St. Petersburg College Applied Ethics Program Critical Thinking & Application Paper Fall Session 2010

Transcription

1 St. Petersburg College Applied Ethics Program Critical Thinking & Application Paper Fall Session 2010 Instructions: Read the case, and answer the questions that follow. Instead of writing one, long traditional essay based on the questions, reflect on each question and then answer each question individually, giving a detailed and thorough answer for reach question. Case study: Pedophile Housing Before 1994, few states had laws that even defined sex-offender, much less laws that regulated convicted sex offenders' movements and required their registration with local law enforcement. This state of affairs changed with passage of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which required each state to implement a sex-offender registration program or risk forfeiture of federal grants for law enforcement. The 1994 Act was amended in 1996 to oblige states to establish community notification programs to make sex-offender registry information readily available to those who seek it. The Act was subsequently amended in 1998 and 2000 to broaden its scope and heighten some of its registration requirements. More recently, over one-half of the U.S. states proactively passed legislation to restrict the locations where sex-offenders may reside. These laws commonly restrict sex-offenders from living, and sometimes from working, within a given distance (ranging from 500 to 2,000 feet) of places where children gather: parks, schools, school bus stops, day care facilities, community centers, and churches. Sex-offender laws enjoy widespread support in many quarters. From the beginning, only civil libertarians seem to have challenged some of these laws, usually on constitutional grounds. For example, laws that require some sex-offenders to remain in prison after their sentences have been completed have been challenged on due process grounds. Also, from a constitutional perspective, draconian public notification requirements seem to place convicted sex-offenders who have paid their debt to society in double jeopardy. On the other hand, sex-offender residency restrictions have lost support in recent years from constituencies that traditionally endorsed them. The most notable, perhaps, is the Iowa County Attorneys Association (ICAA), an organization of county prosecutors, which issued its Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa explaining that sex-offender residency restrictions do not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of [enforcement] and the unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction[s] with more effective protective measure[s]. Among other things, the document contends that residency restrictions force offenders into homelessness and otherwise cause them to provide false or no information to state sex-offender registries. According to the Statement, the negative consequences of the lifetime residency restrictions also have caused a reduction in the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess." State Attorney General Harriet Abca is currently running for Governor. As the Attorney General her role is to function as the top cop for the state. Currently the state laws are all in-line with the federal requirements. However, in her heart and mind she agrees that many of the postrelease requirements placed on sex offenders are unfair to the offenders and hurt law 1

2 enforcement s ability to obtain confessions. Attorney General Abca would like to challenge the federal requirements by filing a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of the state. The Attorney General s office staff agrees with her and has advised her to proceed. However, the Attorney General s campaign staff has advised her to wait until she is elected (hopefully) and to force the next Attorney General to file the lawsuit, so Mrs. Abca can avoid any negative political ramifications for being seen as weak on crime. The Central Ethical Issue to Resolve: What should Attorney General Abca do about the federal requirements placed on sex offenders? This case was based on and adapted from a case published by the Association of Practical and Professional Ethics for use in the national intercollegiate Ethics Bowl competition, and is being used with their permission. APPLYING THE CRITICAL THINKING MODEL Chapter 4 Critical Thinking in your textbook has a detailed explanation of the critical thinking model and how to apply it. 1. Identification (10 points possible) You have been given a central ethical issue to use throughout the paper What should Attorney General Abca do about the federal requirements placed on sex offenders? In this section you must identify as many OTHER ethical issues, questions, or problems as you can find in the scenario. Distinguish the central issue from the others you identified. Use details and examples to explain your response. Be sure to use the central issue - What should Attorney General Abca do about the federal requirements placed on sex offenders? as the central issuethroughout the rest of this paper. Identifies the ethical ideas or Identifies the ethical ideas Identifies the ethical issues with some supporting or issues with few details ideas or issues poorly details and examples in an or examples in a somewhat with few or no details organized manner organized manner with little organization Identifies the ethical ideas or issues with numerous supporting details and examples which are organized logically and coherently Does not identify the main idea or issue and/or includes no other ethical issues. 2. Research (10 points possible) Gather information relevant to the central ethical issue. Use a minimum of three outside sources to gain a better understanding of the issue and potential solutions/options. Explain relevance of information found. (Your instructor will provide specific details regarding appropriate sources and citation format). Accurately relates Inaccurately or Poorly integrates concepts and ideas from incompletely relates information from multiple sources; uses concepts and ideas from more than one source new information to better multiple sources; shallow to support final define issue and identify determination of effect of solution; Incorrectly options; correctly new information; or predicts the effect of Insightfully relates concepts and ideas from multiple sources; uses new information to better define issue and identify options; recognizes missing Does not identify new information 2

3 information; correctly identifies potential effects of new information identifies potential effects of new information limited sources new information 3. Analysis (15 points) Compare and contrast available solution/ options relevant to the central ethical issue. Using logical (inductive or deductive) moral reasoning, clearly explain the ethical implications the potential solutions/options may have on the stakeholders points 11-8 points 7-4 points 3-1 point(s) 0 points Uses specific inductive or deductive moral reasoning to make inferences regarding premises; addresses implications and consequences for the stakeholders; identifies facts and morally relevant information correctly Uses logical reasoning to make inferences regarding options; addresses implications and consequences for the stakeholders; Identifies facts and morally relevant information correctly Uses superficial reasoning to make inferences regarding options; major stakeholder (s) missing; Shows some confusion regarding facts, opinions, and morally relevant, evidence, data, or information Makes unexplained, unsupported, or unreasonable inferences regarding options; irrelevant stakeholders identified; makes multiple errors in distinguishing fact from fiction or in selecting morally relevant evidence. Does not analyze multiple solutions/options. Major stakeholders not identified. 4. Application (30 points) Apply two ethical theories to reach a resolution of the central ethical issue. What would the central principles of each theory imply is the morally right or best course of action or option? A. Apply one (1) consequential theory (Act or Rule Utilitarianism) 15pts. B. Apply one (1) non-consequential theory (Deontology (KANT), Contractarianism, Natural Rights, Natural Law or Virtue Ethics) 15 pts. For each (A and B) you are to resolve the central ethical issue using the central principles of the theory. A brief summary of the theory should be included and you are encouraged to use the Steps in Applying the theories presented in Chapters 5 and points 11-8 points 7-4 points 3-1 point(s) 0 points Central principles of Applications of the Applications of the central the theories are central principles of principles of the theories and explained and applied, the theories and the the theory summaries are but may not be summary may be either missing or are not logically consistent or shallow, cursory, or connected to the central issue applied to specifics of too general. and options in the case. case. Central principles of the theories are logically and systematically explained and applied to the central ethical issue to reach a resolution of the main problem. Does not apply central principles to reach a resolution of main issue. Summary of theory missing. 5. Decision-Making (10 points) Choose the wisest, most ethical option and justify your decision. This is NOT an opinion. Using your research and analysis of the options and stakeholders and your applications of the ethical theories, laws, and rules, select and defend the morally right (or most ethical) resolution to the central ethical issue. Using facts and relevant evidence from your research and analysis, thoroughly explain why this is the best solution. Thoroughly identifies Identifies and addresses Identifies and addresses Identifies and addresses only Does not select and and addresses key key aspects of the issue some aspects of the one aspect of the issue but defend a solution aspects of the issue and uses facts and issue; develops possible develops untestable and insightfully uses relevant evidence from conclusion or solution hypothesis; or develops facts and relevant analysis to develop using some inappropriate invalid conclusions or 3

4 evidence from analysis to support and defend potentially valid solution potentially valid conclusion or solution opinions and irrelevant information from analysis solutions based on opinion or irrelevant information. 6. Evaluation (10 points) Identify and provide a minimum of three counter arguments against the option that you selected as being morally right (or ethically best). What are the possible arguments against the resolution/option you chose? How would you defend against those arguments? Accurately interprets data Makes some errors Interprets data or or information; in data or information incorrectly; identifies obvious information Supports conclusions or assumptions, establishes interpretation; solutions without evidence credibility of sources on makes arguments or logic; uses data, points other than authority using weak information, or evidence alone, avoids fallacies in evidence; provides skewed by invalid reasoning; distinguishes superficial support assumptions; uses poor appropriate arguments from for conclusions or sources of information; extraneous elements; solutions uses fallacious arguments provides sufficient logical support Insightfully interprets data or information; identifies obvious as well as hidden assumptions, establishes credibility of sources on points other than authority alone, avoids fallacies in reasoning; distinguishes appropriate arguments from extraneous elements; provides sufficient logical support Does not evaluate data, information, or evidence related to best option. 7. Reflection (5 points) Reflect on your own thought process. What did you learn from this process? What could you do differently next time to improve the problem-solving process? 5 points 4 points 3-2 points 1 point 0 points Identifies strengths and Identifies some Identifies some weaknesses in own personal assumptions, personal thinking: recognizes values, and assumptions, personal assumptions, perspectives; values, and values and perspectives, recognizes some perspectives; compares to others, and assumptions, values does not consider evaluates them in the and perspectives of alternate points of context of alternate others; shallow view points of view comparisons of alternate points of view Identifies strengths and weaknesses in own thinking: recognizes personal assumptions, values and perspectives, compares to others, and evaluates them in the context of alternate points of view Writing/Composition (10 points) Remember that this is a Gordon Rule writing assignment. 10 points of your grade will be based on the writing skills you demonstrate in the paper. So organize your thoughts carefully, explain them clearly, and proof-read carefully for errors in grammar and spelling points 7-4 points 3-0 points Overall writing is acceptable, but clear weaknesses in organization, clarity, grammar or spelling. Format is acceptable. Some sources are cited. Writing is clear, coherent, and wellorganized. Very few grammar or spelling errors. Format meets college standards. All sources are cited. Does not reflect on own thinking Writing is unacceptable. Poor organization, meanings are not clear, and/or numerous errors in grammar or spelling. Format is poor. No sources cited. 4

5 NOTE: Make sure to review the Instructor Guidelines for Success and the information on Gordon Rule assignments that your instructor has also provided. 5