Jesus Campos

Criminal Justice Ethics

Exam 1

A large debate always takes place in court rooms across the country – to what extent

should a man be allowed to fight back in self defense? As many would assume, the opinions

vary from individual to individual and as a result, the laws and legislation also varies from state

to state. These differences of opinion on the matter leave many communities split on the idea

of what is the “right” thing to do when someone is faced with such a dilemma. Should the

individual be forced to flee at all cost if possible, which is referred to as the “retreat doctrine”?

Should the person be allowed to fight back when he or she chooses and stand up for

themselves, which is referred to as the “stand your own ground” doctrine?? If so, then to what

extent of force can that individual use, and how can that force be measured in a court of law?

As anyone could guess, these problems are not easily answered; even the answers that are

there for people to read are primarily based on opinion, and offer nothing concrete. However, it

would help to exam these situations using ethical formulas and ethical principles presented by

philosophers. In this way, one will be able to distinguish the differences between the schools of

thought, and be able to at least perceive which theory would best apply to them.

Utilitarian pros and cons on the retreat doctrine: On the pros of the retreat doctrine

If one looks at the retreat doctrine from a utilitarian point of view, there is a principle

idea that arises almost instantly. Since Jeremy Bentham describes to us that to be a good
utilitarian, one must consider the greatest good for the greatest number of people as a moral

and ethical action. If one considers the fact that the retreat doctrine gives an inclination to

those in immediate danger to flee instead of placing them in harm’s way, then the doctrine is

saving lives. It is saving the lives and the well being of those that are being victimized and as

well, those who are victimizing. Since the law would indicate that if there is a possible way to

flee, then it is expected that one flees, then that individual would not fight back with force or

worst even unnecessary force. In comparison, is the life of a human being worth less than a car,

property in a home, jewelry or a stereo? It is clear that the preservation of the safety of both

parties involved serves the greater purpose in that it keeps people more safe.

In accordance to rule utilitarianism, the rule or law that is considered as the retreat

doctrine serves its purpose and should be considered ethical or good. Although critics would

indicate that the law would give the advantage to thieves and other wrongdoers, it is evident

that the retreat doctrine saves the safety of the persons involved, which is ultimately more

valuable than property.

On the cons of the retreat doctrine/ pros of the stand your ground doctrine:

Using the utilitarian perspective, the notion of the greatest good for the greatest

amount of individuals is the corner stone that is depended upon in order to consider something

good or bad, ethical or unethical. If one takes a close look into the retreat doctrine and realizes

that it is asking individuals to give up their rights as individuals to defend themselves and their

families from an intruder or attacker of some sort, it undermines the individual. In the United

States, the citizens admire and take pride in the fact that they are free beings who have the
freedom to defend themselves from even their own government. If the legislators demand that

an individual give up his right to defend himself and his family, what would occur of that moral

principle? The men who stand up bravely against the ones who corrupt their communities

should have that natural right as human beings to act. Jeremy Bentham believed that an actions

morality depended on how much it contributed to society. The actions of men who are willing

to stand up to evil when they see it, is something that cannot be replaced. It contributes the

ideas of honor and courage to their society, things that cannot be measured.

The general amounts of individuals who reside in this country live their lives in a

generally legal and honorable way, though no one is perfect, most individuals live civil lives. It is

in the best interest of the society as a whole to stand up to those few who are not willing to

cooperate in order to make their community better. It is because of this interest in the

overwhelming majority of society that utilitarianism would not support the retreat doctrine.

Utilitarian cons on the stand your ground doctrine:

If an individual looks into the stand your ground doctrine though the eyes of the

utilitarian, then one would have to be faced with the obvious dilemma that the discretion of an

individual is something that cannot be categorized as easily. By this it is meant that although

one can say that someone should have the right to defend themselves, their family and their

property from criminals, how can one define that action of defense and consider it just? Since

the notion of self defense lies in the idea of a law abiding citizen defending himself from a

criminal act, in what way would someone define that defense as justifiable? The problem lies in

that the single individual faced in the situation is going to react in a certain way depending on
the ideas and responses that person is prone to. This would lead into an obvious problem, what

happens when a self defense case turns the person who is defending himself into a criminal? As

is evident in many cases, most individuals that claim self defense do not adhere to the general

understating and face criminal prosecution themselves. If it is to be ethical in the utilitarian

perspective, then it has to serve the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. The stand

your own ground doctrine will lead into people getting injured and make people who would

otherwise not be criminally prosecuted become criminals in an attempt to defend themselves.

Since it is difficult to make that split second judgment for most individuals who are not trained,

it is not a good thing for the great good to put that kind of power into someone.

Ethical formalism pros and cons on the retreat doctrine: pros on retreat doctrine

In ethical formalism, Kant describes what is ethical and moral by basing them in what he

calls the good will and duty. In consideration of the retreat doctrine, a follower of Kant would

argue that since the law is asking individuals to flee at any possible availability of retreat, they

are asking a duty of them. First, Kant would stress that since the lawmakers are asking

individuals to flee when available to do so, one must apply that rule to everyone. It is important

to understand that the law does not require mandatory fleeing of someone, it only requires

fleeing when it is safe to do so, in which chase, the law would serve rightfully so amongst

everyone. Secondly, Kant would consider if the law would treat individuals as means to an ends.

Since the law is actually attempting to avoid an altercation between the two parties altogether,

then it is neither using the victim in the crime nor the perpetrator as the means to an end. If the

individuals were not asked to flee if available, then the person who is committing an offense is
at the mercy of the individual who is attempting to retaliate. In which case, the person who is

supposed to be in self defense is using the criminal as a means to his ends as far as his rage and

ideals are concerned. Kant would say that the retreat doctrine is ethical because it is a law that

would serve the categorical imperative and treat everyone evenly, not discriminating against

the criminal in the action and not giving supreme authority over the individual being victimized.

Cons on the retreat doctrine:

Ethical formalism serves a duty and good will, bringing about ethical and moral theories

based on the imperatives. The categorical imperative is based on the notion that it is absolute,

determines morality and is based on good will. Does fleeing from a confrontation appear to be

based on good will and determine morality? In this case, Kant would disagree with the retreat

doctrine because he would state that retreating from a personal altercation is not a categorical

imperative, but instead it belongs in the hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative is

one that is followed to obtain a certain goal. This imperative is neither moral nor immoral; it

has a neutral sense of being. In the case of the retreat doctrine, it should be up to the individual

to consider whether or not he deems it appropriate to retreat, it is not an absolute truth based

on good will. The good will of an individual varies and since many people are divided on the

subject, it is clear that some of those people would feel that retreating is actually against the

good will.

Ethical Formalism on the stand your ground doctrine: pros on the stand your ground doctrine:

When governments imply the stand your ground doctrine in defining the right to self defense

they do so with one thing in mind, the right to fight back. This right is a right that all individuals
share and something that is derived from what the majority hold as a natural law, an absolute

truth. Using ethical formalism, Kant would argue the categorical imperative would indicate that

if you were to universalize the belief that free people have the natural right to defend

themselves, their property and their family, the law would still stand. Because the stand your

ground doctrine does not make it illegal to not fight back, it cannot be said that it is adhering to

a strict policy to force retaliation. It is instead insisting that if the individual so chooses to, he or

she has the right to defend them, it is a liberty to choose. If the liberty to chose the course of

action in accordance to the individual were to become a universal rule, the categorical

imperative would remain. It is important to remember that it is not the action of mandatory

defense, not even the defense itself that is implied. Instead, it is the right to choose to do so if

the person is willing to do so. In that respect, Kant would agree that the stand your ground

doctrine would be a moral law.

Cons on stand your ground doctrine:

Ethical Formalism basis its theory on the fact that there is what is called good will, that

determines absolute ethics. When considering the stand your own ground doctrine, Kant would

look at the universal aspect of the imperative. What would happen if everyone decided to

stand their own ground with any sign of an alteration? The immediate thing anyone would

notice is the immediate danger people would be in. Since everyone would think it ethical to

fight back in any case, the people who are at a clear and present situation for danger to occur

are simply increasing and instigating that danger to be realized. Also, one must consider why it

is so important to fight back in the scenarios. Surely most people can agree that the value of
one’s own life is more important than any form of property or money one can obtain. What is

it then that drives people to retaliate and risk their lives? It is the idea of bravery and causing

harm back to those who bring harm. In Kant’s perspective, this would make the criminals a

means to an end for the defenders, simply convenient punching bags because of some idealistic

form of justice.

Ethics of care on the retreat doctrine: pros of the retreat doctrine

If the ethics of care were to be applied to the retreat doctrine one would conclude that

it would be a moral law to enforce. Primarily, it is keeping the safety of the general public and

the safety of the criminals at the same time. The law would indicate to the public that the

responsibility of the circumstances should not be on the shoulders of civilians, but instead on

the shoulders of those responsible in the government. At the same time one could also argue

that in the ethical care theory, the rights of the offenders are to be upheld just as much as the

victims. There are rights in this country that are shared by everyone from the president to the

worst criminal; due process is one of those rights. If the public is encouraged to retaliate against

the offenders, then those offenders will not face the due process for which they are due but

instead will face vigilante justice. Since we as a society base our consequences and punishments

for crimes strictly off of legislature and laws that have been passed, it is unethical to assume

authority over the punishment that certain criminal may be entitled to. A law encouraging

retreat would be an ethical law in accordance to care ethics.

Cons of the retreat doctrine:

Since the ethics of care focus primarily on what is the law and what we the nation can

do to accommodate those who are being committed injustices upon, it would be difficult to

argue the contrary. One idea could be that maybe the nation focuses too much attention on the

rights and the accommodations of those being punished that it indirectly neglects those who

follow the law. From a law abiding citizen stand point, it would seem to be unjust that attention

be placed on those who commit crimes more so than those who follow them. The principle

behind care ethics may need to be directed in both ways in order to ensure that all needs are

met. In the case of the retreat doctrine, it can be said that the implication is to spare the

unnecessary harm to the criminal to a certain extent. In which case the person being victimized

might feel like the law is taking the side of the criminal, leaving the individual with the short end

of the stick so to say. The concern for the safety of the general public should be addressed

evenly, not simply concerned with those who would be assumed to need it more than others.

Ethics of care on the stand your ground doctrine: pros of the stand your ground doctrine:

The general idea of care ethics is to ensure that the law is being fair and universal to all

citizens. The legislature try meeting their needs and wants while at the same time delivering

punishment to those who break the law, but doing so in a fair manner. By using the stand your

ground doctrine, the law makers can give some sort of special treatment to those who are

upholding the law against those who wish to break it. In this sense, the law would make sure

that fairness is delivered if necessary. If a man is attacked, he deserves the right to attack back

with the same amount of force, or more if it is necessary. The ethics of care are given to the
victim and the law would give that individual the right to make the playing field even. Since

most of the care this focus on the rights of those who are breaking the law and facing

prosecution for those crimes, this law would help those who follow the law and give them

something to hope for when they are facing danger as well.

Cons on the stand your ground doctrine:

The ethics of care began with the fact that criminals did not feel like they were being

treated fairly when it came time for prosecution and serving sentences. Many advances were

made in order to make the process more fair and universal to everyone, not target anyone in

specific. Since this country was founded with equality as a goal and the criminal justice system

is meant to be blind. As a society of law, we are meant to stick by those laws and our

constitution for everything we do. If individuals are given the right to fight back at their free

will, then some people would fight back with lethal force in instances that are not necessary.

People have retaliated with lethal shootings for robberies and verbal assaults in the past.

Where are those peoples due process? When did those individuals get to speak to a judge to

receive a sentence? Our laws and constitution cannot be completely disregarded because some

individuals feel the need to take those actions into their own hands.
Question #2

In regard to the distribution of resources, the opinions on what is right and wrong are

endless. Everyone argues their point and everyone can almost never agree on what should be

done with the distribution of resources in our country. I believe that what is important is the

overall well being and progress of our nation. To be specific in this discussion, I would like to

speak about the distribution of resources in the education of children across America. On this

subject I believe that I would have to side with John Rawls and his egalitarian system of

distribution. Rawls believes that the distribution of wealth should be shared evenly in such a

way that the maximum amount of resources go to the least fortunate individuals. Although at

first it appears to be some communist propaganda, it is evident after reading Rawls that the

extent of unfairness that goes on in this country is much deeper than I thought. Although it

seems on the surface that we all have equal opportunity if we work hard enough, there appear

to be many more aesthetic principles at work than I thought. Since the overwhelming amount

of poor children suffers from a poor early education system due to funding, how fair is it to

compare them to children from rich areas?

Rawls will argue that even the merit system of distribution, those who work harder

deserve more, does not comply entirely because it does not take into consideration natural

abilities that some individuals have over others. In the video, Dr. Sandel makes an example of

Judge Judy and a Supreme Court justice and compares their yearly earnings, not surprisingly the

TV show actress makes much more. What does this indicate? It shows me that although many

of us do have natural talents such as sports and acting, it does not mean that we deserve the
wealth that comes with those talents since we did not have to work as hard to obtain it. Those

individuals who do not have the success may have certain traits and skills that are unusual, but

simply no way to use them effectively. Rawls believes that no one can take credit for their

success because their success derives solely from arbitrary factors that they have no control

over.

So what can we do to change things for the better? Well Rawls believes that people

should distribute wealth in a manner that maximizes the opportunity to help the people at the

very bottom. Does this mean that if an individual becomes wealthy, they must give up their

entire earnings to help those at the bottom? Absolutely not. Rawls does not indicate that the

rich should not have the success they have, or that they do not deserve to be athletes or big

figures. Instead Rawls indicates that those people should donate a large amount of money to

help those who did not have those advantages in order to let them live a better life. For

example, Bill Gates can be as successful as he is today and be the king of Microsoft, but because

certain past actions and circumstances arbitrary to his own will made him fall into that position,

he does not deserve the earnings entirely that come with that position. He should donate and

distribute the money he earns in such a way to benefit those who did not get to land the job he

has and who do not have the opportunity to invent Microsoft.

It is clear that those who believe in a merit type system are those individuals who have

either been privileged with a life in which they feel that is all that is necessary or they have

been given an opportunity to rise from the bottom to the top in a way that makes them believe

it is possible for anyone to do as they did. But is that the case? There are instances that you
hear of a certain poor person attending a big shot university and it is said as some type of proof

that if you try hard enough that you can do whatever your will desires. Let us remember that a

few exceptions to general rules do not debunk the general rules. Yes it is possible for anyone to

attend a school like Yale or Harvard, there have been rare instances in the past were people

who would appear to have no chance of going to those schools get accepted, but how often is

that? I would like to make a comparison to those children, who do not have the opportunity as

opposed to those who did, I am sure of the results. Anyone who opposes Rawls must either be

living in the top of the social structure or believe those rare occasions to be evidence to prove

his theory wrong. I can almost say for certain that anyone who does reside in the lower class in

which he is referring to can agree that it is not as fair as we are made to believe. There are

measures that need to be taken in order to even the social status of our nation and bring

success to as many people possible.

John Rawls egalitarian theory makes the most sense to me because it targets everyone

in as fair of a way as possible. Although the people on top would feel that the bottom needs to

earn what they should get, it is clear to me that the people on top would remain on top and

those in the bottom would still be in the bottom. But I think that gap would become smaller and

smaller and you would see many more situations in which people and families that come from

lower income communities come across and become successful individuals. To conclude, I

believe that if anyone under Rawls theory of distribution works hard, they will have a successful

life. The actors, CEO’s, bankers and athletes would still be making a considerable amount more

than the average blue collar worker, but not so much that the average man feels he is being left

behind in this nation.