Ethics and Morality Obtaining the

Ethics and Morality Obtaining the Confession number of ethical issues present themselves in this particular case. First among them is whether it is right to arrest Sylvester Smoot simply because the police have a "gut feeling" that he is the perpetrator.

This dilemma is directly based on the next issue - will arresting Sylvester Smoot save Mickey Cappa's life? Does a known criminal have "more" rights than a presumably innocent child? Would it be ethical for police to pretend, while interrogating Smoot, that they actually have evidence against him? Again, would such behavior not be justified if it saves the boy's life? Many different options are available in resolving these ethical issues. Police could investigate Smoot's whereabouts and alibis during the time of the boy's disappearance.

Investigators could tell Police Chief Jones that if they find any evidence at all that Smoot might have been in a position to kidnap Cappa then they will bring him in for questioning. Police can use a hypothetical model of what happened to Cappa, pose this scenario to Smoot, and see if he seems evasive, or lets slip any pertinent information.

If detectives can show that there is a reasonably probability that either Smoot is the abductor, or that he might have information that could lead to the boy's safe recovery, it can be argued that questioning Smoot will do more good than harm. If Smoot is not forthcoming during the investigation police might relate to him scenarios from his own criminal past that appear to be similar to the present situation in order to see how he responds. Perhaps, in this instance, Smoot might reveal useful information.

Lastly, police can try to impress on Smoot the idea that a boy's life is in danger, without necessarily indicating they believe it is because of his own actions. Possibly Smoot will divulge information if he is not actually involved, or again, might accidentally reveal information about his complicity. There are a number of stakeholders in this case. Mickey Cappa is a stakeholder as his safety, or even his life, might depend on the investigation. The boy's family are stakeholders as they want their boy back safe and sound.

The police chief is stakeholder as, whatever the outcome; it is his authority and judgment that is being tested. A similar argument applies to the detectives, though their responsibility is not as great as they are not actually in charge of the investigation. Smoot, too, holds a major stake in the investigation as his own freedom, reputation, etc. hang in the balance. The community in which all of these people live and work may also be considered a stakeholder, as other children might be at risk.

As well, the community's reputations for fairness and justice could be challenged too. Immanuel Kant believed firmly in the existence of a universal moral law - moral principals that would hold true in all situations. The case at hands presents a considerable dilemma in terms of Kant's philosophy. On the surface, many commonly-held moral principles appear to conflict depending upon their application. One must look carefully at all of the possible outcomes, and work hard to find principles that would apply evenly to them all.

The central ethical issue is what shall the police chief decide in regard to the detective's request to bring in Smoot, use subterfuge in their interrogation, etc. It might be argued, according to Kant's ideas, that the law exists in order to establish universal standards of behavior and of right and wrong. If Police Chief Jones allows the detectives to violate the law by arresting Smoot and presenting him with false evidence, he would be condoning behavior that is inherently illegal.

The argument could be made that if it is all right for the authorities to violate the law, then it is all right for the boy's abductor to violate the law. In this view, there can be no distinction of degree - no greater gravity of one offense over the other. To disparage the law is to encourage its being broken, and so to encourage the kind of behavior that has led to the boy's disappearance.

Nevertheless, if it were to turn out that Smoot was the boy's abductor, and he had killed Cappa, a strict adherence to the law would have resulted in the boy's death. Act Utilitarianism would have demanded that the Police Chief do what achieved the most good for the most people in this particular situation. The community would certainly represent a larger interest group than Smoot, himself, the detectives, or Mickey Cappa.

In this view, the greatest utility would be served by keeping the community safe, by ensuring that such act never again happen, or if they do, that those associated with them be punished. The arrest and interrogation of Smoot would amount to a statement that Smoot has already transgressed the bounds of community morality and so must remain suspect until such time as his conduct places him entirely above suspicion.

Smoot is the logical suspect because his prior actions indicate that he is capable of committing this act, and it is the community's, as represented by the Police Chief, responsibility to see that all avenues are explored, and that everything is done to obtain the safe return of Cappa. Still another way of looking at Police Chief Jones' dilemma would be to examine it from the perspective of Egoism i.e. Of what would be best for Police Chief Jones.

Though in many way sin conflict with other philosophies, the egotistical approach would demand that Jones look at how his own life, career, standing in the community, and so forth, would be affected by his decisions. He could adhere to the letter of the law (presuming it to be universally good in a Kantian way) and hope that the boy will be found alive and well, and his abductor caught.

However, in that case, he would have to be willing to risk the consequences of a failure to find the boy and the recriminations that would result. The Police Chief might decide that it is not worth the risk for him personally to not haul in the "most likely" suspect. As well, a decision to take whatever means necessary to find the boy and his abductor would, in the case that such methods are successful, likely result in an increase in Jones' own prestige.

The wisest option in this case would seem to be to bring in Sylvester Smoot for questioning, though not to formally arrest him or charge him. Smoot appears, on the surface, to be well-placed to have been involved in Mickey Cappa's disappearance. He has abducted young boys before and lives in the neighborhood. Police Chief Jones and his detectives could reasonably suspect that he might be involved. Perhaps as well, he might know of others who could have abducted the boy.

The assumption here would be that, as a known pedophile, he might have had contacts of some sort with other pedophiles, and if he himself is not guilty, he might lead police to other suspects. The Act Utilitarianism that such a choice involves would appear to provide the best value for the most people. Simply bringing in Smoot, would not be the same as arresting him. If he is guilty, he would be off the street, and so keep other potential victims safe.

If he is not guilty, he would be more likely to reveal the names of other suspects if they are known to him. Furthermore, the questioning of Smoot by using deceptive techniques makes sense within reason. In this instance, the situation might be more one of Rule Utilitarianism. The more evidence that police have against Smoot, the more reasonable it would be to create a scenario that would appear to incriminate him.

It does not seem right to place Smoot at the scene of the crime if no such evidence exists. It would seem better to develop a "history" of events that could place Smoot, or some other culprit in the role of perpetrator. Police detectives could use this story to cause Smoot to implicate himself by vehemently denying facts, or by offering others that could indicate his guilt. By the same token, the use of such methods could cause Smoot to name other possible culprits - perhaps even the real culprit.

By employing pretense in the questioning of Smoot, but adjusting the amount of pretense used according to the actual information known to police, would represent the following of the rules, so long as those rules advance the cause of keeping the community - and all the individuals within that community - safe. Lastly, the arrest and questioning of Smoot, and the use of deceptive methods of interrogation to a point would serve the notion of Natural Rights. The boy has a right to live a happy life.

By doing everything he can to find him, the Police Chief is helping to guarantee that right. Smoot, too, has a right to live a happy life, but he has already grossly interfere din the rights of others to enjoy a happy life unmolested. He has already placed himself under a cloud of suspicion by the community, and while he still possess the same essential rights, he cannot be regarded deserving of the same attention as the boy.