Philosophical And Practical Approach For Balancing Issues Research Paper

Balancing the issues of individual rights and the public’s protection

Individual rights and public protection are two important factors in my law career. There are many times when the rights of individuals are usually abused in the case of public protection. There are other times public protection seems not to be interfered with when protecting the right of individual/ this means that they have a thin line in between them. During my career, I will try to iron out all the differences and similarities of these two factors (Bovée, 2003). I have been trying my best to come up with some of them, which I think will be helpful at that time.
One of the issues to address is the freedom of speech. This is a new amendment in the Obama administration. This is something that is highly abused. It is fair that the two sides will be taken into consideration. I would like to address this issue on choosing the only similarities freedom of speech will have on the two (Bovée, 2003). For instance in examining an even without any form of incitement or defamation as much as one side feels superior to another. I will also try to avoid the differences by being fair and not favoring one side of the parties. This issue can be addressed by looking at the cause of action. If a person wrongly offends the public, they will be punished severely. As for the public, it is somewhat difficult to punish them, but dealing with sections of them might work out well because they will act as a lesson for others.
The second philosophy will be based on the right to bear arms. The public might feel threatened by an individual who uses an arm in self-defense. There are also cases where the public might overlook

Balancing the use of reward and punishment in criminal justice

In most cases, there is a winner and a loser. In criminal cases, the loser gets a punishment while in civil cases the winner gets a reward. These two result from a judgment. Everybody expects to win their case, but there has to be a looser. During my practice, this will be the first thing I will tell my clients. No matter how good a case, it does not mean that a person will automatically win. People should understand that punishment is because of a judgment and should be taken as well as a reward. A person should first be explained into details what will happen after a judgment, and they should take the results calmly and deserve the punishment. The reward also means that the case was strong enough and won. This does not mean the person who has lost should be treated any differently (Lange, Rockenbach & Yamagishi, 2014). They should understand that it is due to the outcome and that one should not use it as an advantage.
These two should always be taken with equal measures. My philosophy is to warn my clients not to be too pessimistic. Since the punishment has a more negative impact on the people, I will prepare my people to expect the worst so that they might not put their expectations too high. The reward should come as a surprise, and the punishment will come in as it was expected (Lange, Rockenbach, & Yamagishi, 2014).

Addresses the use of immoral means to accomplish desirable ends

There were times when suspects or witnesses to a crime would be tortured or forced to lie during interrogation in order for the case to go through. Many cases are pending due to lack of proof. A known suspect or witness should be left to speak whenever they are ready. This is one of the philosophies I would like to use in my cases. I will ensure that all my clients' suspects and witnesses take all the time they would need to ensure that they are ready to talk. They should not be forced or tortured in order to give any information. I would propose that they first speak to a psychologist who will be able to tell their current state of mind as they give their testimony. They should be told of the dangers of lying in order to win a case because at some point, loopholes will be found, and the witness might get into trouble. When it comes to torture, the witness should come out and report the harassment (Pollock, 2012). If it is done inside the cells, the client should state that while giving their testimony. This, I believe, will be something will work well and will also benefit many people.
Secondly, before any case proceedings begin, it is good to collect all information that will be necessary for the case. This will then lead to the correct witnesses who will have no reason to lie. If a false witness is chosen, he or she might just be forced to lie in order to enjoy any benefits that will be won in the case. This means in the lawyers should take their time before presenting a case in court. If the set court date comes before all information is obtained, it is good to explain to the presiding judge and ask for more time. For those who will force witnesses to speak or torture them, appropriate action should be taken (Pollock, 2012). They should be punished in order to serve as a lesson for others who intend on practicing the vice.

Ethics of Care and Peacemaking Criminology

Law enforcement professionals are aware that they should always follow the stipulated code of ethics. This is the way they should carry themselves while in line of duty. One of the things they are requested to practice at all time is to practice professionalism. This means that work should be taken seriously at all times. It should not be mixed up with other activities. This means that all clients will be taken good care of. Some clients are vulnerable and require extensive care (Skoll, 2009). When dealing with a delicate situation, it is also advisable to for all clients equally. Each party should be fairly treated to avoid favors in order to practice fairness. This is something comes only when professionalism is practiced.
Peacemaking is something that many law enforcement professionals have to practice. Every case has two parties, and each one of them wants to be proven right by the law. This at times leads to conflicts between the parties. They end up having many issues and may threaten each other. After any case in court, life must go on. This is why I will take it upon myself when practicing my law career to ensure both sides try to be in agreement. It will not work most of the times, but it is good to give it a try (Skoll, 2009). Both parties have to understand that there has to be a winner or loser and that each party will be awarded the results respectively. In the class, I have learned peacemaking and reconciliation are important for any case. This means if all teams are in agreement with nay of the outcome it means that there will be peace. After a case, it is good to do a follow up and try to ensure both parties are in good terms so that a similar incident might not happen again due to hatred and tension between the two teams.

References

Bovée, C. L. (2003). Contemporary Public Speaking. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lange, P. A. M., Rockenbach, B., & Yamagishi, T. (2014). Reward and punishment in social dilemmas. Oxford. Oxford University press
Pollock, J. M. (2012). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Skoll, G. R. (2009). Contemporary criminology and criminal justice theory: Evaluating justice systems in capitalist societies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.