W6_Replies

I believe that if you do the crime, you do the time and that goes for any age. Juveniles understand right from wrong and they know what will happen if they are caught doing wrong, so if they know what will happen to them and they do the crime anyway, they should be liable for their actions. While they are paying for their crimes, I do believe they should undergo rehabilitation so that when they renter society, they would not do anything that would get them back in trouble.

A moral dilemma that I have heard police officers speak to classes about was when they are faced with a situation of arresting a friend or not. I have heard some officers say they let them go under the supervision of someone they know and I have heard others arrested their friend and lost that friendship with them. This I would say is frequent due to them working in the same city they grew up in. Something that unavoidable is the crooked police officers in the department. There are some bad police officers in most of all departments that want to abuse their authority, The good officers could see the bad officer doing something bad, but will not report it; when they should have once they saw the bad officer's actions.

2nd Response,

Discussion Prompt #1 - Yes, I believe that juveniles should be held accountable and responsible for their actions.  Often times, it is the lack of accountability and responsibility early in life that leads them to commit crimes in the first place.  Had they been properly and adequately disciplined when they were young, perhaps they wouldn't see crime as an activity worthy of pursuit.  With juveniles, the problem in deciding how they should be held accountable and responsible, is establishing their understanding of right and wrong, and their mens rea, or guilty mind.  Not knowing the law is no excuse, however, not understanding what is right or wrong or understanding consequences is.  Punishment that fits their age and the crime that they committed is essential, in my opinion.

Discussion Prompt #2 - If I understand this discussion point correctly, there is a question of ethics and then the question of morality.  Each of these terms has a very different definition and application, so they're not quite interchangeable, even though they are often used to say the same thing.  For example, from the Christian worldview, morality is the different between right and wrong, and is defined by God.  Ethics are a set of standards eminating from department policy, or best work practices. 

    For a police officer, a moral dilemna would be whether to arrest someone who exhibits drunk driving, blowing exactly the legal limit on a breathalizer.   The law says they are guilty and should be held accountable, the officer may decide that if they delayed their departure from the scene for a half-hour or so, they might just come under the legal limit.  An ethical dilemna an officer could face is whether to accept a free cup of coffee or free meal from a restaraunt simply for being an officer of the law.  The officer may appreciate the jesture, but in some departments it is an ethical violation because the restaraunt may now expect special treatment from the officer in the future.