Justifications and excuses in moral philosophy

Justifications and Excuses

As Adam leaves the bank and approaches his car, he sees his wife behind the wheel of the car with an unknown man seated next to her holding an object to her side. Another man approaches Adam and informs him that he and his partner will kill Adam's wife unless Adam robs the bank and returns to the parking lot within five minutes. He hands Adam a stick-up note and a fake gun. Adam robs the bank and delivers the money to the men. Adam is arrested for bank robbery.

In the past there have been cases where innocent individuals have been forced to rob banks. Either they were threatened with guns or their family members were; others have been hooked up to explosives and told that if they do not rob the bank, then the bomb will detonate. In 2012, a woman was forced to rob a bank while a gunman held her children hostage at home (Velasquez 2012). Under these circumstances, the man would have to prove that he had not been involved in the robbery but was in fact a victim. To do this, he would have to show the gun, or that the stick-up note was not in his handwriting. The testimony of his wife would help, but he would need some other form of corroboration. For example, if the teller with whom he interacted noticed he was upset or fearful about the robbery rather than forward and confident, that would help his case.

Part II: After a whirlwind romance, Charles gets married to Caroline. The relationship sours and Caroline leaves. Some months later, Charles receives a divorce petition from Caroline along with a letter from her lawyer which states that unless he contests, the divorce will be granted in 90 days. Charles remarries two years later to Delia. Delia is convinced that Charles is cheating on her. She hires a private detective to investigate Charles. The detective discovers that Charles' divorce from Caroline was never granted because Caroline did not pay the mandated court fees. Delia complains to her brother, a policeman. Charles is arrested for bigamy.

According to the Model Penal Code so long as Charles legitimately and honestly believed his first marriage was legally over, then he can use that as a defense against the bigamy charges (Loewy 1975,-page 131). Since he really thought that Caroline and he were divorced, then he cannot be successfully prosecuted for bigamy. If, however, prosecution can prove that Charles knew his divorce was not final and that Caroline had not paid the charges, then they could charge him with bigamy.

Part III: Bob and Brandy own a pistol registered in Bob's name. They keep the pistol in the drawer of the night stand. One day, their eight-year-old son, Tom, is playing in their room with his friend, Sandy. Tom finds the pistol and accidentally shoots Sandy. Analyze and explain who should be held responsible. Why? Would Tom's age be a mitigating circumstance? Why or why not?'

In these unfortunate events, the parents are usually held accountable for the actions of their sons and daughters. For example, in 2013 a man was charged with endangering the welfare of a child and for disorderly conduct in allowing a minor access to a loaded firearm after his four-year-old killed a six-year-old with the family gun (Jones 2013). Parents are informed when they buy a gun that they need to keep it in a safe place. This particular gun was in a place where the child could easily access it, and it was apparently loaded which is another irresponsible action on the part of the parents. Usually children under seven are not held accountable for acts because it is deemed that they cannot understand the severity of their actions. At age eight, this child will likely be ordered to attend counseling to ensure further accidents do not occur, but as far as criminal charges are concerned, the parents would be far more likely to receive them than the son.

Part IV: A law enforcement officer is parked close to a local bar. A man comes out of the bar and drives off. The officer follows the vehicle down the road, turns on his lights and sirens indicating that the driver should pull over to the side of the road. The officer then arrests the driver, transports the driver to the police station, performs the breathalyzer test and arrests the driver for driving under the influence. Later that night, the same officer arrests another driver for driving erratically. During questioning the officer learns that the second driver was at the same bar as the first. Analyze and explain would either driver have any excuse for defense. Why or why not? Explain your answer using examples to support your position.