Presumption Of Guilt Is Wrong

The accidental discovery, by a teacher, of suspected stolen goods in a student’s bag is problematic. Is one entitled to act on a wrongful search, albeit accidental, and further, is the presumption of guilt fair/valid? Firstly, consider what action(s) is directed by principles of obligation/duty (Deontological). Secondly, consider the negative and positive consequences of possible responses to determine which course of action achieves the best possible outcome (Consequentialist).

I Deontological – there are conflicting duties: duties of principle, professional duties, and obligations as a community member. Which duty takes precedence? A) Duty not to act ← Search of bag was violation of privacy, regardless of accidental or not. What
about Rodney’s rights? The principle of individual rights is at stake (however, is the principle relative to the nature of the discovery, i.e., what if a gun had been discovered – then must further consider right to safety and life.) ← Presumption of guilt is wrong.
It’s not inconceivable that Rodney purchased or was given items. There may be a reasonable explanation. Recent behaviour suggests a positive change. It is wrong to brand him a thief and not give him the benefit of the doubt. ← Could there be cultural issues? (E.g. Aboriginal view may not view shoplifting in the same way.) ← Respecting Rodney as a moral agent is an obligation so others respect us equally ← (Is doing nothing just a social and professional evasion of responsibility?)

B) Duty to
act ← Duty to uphold honesty. Stealing is wrong. Would most reasonable people be swayed towards probability of Rodney’s guilt in view of his history? Does the reasonable presumption of stealing override principle of personal right to privacy? (How vulnerable is the principle of stealing to situation?) ← Teacher has a professional duty towards Rodney. This doesn’t stop after school hours ( By befriending Rodney outside of school hours and financially collaborating with others to support him in the hockey club, it is arguable that the teacher has assumed more responsibility towards Rodney.) ← Moral integrity demands action. There is a duty to act and not ignore stealing. ← Everyone has an obligation to be honest and not steal. Ignoring that obligation is unfair to shop owners. ← Social justice recognises that some individuals are disadvantaged and provide services to remediate this.

II Consequentialist – Which action/non-action will produce the best outcome? A) What could be the results of confronting Rodney?
← Discouraging wrong behaviour encourages honourable behaviour. This will help Rodney grow up to be a better person. Better to stop Rodney now before it escalates into a life of crime. ← Sensitive response to Rodney will validate his trust in authority figures and encourage developing trust. ← Prevent possible parental beating. ← Teaching values will help Rodney learn values. ← If we privately approach Rodney in a caring manner to discuss shoplifting we may be able to preserve the improvement in his studies and behaviour and convince him of the error of his ways and thereby Rodney becomes an asset the community instead of a liability. ( Also holds for II.B)

B) What could be the consequences of informing school/school superiors? ← Receive more help with the situation (input from counsellors, year advisors, principal) a team response more likely to produce better strategy for dealing with Rodney. ← Fulfil contract of employment as teacher, maintained professional integrity which is also good for teaching career. ← Avoids suggestion of favouritism (unfairly protecting Rodney) would erode position of authority and moral
educator. ← A clear position on shoplifting makes an example of Rodney’s behaviour to discourage other students shoplifting ( also holds for II C) ← Taking a stand against stealing shows consistency in upholding rules which reflects well on the teacher’s position as a moral educator ← But, teacher’s relationship with other students could be affected when it is discovered she ‘squealed’ on Rodney

C) What could be the consequences of informing authorities/community? ← Preventing shoplifting is good for the community. (Shoplifting is a serious issue for shop owners and affects their business viability, the resulting increase in the cost of goods to the community). ← Addressing the issue now, although it could lead to juvenile court, is preferable to the more serious consequences if left to be addressed later an adult offender. ← Rodney would benefit by social service intervention which could provide services to remediate his social disadvantages. (Also holds for II B) ← DOC’s, who has been involved in the past, are possibly best placed to address current situation. Perhaps sensitive and early intervention could result in provision for Rodney and his family.

D) What could be the results of doing nothing? ← Preserve gains in Rodney’s school work, he’s already showing improvement. ← Avoid possibility of false accusations ← Preserve gains in Rodney’s developing trust for authority. Would he believe that the discovery was accidental? It’s unfair to brand him a thief, especially since he is demonstrating reformed behaviour. ← Rodney is protected from possible parental beating. ← Buy time by adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach. Need more information to justify action. ← Is doing nothing just a social and professional evasion of responsibility, with no regard to consequences?