Ethics

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ETHICS TAKE-HOME EXERCISE 1

In any event that takes place, there are a number of reasons that can cause a conflict over whether a certain act was ethical or not. Hence, it is most desirable to have a proper fixed system to determine this and verify such an incident.

FACTS
Police officer stole money from a suspect that he arrested and expected his colleague to ignore this activity.

II. DETAILS
Murphy is a police officer who has been serving for 3 years. In the absence of his regular partner, he is paired with Candy for patrol duty. During their shift, they respond to a silent alarm in a local store. While Murphy calls for backup, Candy arrests the criminals and extortionate 1500 out of one of them and keeps it for his personal use. He then asks Eddie to remain quiet about this dealing and Eddie does.

III. ISSUE
After having witnessed the entire incident, is Eddie Murphy obliged to take any action against Candy for his conduct or not

IV. IDEALS
A few of the ideals in this assignment are
Justice
Justice is a highly relevant aspect in this context as it portrays the difference between the right and the wrong. It sheds light on the fact that it was unjust to the robber to have money (not yet proven as not his), taken from him and not returned. Also, the fact that the veteran got to enjoy the 1500, is unjust.

Fairness
It isnt fair to rob a man out of money that has not yet been proven as not belonging to him. And this is exactly what Andy did. Furthermore, he did not even turn it in and instead kept the money for his personal use.

Dishonesty
Dishonesty can be witnessed on the part of Candy who stole money and also on the part of Eddie Murphy who failed to report it despite having being a witness to the incident.

Deceit Candy deceived his superiors into believing that he was acting in the best interest of the country while he was actually deceiving them and earning for his personal satisfaction. Similarly, Eddie Murphy also deceives his superiors into believing that he would act ethically at all times when in fact in this incident he doesnt.

V. OBLIGATIONS

When viewing the obligations imposed in this case, there are two obligations that precede any other that could come up. First, is Candys obligation and second is Eddie Murphys

As per the Utilitarian Principle whatever decision leads to the greater good of the masses should be employed. Hence, Candy is obligated to not steal money from the convicts as this would result in him gaining money, while the convict loses money and the law enforcement system to breed corruption. Candy is also obligated to the authorities that granted him his position and placed trust in him to be fair and just. He owes it to them to personify every quality that is expected out of a man of such a rank and at his post.

Similarly, as per Utilitarianism Eddie is obligated to his state to ensure that wrong acts are punished accordingly as acts such as Candys only benefit Candy, while it is detrimental to the person whose money he stole and also to the state that placed trust in him to enforce law.

Another obligation is the obligation that lies with the convict whose money is stolen. It is also his obligation to report the theft and ensure that action is taken so that corruption within such organizations is also minimized.

VI. CONSEQUENCES
Candy He stole money from a suspect and kept it as his own. This could have led Candy being able to afford a college education for his daughter, or on the other hand, it could have led him to being punished by the authorities had he been reported and proven guilty.

Eddie Murphy He failed to report to authorities about Candys theft that he had witnessed. This makes Eddie and accomplice to the crime by not taking adequate action against the incident or informing the authorities about it. Hence, he could either get into trouble with his superiors if word would have gotten around, or else remained indifferent about it.

VII. CONCLUSION
Having taken into account all the events that took place, and after analyzing them with respect to Kants theories, we can easily conclude that Candys actions were completely unethical. He had no right to assume that the money in the suspects pocket was stolen, and furthermore, keep the money for his own personal use. It is also unethical on the part of Eddie Murphy who failing to take any actions against the crime he had witnessed, also became an accomplice to it.