fails to be delivered to the criminal. One of the most notorious instances of this is the prosecution of George Zimmerman following the death of Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman is known for murdering Trayvon Martin, an African American teenager, and is infamous for being able to walk away from this crime without facing prison time (Brodin, 766). Before shooting Martin, Zimmerman called authorities and “reported on the 911 call that the subject was running away, but against the explicit instructions of the dispatcher not to follow him, he pursued Martin, ending in a confrontation in which Zimmerman shot the unarmed youth once in the heart, killing him instantly” (Brodin 771). “Zimmerman claimed he acted in self-defense: that Martin jumped on top of him, tried to smother him, repeatedly slammed his head into concrete (twenty times), said he would kill him, and finally reached for his holstered gun” (Brodin 772). However, there was significant evidence that these allegations were false – the DNA of Martin was not found on any of Zimmerman’s belongings, Zimmerman was likely stronger than Martin, and Zimmerman’s weapon was not in a convenient position to be grabbed (Brodin 772). Despite this damning evidence, George Zimmerman would not be held accountable for his actions and has been able to live the rest of his life as a free man. This situation exemplifies the ethical issue of choosing not to deliver justice to those who deserve it. On paper, the evidence suggests that Zimmerman should be punished for his actions because it appears he did not actually kill Martin to defend himself. However, the justice system holds the ultimate authority over this situation, and since the justice system let Zimmerman remain a free man, there is not much else that can be done to hold him accountable. This creates an ethical dilemma that must be addressed.
The proper use of justice can help solve similar ethical problems in the courtroom. In a work discussing John Rawls and justice, Ben Davies references “Rawls’ central claim that we should conceive of justice ‘as fairness.’” (Davies, 2). According to Davies, Rawls would argue that people who have an upper hand because they are “wealthier, or part of a social majority”, should not rely on these privileges, because it may lead to lack of fairness (Davies 2). Privileges such as these can cause justice to be skewed, and fair rewards or punishments may not be delivered to those who deserve them (Davies 2). Therefore, the way to solve the issue of criminals escaping justice is simple. One must consistently practice justice, while remaining unbiased towards other factors or privileges, because fairness is the ultimate foundation of justice (Davies, 2). If this method is applied, people will be held responsible for their crimes despite their race, financial advantages, etc. If the individuals involved in George Zimmerman’s trial practiced an unbiased and authentic form of justice, then Zimmerman would have been imprisoned for his actions. Zimmerman imposed unnecessary suffering upon Martin’s family, so it is not right that Zimmerman is able to live out the rest of his days while his victim’s family must go on without Trayvon. When it is evident that someone is in the wrong, the right thing to do is hold them accountable for their actions. By doing so, justice will be properly delivered, and individuals such as Zimmerman will be held responsible for their actions. If the method I suggest was used, George Zimmerman would likely be in prison right now.
I am convinced that this would be a beneficial approach for solving this kind of ethical issue. If justice was constantly practiced correctly in the courtroom, criminals would not be let off the hook for their actions. I believe this is a good approach because it ensures that people who do wrong are justly punished. Justice is also rewarding to the victim’s loved ones. They can receive closure that the person who harmed their loved one will pay for their crime, and that justice has ultimately been served. Additionally, this approach would deter other people from committing crimes in the future. This is because they would see that other criminals are consistently being reprimanded, regardless of if they have excellent lawyers or a surplus of money to spend on a defense team.
When dealing with ethical issues, justice should be used to ensure that a society is righteous and just towards its citizens. When justice is used correctly, a moral balance is upheld that rewards the good and punishes the bad. This approach is applicable to helping eliminate unjust legal decisions in the courtroom, but possessing a sense of justice can guide one in solving other ethical issues. It is important to be unbiased when determining who is right and who is wrong in a conflict, and this is one of the first steps to take when practicing justice. When a nation delivers justice more frequently, peace, order, and respect become more widespread in society.
Reflection
Writing this essay made me view justice and the legal system in the United States in a different light. I find it surprising that instances of injustice in the United States pop up as much as they do. However, compared to some other nations, I would predict that the United States’ legal system is in much better shape. I think Americans should be happy with what we are entitled to in the U.S., because other people around the world might not be as lucky. Nonetheless, this essay made me realize that the U.S. still has a way to go to becoming a nation that prioritizes justice above all other things.
Works Cited
Brodin, Mark. “The Murder of Black Males in a World of Non-Accountability: The Surreal Trial of George Zimmerman for the Killing of Trayvon Martin.” Harvard Law Journal, vol. 59, no. 3, 2016, pp. 766-772.
Davies, Ben. “John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’.” 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology, 2018, pp. 2.
McBeth, Jeffrey. “Is Civil Disobedience Ever Just?” ERH-207W-01, 2023. pp. 1.
McBeth, Jeffrey. “Mill’s Harm Principle: Is it Right?” ERH-207W-01, 2023. pp. 1.
Be First to Comment