Guilty Men to Walk Free

¶ … guilty men to walk free rather than have one innocent man convicted? The cost-benefit policy answer is no" (prosecutor) - Utilitarian

"No rate of preventable errors that destroy people's live and destroy the lives of those close to them is acceptable" (law professor) -- Ethical Formalism

The four convicts are already listed in descending order of my sympathies: The young woman deserves the most lenient sentence allowed by law because she is herself a victim whose predicament was practically unavoidable, and her crime was not against another person. She gets the minimum sentence allowed by law. The father's response is understandable, but my degree of sympathy would depend on the circumstances, such as the distinction between a "hot-blooded" response immediately upon learning of the abuse, (earning the minimum sentence allowed by law), or a premeditated action and longer time between learning of the abuse and responding, (earning a longer sentence than for the hot-blooded version). The college student is more capable of rehabilitation and his crime was an accident; but he also has the least excuse by virtue of his good fortune (compared to #1) and presumed ability to know the risk he was taking. If he were appropriately remorseful, I would impose a lengthy probation without alcohol consumption for the duration of college, restitution to the victim's family (including face-

to-face sessions), and participation in alcohol awareness programs for other students.

The single mother is the least sympathetic because her crime was intentional and calculated, and because other (legal) funding options were probably available, including assumption of debt and its future consequences. Her sentence would include restitution and would be mitigated or aggravated depending on her prior history and other circumstantial factors.

Question #3

1. If probable cause for arrest exists, it is legal even if the prosecutor knows the charge will be dropped; if there is insufficient probable cause for arrest, the charge is illegal. Either way, the action is unethical, because of the motive and known consequences ahead of time.

2. Announcing the suspect's identity to the media to provide incentive for his surrender is both legal and ethical. Linking protective custody to relinquishing his constitutional rights is both unethical and illegal.

3. Arresting anybody with knowledge that he is innocent is both immoral and illegal. (the confession is irrelevant if it is not believed.) Arresting the innocent to pressure the guilty is also illegal and unethical.

Question #1 (short response)

The only way I could defend Timothy Mcveigh or anyone else apparently guilty of a heinous crime (like terrorist attacks) would be if I honestly believed in his innocence or if I were bound by legal duty in the capacity of Public Defender. In both cases, I

would either decline or defend my case zealously. As a private criminal defense attorney,