Chapter 1- Question One The Kitty Genovese story is a tragic one and is a controversial topic when ethics come into play. Though she screamed for help repeatedly while being stabbed the observers from the surrounding apartments did very little to assist the young woman. One observer in specific did shout “Leave the girl alone” and that deterred the assailant for a brief moment but whether or not he acted ethically is something of a different matter.
According to Duty-Base Ethics which by definition states “the doctrine that actions are morally correct if they comply with existing obligations owed another and ourselves,” one could deduct that this observer did not act ethically because he did not serve the duty to Kitty Genovese to save her life as if roles were reversed it would be Kitty Genovese’s ethical duty to ensure the observer’s life was saved. This duty that Kitty Genovese did not receive is the very basic fundamental meaning of one’s life and how we each owe it to one another to try to preserve a fellow human beings life.
This can also be translated at the Golden Rule which urges us to “do unto others as we would have them do unto us” which is the basis to Immanuel Kant’s ethical reasoning. If the observer had taken the Golden Rule into mind while deciding how to act while this innocent young woman is pleading for help the result could have been a story of heroism instead of tragedy. In order for the Golden Rule to be successful in influencing our ethical behaviors one must place themselves in the situation they are witnessing, contemplate how one would feel in that person’s shoes and struggle and suffering.
Obviously this observer was not moved by the Golden Rule and thus did not act ethically according to the Kantian ethical approach. Chapter 2- Question One First off, I believe that it is necessary to be informed about the persons or prospective persons that will have some judicial power to make, change, or destroy laws and government issues in my society especially issues that will affect the daily lives of those whom I love and am surrounded by.
So when asked to take the pro or con of this argument that prospective appointees to the U. S Supreme Court should publicly divulge their personal philosophies on the largest issues of modern society such as abortion rights, prayer in public school, etc. I say Pro. Not only should they speak of their beliefs about these controversial topics, they should do it openly and assertively. It is important for the people to know the people who are responsible for our government and what they stand for whether we agree or disagree.
Sometimes and understandably public figures or potential public figures are hesitant to speak on such delicate matters because of the judgment and criticisms that they will have to endure once that information is out in the open but they must know that this is what comes with being a public government figure especially the prospective appointees for the U. S Supreme Court. It is their duty to serve the people and maintaining the integrity of the Constitution, which is what our country was built on.
That is a great responsibility and a very public one so the prospective appointees should deem it necessary to let the people know who may be possibly carrying the weight of this responsibility and where they stand on these controversial issues that effect the people of this country. Chapter 3-Question Three In the civil trial cases to initiate it there first must be a complaint, which is “a document stating the facts constituting an alleged cause of action,” this document is then filed with the filing clerk of the appropriate court.
Once the complaint is filed it can then be served onto the defendant by a process server, once service is completed the defendant must generate a document called an Answer which is “a document containing a defendant’s denials, admissions or allegations of fact in response to a complaint. “ After the Plaintiff’s attorneys receive the Answer both sides of the complaint begin the “Discovery” process where they “use a group of methods to learn facts about the dispute while they are between the time of ommencement of the lawsuit and the trial date. “ Once this process is over either parties or the court can request a Pre-Trial Hearing/”Settlement Conference” this consists of an informal discussion between the judge and attorneys with the purpose to identify the matter that are in dispute and to plan the course of the trial. Some instances, the judge may advise the attorneys to settle out of court. If no settlement can be reached out of court the jury selection begins for trial. During this selection a process called voir dire takes place.
This process consists of “questioning potential jurors to ascertain whether they have any bias that would make difficult or unlikely their impartiality in the determining questions of fact during a trial. ” Even after this process is performed attorneys can still reserve the right to excuse a limited number of prospective jurors without cause, this is called Peremptory Challenge. The purpose of Peremptory Challenge is to permit parties to eliminate some prospective jurors for any reason or no reason. Some clients simply do not like the looks of a particular prospective juror.
Once the trial has ran its course a judgment is made meaning “the final determination or decision of the court as to the rights and duties of the parties in a lawsuit. ” A judgment may declare a status, order one to do something or not do something. And that is the typical civil trial process in the simplest of terms. It is very unlikely a case or trial would ever go this smoothly or easily through each phase. Free Choice-David Cash Jr. (Legal Focus pg. 20) This case was very disturbing to me and I found it unjust and unethical that David Cash Jr. went unpunished and it a gives “turning a blind eye” a whole new meaning to me.
Like the Eric J. vs. Betty M. case, David Cash Jr. was aware that a criminal act was taking place or possibly about to happen and yet did not speak up. In my opinion I believe there is a cause of action against David Cash Jr. and that would be negligence. He did not take reasonable care into saving this girl and knowingly allowed her to remain in a dangerous situation. This fits into the Last Clear Chance definition; Cash was the last person other than the assailant to see this girl alive and yet acted negligently by not acting ethically and breached the duty of a easonable person standard. Thought all of this is from an ethical standpoint, the moment Cash saw his friend holding the girl and covering his mouth he became responsible for that girl’s life, in my opinion. Had he acted on the opportunity he had to save her life he would’ve performed his duty as a reasonable person of sound mind and morals. Though this argument may be weak I believe it could suffice to reprimand Cash and possibly give some peace of mind to the victims family. I had to try to find something that I could make stick to this case and ease my mind also.