Punitive Justice and the Case for Compassion

Ethical Dilemmas: Case Study

1 The Judge

The situation in this case is that Woodrow Wilson is in need of mental health care and his actions are caused by acute addiction and associated mental illness. He may receive the care he needs if he is given a lighter sentence and sent to county jail, but the business community wants the maximum sentence, which would mean state lockup and no mental health assistance. From a punitive justice standpoint, it makes sense that Wilson be given the maximum sentence to satisfy the business community. However, from a humane perspective it is obvious that Wilson needs mental health care, which he will not receive if sent to state imprisonment. The judge can pacify the business community and potentially secure his seating (if he is elected and depends on the community for votes) by sentencing Wilson to the maximum per guidelines. However, from a humane perspective, the judge would do the right thing by Wilson by sending him to county jail and making sure he gets mental health help.

The judge should act from the standpoint of virtue ethics, which focuses on doing the right thing that will build a person’s character based on universal virtues. In many cases, it is shown that crime is often a mental health problem and that the underlying issues too often go unaddressed. To stop the cycle of crime and address the root causes, mental health has to be addressed. This should not be a matter of thinking about his standing with the business community. He is there to preside over each case and assess what needs to be done. For Wilson, helping him to deal with his issues would be the best thing for him and it would show good character on the part of the judge.

Also from a utilitarian standpoint, it would be the best thing for the common good of society. If criminals are just locked up for a few years and their mental health issues are not treated, nothing is really solved. The judge would simply be putting a temporary band-aid on the issue. He has a responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the community, and that means in this case focusing on what can be done to prevent this type of behavior from Wilson from occurring again in the future. There is ample evidence to show that the incarcerated need mental health help (Vogel, Stephens & Siebels, 2014). The judge should consider that when making his decision.

The consequence for the judge of giving Wilson the lighter sentence but ensuring he gets mental health care would be that the business community turns against the judge and he possibly loses his seat come re-election. However, for Wilson it would mean potentially getting the care he needs and breaking his addiction.

The consequence of giving Wilson the maximum sentence and sending him to state would mean that the business community would support the judge come re-election. However, Wilson would not receive any mental health care and the likelihood of recidivism would remain.

The judge should send Wilson to county so that he can receive mental health care and receive treatment for his acute addiction and mental illness issues. The ethical basis for this decision can actually be seated in virtue ethics, duty ethics, and utilitarianism. The basis for acting thus from a virtue ethics perspective is that it would facilitate the development of both Wilson’s and the judge’s character. Wilson would potentially get help dealing with his addiction issues that are causing him to commit crime; the judge would be compassionate in treating the case in this manner, which would enhance his character and virtue.

From a duty ethics perspective, the judge has a duty to do what is right by the community and even though the business community wants the maximum sentence for Wilson it is only one side of the community. There are other ways to think about the community, including families and how restorative justice potentially can play a part in building up communities and bringing people together. Johnson et al. (2015) show that restorative justice helps victims and offenders feel that justice has been served, and the judge could embrace the concept of restorative justice by first getting Wilson the mental health help he needs and then making it a condition of his sentencing that he do some form of community service to repay for his transgression. Johnson et al. (2015) also show that restorative justice reduces recidivism rates. Thus, if the judge focused on restorative justice rather than punitive justice, it would help to address the issue of crime. This would show that the judge recognizes his duty to serve the interests of the community by addressing the causes of crime and not just focusing on punishing those with obvious mental illness.

From the utilitarian perspective, the judge could say that his decision to send Wilson to county is also in the best interests of the community because there Wilson has the opportunity to get mental health care. It may not work, as there are no guarantees, but it is worth a try because otherwise Wilson will go to state and not get any care at all. This connects to the ethical theory of the common good because in the end it is not just about satisfying the demands of the business community but also about helping all those in need and making sure that justice is done so as to keep people together as a community rather than at odds with another. Understanding and compassion are needed in his role because he is there to bring wisdom to each case.

2 The DA

The DA ran on the platform of holding police officers accountable; the problem is that the DA needs the police to work with her if she is going to prosecute criminals. By viewing police as criminals in need of prosecution, she has offended them and they are not willing to work with her office to prosecute criminals on the street. The DA has prosecuted two officers, one for swapping tires from a city car to his personal vehicle; another for making cuffs too tight on an arrestee. Now officers view her as a problem who is nitpicking and not allowing the department to police itself as it sees fit. The DA feels it is her duty to police the police but in doing so she is unable to police the community, which is also her duty.

The motivation of the DA is mainly political. She has run on the platform of bringing justice to law enforcement—but the cases she has brought against officers seem petty to say the least. The department has ways of dealing with officers who violate standards. Unless it is a particularly egregious offense, one has to wonder if the DA’s priorities are out of order. Instead of making every cop seem like a criminal, she should be building better relationships with police so that they can go after real crimes on the street. But she feels voters have elected her to go after cops—the only problem is that so far she has prosecuted one for taking city tires and another for making cuffs too tight. Are these really crimes that are worth prosecuting—especially when it means other more serious offenses are going unpunished because backlash from police means her office is unable to stick charges to anyone? That is the question. She thinks her policy is justified by the fact that she was voted into office with a mandate from the public to be harsh on police. But perhaps she is misinterpreting her mandate.

The potential consequences of the DA sticking to her current aim of prosecuting police for minor infractions will further alienate her from police and cause her office to lose cases in court, as there will be no help from the police in prosecuting offenders charged with crimes. This will lead to real crime increasing in the community, which will cause her to lose favor with voters. On the other hand, if she backs off her current policy and allows the police department to police itself without interference from her office—except in the case of egregious instances of criminal behavior in which it is in the public’s own best interest that the police officer be prosecuted—the police department will likely begin to work with her office once more.

The decision that the DA should make is the latter: unless it is a particularly egregious crime committed by an officer, the DA should not be nitpicking and prosecuting over minor infractions like making cuffs too tight. Police want to be trusted to do their jobs, and if some minor infraction is committed there are administrative repercussions that will be faced internally. There is no need for the DA to get involved—unless it is a more serious offense—in which case even the police would probably agree that prosecution is warranted. But this is not the case in either of the two instances in which the DA prosecuted police. The police are justified in turning their backs on the DA because there is no way they are going to entrust themselves to a DA who is gunning for them and waiting for them to slip up. It may not be a perfect system, but that is the way it works—and the DA has to prioritize. If she comes down hard on police, it means offenders on the streets go unprosecuted. If she lets off the police and curries their favor, she can prosecute more cases and get offenders off the streets. It is really about recognizing why she was put in office. She thinks it was to prosecute police. She forgets that the greater good is prosecuting the greater crimes, which is street offenders who have no administrative oversight.

The ethical basis for this decision is in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism posits that the morality of an action is determined by the extent to which it produces the greatest good in the community (Mill, 2008). The DA believes it is her moral responsibility to hold the police accountable. That is fine—but the police do hold themselves accountable in a way that is often handled in-house. There are fines, demotions and firings. These are suitable repercussions. However, the DA thinks the police need to be prosecuted to show the community that she is tough on all forms of crime. The problem is that she cannot be tough on street crime without the support of the police and she is not getting that by coming down hard on them. She thus has to sacrifice her ego and admit that she needs the police more than they need her. She cannot allow all cases to go unprosecuted, and there are many more cases that are going unprosecuted now that she wants to get tough on police. Those cases she is losing are ones she needs to win—more than she needs to get tough on police. The community loses when no crime is prosecuted. Prosecuting police over minor infractions that can be handled in-house is no way to serve the community. She is wrong in thinking she has to treat police as though they were all criminals. It is better to create standards internally and enhance the culture of the police department. Punitive justice is not always the best way of doing justice—especially when it comes to handling the police.

Sometimes a lesser good must be sacrificed to achieve a greater good. In this case, the DA needs to realize that the greater good is served when the community is served—and that means working with rather than against the police.

3 The Officer

Scott has discovered a large quantity of drugs in a car after conducting an illegal search. He realizes he has conducted the search illegally, but now he is faced with the problem of what to do about it. He is still on probation as a new hire and therefore does not want to do anything that might cost him his job. However, it can be chalked up to a simple mistake caused by distraction, since the vehicle operator was very verbally abusive and non-cooperative. The ethical question is whether Scott should let the driver go or arrest him.

The motivation of the officer in this case is to do his job correctly. He has reason to believe the driver is up to something considering the manner in which he is acting (he is acting suspiciously). This may be what prompts the officer to search the trunk of the vehicle without a warrant. Would the case hold up in court? Would the seized drugs be admissible? That is the question and 4th amendment case law can be tricky. Scott is now in a situation where he needs the advice and support of his superiors because he has waded into murky waters. It may be assumed that he has not acted out of any prejudice, but since the driver was using racial slurs, it may be the case that there was some prejudice on his part. Still, this does not solve the question of what to do about the drugs. Obviously, Scott cannot let the driver go with a trunk full of drugs. They need to be impounded. But what about the driver?

Scott can arrest the driver, but the case may be dismissed in court if it is deemed that the evidence was seized illegally. Scott may also lose his job if his superiors are displeased with his performance. On the other hand, if Scott confesses right up front about what he has done and asks his superiors what he should do they will undoubtedly be able to help. This type of situation has likely happened before and it is completely understandable since Scott is a new officer and mistakes like this can happen. So it is better in this sense to be honest about how the evidence was seized. It would not help Scott to lie about this fact only to have it disputed in court. It would go worse for him then if it was found that he deceived his superiors.

The best course of action for the officer to take in this case would be to impound the drugs, arrest the driver, and call his superiors to tell him what has happened and ask what he should now do. He should admit his mistake up front and figure out, with their guidance, how to proceed legally from this point on.