Situation 1: You Are A Parole Officer Who Has A Single Mothe

Situation 1you Are A Parole Officer Who Has A Single Mother With Three

You are a parole officer supervising a single mother who has three young children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). She receives no assistance from her ex-husband, and her own mother refuses to support her or her children, believing she is being punished by God. The mother works as a topless dancer but dislikes her job; she continues because it provides significant income. She regularly smokes marijuana to manage stress, which constitutes a violation of her probation. If a violation report is filed, she risks returning to prison. Despite these challenges, she appears committed to her children, is actively involved in their education, and has a strong bonding relationship with them. Concerns exist about the well-being of the children should she face incarceration.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma faced by the parole officer involves balancing the laws and rules governing probation violations against the compassionate considerations of the mother’s circumstances and her dedication to her children. The officer must decide whether to report her marijuana use, risking her return to prison, or to adopt a more lenient approach considering her efforts to care for her children and her overall stability as a mother.

From an ethical perspective, the decision could be supported by different moral frameworks. A deontological approach emphasizes adherence to rules and moral duties—specifically, the obligation to uphold the law and enforce probation conditions (Kant, 1785). In this view, reporting her marijuana use is the morally correct action because it respects the legal code that prohibits drug use during probation. Conversely, a utilitarian perspective focuses on outcomes, advocating for actions that promote the greatest good for the greatest number. If reporting the violation would lead to her imprisonment, resulting in turmoil for her children and potential social harms, a utilitarian might argue for leniency to maintain stability and promote her well-being (Mill, 1863).

Given the complex circumstances, a pragmatist might suggest a nuanced approach. The parole officer could consider intervening by providing resources such as addiction counseling, stress management programs, or social services support, rather than immediately filing a violation report. This approach aligns with the ethical system of virtue ethics, which emphasizes moral character and compassion, enabling the officer to act with empathy and judgment based on the context (Aristotle, 4th century BCE). By choosing intervention over punitive measures, the officer demonstrates virtues such as compassion, responsibility, and prudence, focusing on rehabilitation and the best interests of the children.

Regarding moral rules, four key principles apply here:

• Respect for Autonomy: Respecting her efforts to care for her children and her right to make decisions about her life.
• Nonmaleficence: Avoiding actions that could harm her or her children, such as risking her incarceration.
• Beneficence: Acting in ways that promote her well-being and that of her children, such as offering support rather than punishment.
• Justice: Ensuring fair treatment by enforcing rules consistently but also considering her circumstances fairly.

Conclusion

In this complex situation, the parole officer should weigh the legal obligation to enforce probation conditions against the moral considerations of compassion and support for a mother doing her best under difficult circumstances. Using an ethical system of virtue ethics, the officer might opt for a compassionate, supportive intervention, encouraging her to seek help for stress and substance use, thereby balancing adherence to the law with moral responsibility. Such an approach respects the moral rules of beneficence and nonmaleficence while recognizing her autonomy and the importance of supporting her role as a mother.

References

• Aristotle. (4th century BCE). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Mill, J.S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Jones, T. (2016). Ethical Decision-Making in Social Work. Social Work Today, 16(3), 22-25.
• Ethics in Criminal Justice (2020). [Textbook]. John Wiley & Sons.
• Reamer, F. (2018). Social Work Values and Ethics. NASW Press.
• Beauchamp, T.L., & Childress, J.F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Kidder, R.M. (2005). Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values Are at Stake. HarperOne.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Development and Its Logic. Oxford University Press.
• Rest, J.R., & Narvaez, D. (2013). Moral Development, Self, and Identity. Psychology Press.