Case Study: Criminal Justice Ethics

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

 

Read the following case study and respond to the question below.

In 1982, a U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled undocumented illegal immigrants to free education from kindergarten through grade 12. About 65,000 undocumented students graduated from U.S. colleges in 2009 alone. Miguel (“Mike”) and his parents crossed the border illegally from Mexico when he was only two. The family has been living in California for the past 15 years, where his father works as a laborer and his mother as a chambermaid. Mike graduated as valedictorian of his class and also won a prestigious science award. Given his family’s financial situation, he can go to college only because California is one of about twenty states, as of 2018, that allow in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants, if they have attended high school in their states. This practice has been challenged in federal court as a violation of federal immigration law (1).

Several states have already banned undocumented immigrants from their public colleges and universities, arguing that a college education is a scarce resource and tax money should be spent helping citizens get a college education rather than funding the education of undocumented immigrants. Critics also argue that the policy provides an enticement for people to come to the United States illegally. Supporters of in-state tuition argue that it is wrong to punish children for their parents’ actions. In addition, the chance for a college education provides an incentive for bright students to reach their potential as productive members of society.

Question: Should in-state tuition be granted to undocumented students?

Source
1. Judith Boss. 2020. Analyzing Moral Issues. p. 363 McGraw-Hill Higher Education 7th edition textbook available at https://www.strayerbookstore.com

Instructions
Use the Case Study Assignment Template to do the following:

Describe the relevant facts of the case.
Clarify concepts relevant to the case.
Apply a moral standard to the case.
Articulate a conclusion to the stated question.
Include at least two references, such as the textbook and other readings, to support your arguments.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.

The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:

Practice the application of ethics to everyday life

Sample Solution

The academic study of ethics as it is used in the field of law enforcement is known as criminal justice ethics (also known as police ethics). For the most part, aspirants for employment as law enforcement officers must complete an ethics course. These classes concentrate on material that is primarily driven by societal ideals and the requirements of social structures. In order to uphold the public’s trust while carrying out their duties, law enforcement agencies operate in accordance with accepted police procedures and moral standards that are in line with community values. Effective crime control procedures are made possible by the law enforcement system’s crucial components of police ethics and integrity.

d by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war theory because of its normativity.

Jus post bellum

Finally, jus post bellum suggests that the actions we should take after a war (Frowe (2010), Page 208).
Firstly, Vittola argues after a war, it is the responsibility of the leader to judge what to do with the enemy (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Again, proportionality is emphasised. For example, the Versailles treaty imposed after the First World War is questionably too harsh, as it was not all Germany’s fault for the war. This is supported by Frowe, who expresses two views in jus post bellum: Minimalism and Maximalism, which are very differing views. Minimalists suggest a more lenient approach while maximalist, supporting the above example, provides a harsher approach, punishing the enemy both economically and politically

This question has been answered.

Get Answer