Instructions Week 4 Project Case Study Supporting Lecture Se

Instructionsweek 4 Project Case Studiessupporting Lecturesethical Sy

Instructionsweek 4 Project Case Studiessupporting Lecturesethical Sy

Instructions Week 4 Project: Case Studies Supporting Lectures: Ethical Systems Correctional Philosophy Ethical Dilemmas in Corrections For this assignment, read the cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs (2012). These cases deal with the topic of juveniles tried and sentenced as adults. Analyze whether either of these cases addresses the utilitarian view of ethical treatment of convicted murderers.

Differentiate between the peacemaking philosophy and deontological philosophy in the context of murder sentencing for juveniles. Do these philosophies differ when the defendant is an adult? Considering these two cases, determine whether either should have been handled differently under the utilitarian or the deontological philosophies. In general terms, consider a judge who must determine whether a 16-year-old who committed a violent crime should be tried as an adult. Identify the ethical dilemma(s) the judge faces and describe how he or she might arrive at an ethical decision.

Paper For Above instruction

The cases of Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Jackson v. Hobbs (2012) are pivotal in understanding the ethical considerations surrounding juvenile sentencing, particularly in cases involving violent crimes such as murder. These landmark rulings significantly influence the debate on whether juveniles should be tried and sentenced as adults, and they serve as a foundation for analyzing different ethical philosophies pertinent to corrections and justice.

Miller v. Alabama specifically held that mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. Similarly, Jackson v. Hobbs prohibited the imposition of juvenile life without parole in Arkansas and mandated a re-sentencing process. Both cases explicitly challenge the utilitarian perspective, which emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number by focusing on rehabilitation and societal benefit over retribution. The courts’ decisions reflect a shift towards considering juveniles' developmental immaturity and potential for change, aligning with utilitarian principles that advocate for humane treatment and the potential for rehabilitation rather than retribution alone.

The utilitarian view of ethical treatment is centered on maximizing overall well-being and preventing harm. When applied to juvenile offenders, this philosophy suggests that sentencing should consider the potential for growth, the likelihood of rehabilitation, and the societal benefits of reforming young offenders. Both Miller and Jackson exemplify this perspective by emphasizing the importance of individualized justice and recognizing juveniles' diminished culpability due to their developmental stage. These rulings imply that age and maturity are critical factors in ensuring that punishment does not outweigh the potential for positive societal contributions through rehabilitation.

In contrast, the deontological philosophy emphasizes the inherent moral duties and rights of individuals, independent of the consequences. From this perspective, juveniles, like adults, possess fundamental human rights that must be respected, regardless of their criminal acts. Deontological ethics would argue that each person deserves to be treated with dignity and fairness, and any punishment must adhere to moral principles rather than utilitarian calculations of societal benefit. Under this philosophy, the focus is on justice as a matter of moral obligation rather than societal utility.

The peacemaking philosophy offers an approach centered on restorative justice, reconciliation, and community healing. It emphasizes understanding offenders' circumstances, addressing underlying causes of criminal behavior, and fostering peaceful resolutions. In the context of juvenile sentencing, peacemaking would prioritize rehabilitation through dialogue and community involvement, seeking to repair the harm done rather than merely punishing the offender. This philosophy significantly differs from deontological ethics, which focus on moral duties, and utilitarianism, which centers on societal utility.

When considering adult offenders, these philosophies may lead to different disciplinary responses. For instance, peacemaking might favor restorative justice programs for adults, while deontological principles would emphasize respect for moral rights applying uniformly, regardless of age. Utilitarian approaches might support harsher punishments for adults if they maximize societal safety, but also incorporate rehabilitation when it benefits societal well-being in the long term.

Analyzing the cases of Miller and Jackson through these philosophical lenses reveals that both cases were handled in consistent alignment with utilitarian and deontological principles emphasizing humane treatment and individual rights. Specifically, the courts recognized the developmental immaturity of juveniles, suggesting that a strictly retributive or utilitarian approach that disregards age and potential for change would be inappropriate. Therefore, these cases should not have been handled differently; instead, their rulings reflect a nuanced application of ethical theories prioritizing humane and morally respectful treatment.

In a scenario where a judge must decide whether a 16-year-old involved in a violent crime should be tried as an adult, several ethical dilemmas arise. The primary dilemma involves balancing the societal need for safety and justice with the juvenile’s developmental age and potential for rehabilitation. The judge faces conflicting duties: the duty to uphold societal safety through appropriate penalties and the moral obligation to treat juveniles with dignity and fairness. The judge might consider the severity of the crime, the offender’s history, and the potential for change, guided by ethical principles from utilitarian, deontological, and peacemaking philosophies.

Using a utilitarian perspective, the judge might lean towards trying the juvenile as an adult if it maximizes societal safety, deters future crimes, and enhances overall well-being. Conversely, from a deontological viewpoint, the judge would uphold the moral rights of the juvenile, advocating for treatment that respects their dignity and developmental status. From the peacemaking perspective, the decision would favor approaches that promote reconciliation, community healing, and addressing underlying factors contributing to the crime.

Ultimately, ethical decision-making in juvenile cases requires integrating these philosophies, considering the individual circumstances of the offender, and acknowledging the broader societal implications. The judge must weigh retribution, rehabilitation, and societal safety, ultimately striving for an ethically justifiable decision that respects human dignity and promotes societal good.

References

• Baker, D. (2014). Juvenile Justice and the Constitution: Cases and Materials. Carolina Academic Press.
• Council of Juvenile Corrections. (2020). Ethical Issues in Juvenile Justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Ethics, 39(2), 45-58.
• Gordon, R. (2019). Juvenile Justice: An Introduction. Sage Publications.
• Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
• Jackson v. Hobbs, 673 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2012).
• Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). (Supreme Court rule on juvenile death penalty)
• Scharf, M. (2021). Restorative Justice and the Juvenile Justice System. Journal of Social Justice & Ethics, 12(4), 107-123.
• Ward, D. (2018). Ethical Foundations of Criminal Justice. Routledge.
• Wilkins, J., & Morris, R. (2020). Juvenile Justice: Policy and Practice. Oxford University Press.
• Yoshikawa, H., & Fried, S. (2019). Developmental Perspectives on Juvenile Justice. American Psychologist, 74(3), 334-346.