Media Ethic Case Study
Shaan Yen
Studet ID number: 1241413
Paper code: 285008/16
This essay looks at the ethics involved in a high profile sex offence case recently dealt with in the Auckland District Court. The case was published in the New Zealand Herald on the 3 September 2011. Kantian and Utilitarian theories were applied in discussing four different perspectives of the key participants; The Judge, The Offender, The Victim, and The Public. The Judge, Philippa Cunningham, discharged the offender without conviction on a charge of performing an indecent act. In her summary, she stated that “he had stopped drinking, paid a high price in his personal and work life, and had shown remorse.” (“Outrage at comedian's sex abuse discharge”, 2011) Then she went on to say that “He’s a talented New Zealander. He makes people laugh. Laughter is an incredible medicine and we all need lots of it,” (“Outrage at comedian's sex abuse discharge”, 2011). The Judge granted name suppression.
The Court heard how “the man went to bed with his partner after returning home drunk from a Christmas work party in December 2009. After he fell asleep, his daughter got into bed with them.” (“Outrage at comedian's sex abuse discharge”, 2011) The offence was apparently committed a short time later.
The first key perspective is that of the Judge, Philippa Cunningham. The Judge is a judicial officer whose responsibilities are defined in law. Basically the Judge has to administer the law without personal bias or external influences. The newspaper article does not suggest that she acted outside her jurisdiction or powers. The public reaction takes issue with her explanation for failing to enter a conviction against the offender. He left court a free man without any record against his name for this offence, despite the fact he had pleaded guilty to the charge. Kantian theory would require the offender’s act to be considered in the matter of the motive “No Moral worth in doing something because of one’s natural
Studet ID number: 1241413
Paper code: 285008/16
This essay looks at the ethics involved in a high profile sex offence case recently dealt with in the Auckland District Court. The case was published in the New Zealand Herald on the 3 September 2011. Kantian and Utilitarian theories were applied in discussing four different perspectives of the key participants; The Judge, The Offender, The Victim, and The Public. The Judge, Philippa Cunningham, discharged the offender without conviction on a charge of performing an indecent act. In her summary, she stated that “he had stopped drinking, paid a high price in his personal and work life, and had shown remorse.” (“Outrage at comedian's sex abuse discharge”, 2011) Then she went on to say that “He’s a talented New Zealander. He makes people laugh. Laughter is an incredible medicine and we all need lots of it,” (“Outrage at comedian's sex abuse discharge”, 2011). The Judge granted name suppression.
The Court heard how “the man went to bed with his partner after returning home drunk from a Christmas work party in December 2009. After he fell asleep, his daughter got into bed with them.” (“Outrage at comedian's sex abuse discharge”, 2011) The offence was apparently committed a short time later.
The first key perspective is that of the Judge, Philippa Cunningham. The Judge is a judicial officer whose responsibilities are defined in law. Basically the Judge has to administer the law without personal bias or external influences. The newspaper article does not suggest that she acted outside her jurisdiction or powers. The public reaction takes issue with her explanation for failing to enter a conviction against the offender. He left court a free man without any record against his name for this offence, despite the fact he had pleaded guilty to the charge. Kantian theory would require the offender’s act to be considered in the matter of the motive “No Moral worth in doing something because of one’s natural