Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas (2012).

read the cases of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Arkansas (2012). These cases deal with the topic of juveniles tried and sentenced as adults.

Analyze whether either of these cases addresses the utilitarian view of ethical treatment of convicted murderers.
Differentiate between the peacemaking philosophy and deontological philosophy in the context of murder sentencing for juveniles. Do these philosophies differ when the defendant is an adult?
Considering these two cases, determine whether either should have been handled differently under the utilitarian or the deontological philosophies.
In general terms, consider a judge who must determine whether a 16-year-old who committed a violent crime should be tried as an adult. Identify the ethical dilemma(s) the judge faces and describe how he or she might arrive at an ethical decision.

Sample Solution

Aside from blackbirding, a great number of other hate crimes were perpetrated against the indigenous populations of the South Pacific, in some cases conducted as an orchestrated governmental campaign. When the First Fleet arrived in Botany Bay, Sydney, in 1788, setting in motion a seminal cultural collision. In Australia, this often meant the targeting of Aboriginal communities. Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia dates from 1891 (see appendix C), and it was this section of law that validated the removal of Aboriginal children from their families in the now-famous 1997 case Kruger vs the Commonwealth, known as the ‘Stolen Generation Case’. This term is now broadly applied to the issue of Aboriginal children being taken under the care of the Australian government, and is one of the most contentious issues in Australian politics today. In its 1997 report from the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HEROC) declared the actions of the Australian government to be immoral, and in some circumstances, illegal (appendix D). For many people in Australia today, this case epitomises the mistreatment of the Aboriginal community, as their attempts at legal action rarely see success against the legal might of the Australian government, as well as the British, as, despite Australia gaining its independence in 1901, “the power of the British Crown to disallow Australian legislation remains in our Constitution although it would seem politically impossible to invoke it” . The case is not black and white, as a government study (appendix E) found higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse and smoking with consequent disproportionate representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system. There is therefore some legitimate reason for children being removed from their parents, as supported by Keith Windschuttle in his book The Fabrication of Aboriginal History Volume 3: The Stolen Generations 1881–2008 – “My conclusion is that not only is the charge of genocide unwarranted, but so is the term ‘Stolen Generations’. Aboriginal children were never removed from their families in order to put an end to Aboriginality or, indeed, to serve any improper government policy or program. The small numbers of Aboriginal child removals in the twentieth century were almost all based on traditional grounds of child welfare” (8).

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.