Code of Ethics and Security
Code of Ethics and Security Case Study
Kathy Ankenbrandt
AJS 532
May 21, 2012
Mr. Cyril Vierra
Abstract
The Juvenile Justice System is a separate world from the criminal justice system. There are laws that protect the youth of today on a level where it is exclusive to only a certain age group. There are considerations that are often brought in to sentencing for the youth that would never be considered for an adult. There are decisions that have to be made on different levels including age, culture, laws based on the juvenile system, policy and most important different situations and how to handle them. There are four ethical realms that involve the criminal justice system. The ethics that will be discussed in this team project concerning the decision made with Brian the Juvenile youth are as follows: the situation based on ethical relativism, ethical egoism, deontological ethics and teleological ethics. There is a very fine line when taking action in today’s juvenile youth system. The laws are different concerning youth; therefore, every ethical situation is different and can be detrimental to the staff and the youth involved. This situation with Brian and Daren can be considered and compared to the ethics that best fit.
Ethical Relativism Ethical relativism is based on the theory that there are different solutions to every scenario. “Relativist morality is based on the assumption that standards of conduct are neither sacred nor etched in stone—different folks need different strokes” (Souryal, 2007, pg 20). Right and wrong is based on social a norm--such could be the case with situational ethics--which is a category of ethical relativism. At any rate, ethical relativism would mean that our morals have evolved, that they have changed over time and that they are not absolute. The relativism theory is meant to deal with every situation on a case by case basis because every action taken could be right or could be wrong. The juvenile
Kathy Ankenbrandt
AJS 532
May 21, 2012
Mr. Cyril Vierra
Abstract
The Juvenile Justice System is a separate world from the criminal justice system. There are laws that protect the youth of today on a level where it is exclusive to only a certain age group. There are considerations that are often brought in to sentencing for the youth that would never be considered for an adult. There are decisions that have to be made on different levels including age, culture, laws based on the juvenile system, policy and most important different situations and how to handle them. There are four ethical realms that involve the criminal justice system. The ethics that will be discussed in this team project concerning the decision made with Brian the Juvenile youth are as follows: the situation based on ethical relativism, ethical egoism, deontological ethics and teleological ethics. There is a very fine line when taking action in today’s juvenile youth system. The laws are different concerning youth; therefore, every ethical situation is different and can be detrimental to the staff and the youth involved. This situation with Brian and Daren can be considered and compared to the ethics that best fit.
Ethical Relativism Ethical relativism is based on the theory that there are different solutions to every scenario. “Relativist morality is based on the assumption that standards of conduct are neither sacred nor etched in stone—different folks need different strokes” (Souryal, 2007, pg 20). Right and wrong is based on social a norm--such could be the case with situational ethics--which is a category of ethical relativism. At any rate, ethical relativism would mean that our morals have evolved, that they have changed over time and that they are not absolute. The relativism theory is meant to deal with every situation on a case by case basis because every action taken could be right or could be wrong. The juvenile
References: Alexander, L. & Moore, M. (2008). "Deontological Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N Retrieved on May 21, 2012 from http://books.google.com/books/A+progress+of+sentiments:+reflections+on+Hume 's Nw Missouri. (2012). “Teleological Ethical Theory”. Retrieved on May 20, 2012 from http://www.catpages.nwmissouri.edu/ Seven Oaks Philosophy. (2012). “Teleological Ethics”. Retrieved on May 20, 2012 from http://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org/ Slick, M. (2011). Ethical Relativism. Retrieved on May 19, 2012 from http://carm.org/ethical-relativism Souryal, Sam S. (2007). Ethics in Criminal Justice: In search of the Truth (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub/LexisNexis