Forums → The Tavern → Ethical Dilemma
| 14 | 3740 |
Would you steal in order to feed your starving family? Would you rob a bank in order to fund the medical treatment for your terminally ill wife/husband? Would you cover up for your best friend if he was guilty of stealing company funds to buy a birthday gift for his little daughter because he's only wish is to see her happy?
I'm going to be studying law pretty soon, and the more I read up on some criminal cases, the less I find myself suited to practicing law. I know people always stereotype lawyers as greedy, sleazy, unethical muppets, but truth be told, sometimes I cannot reconcile myself with the fact that I pity the criminals more than I respect the legal system. Not the clear-cut guilty, hideous crime committing people, but the aforementioned examples and the like. I know it's extremely hypocritical to some that I ''favour'' certain groups of criminals over others, but, in sum, I think I will struggle with my conscience in the future.
I could always just give up criminal law, and specialize in marriage, business, or other kinds of law, but I've always wanted to at least make a small difference to the justice system, ensure that some form of fairness and protection exists for the wronged, so I would like to keep my options open. But again, I'm afraid my conscience would gnaw at me.
Your thoughts please? :/
- 14 Replies
Apply to work for the state prosecution service. True, you would probably end up prosecuting the innocent, but the innocent should have nothing to fear, right? In addition you would be doing a public service. Furthermore, a judge should consider circumstance when sentencing. Your conscience will be clean. (but the judge's may not be)
... Or, conversely, become a pro deo lawyer & defend the poor and downtrodden?
May not be so swell on the pocket, but you'll live I'm sure.
Would you steal in order to feed your starving family?
Yes.
Would you rob a bank in order to fund the medical treatment for your terminally ill wife/husband?
Yes.
Would you cover up for your best friend if he was guilty of stealing company funds to buy a birthday gift for his little daughter because he's only wish is to see her happy?
Maybe. I doubt that he needs to steal a super huge amount of company funds, and I'd probably try to talk him out of it.
I think it's great that you'll be studying law. I have the same issues, though. I stopped with the idea of pre-law because of these thoughts. I don't think you should give up in criminal law, but I would try to study various other forms as well and decide from there. I think you have very noble ideals. It's good to want to make a difference. It will definitely gnaw at your moral values, but you have to weigh the differences. You won't win all of your cases, and you definitely won't get all of the clients you want, but you'll have to make the best of it.
Would you steal in order to feed your starving family?
Easier said than done in a world filled with security cameras. If they depend on me and I get caught, who is left to provide for them?
Would you rob a bank in order to fund the medical treatment for your terminally ill wife/husband?
Again with the cameras. The last thing my theoretical significant other needs is their closest loved one behind bars instead of next to them on their deathbed.
Would you cover up for your best friend if he was guilty of stealing company funds to buy a birthday gift for his little daughter because he's only wish is to see her happy?
Why am I friends with this guy is my question. Not because he's a thief, but because he's raising his child to be materialistic despite his income level. Also, what is he trying to buy that he can't afford on his company salary? He's only raising her expectations. If he can't find a way to make her happy without material objects, daddy's little girl is going to end up quite spoiled.
Would you steal in order to feed your starving family?
Does it count if I need to feed myself? Been there, done that.
Easier said than done in a world filled with security cameras. If they depend on me and I get caught, who is left to provide for them?
Amateur. It's all about jackets, cargo-pants and making a route where you don't hit the same place more than once a week. Oh, and not looking like a sketchy moron. Will you be living high on the hog with a diverse diet? No, but you'll stay alive.
Would you rob a bank in order to fund the medical treatment for your terminally ill wife/husband?
Bank? Hell no. It would be far safer to knock over a few smaller jewelery/antiques stores.
Would you cover up for your best friend if he was guilty of stealing company funds to buy a birthday gift for his little daughter because he's only wish is to see her happy?
Yeah, of course. But I'd lay into him later for being so sloppy that I had to cover for him and doing it for such a silly reason.
The most pragmatic of prosecutors are the worst prosecutors.
A good example I like to bring up is the law in Indiana which states you cannot buy above a certain amount of Acetaminophen in drug stores, because this is a key component of methamphetamine. There weren't any (Jesus what do you call it...) guidelines to warn customers if they are approaching or exceeding the limit, so if you do go on the record of buying too much at once, you automatically have a warrant for your arrest.
So here's the true story of this little old lady who buys cold medicine for her family. For her family. Her entire family is stricken with the cold. So she naturally buys either multiple packages of cold medicine or a giant package. Either way, she exceeded the limit of Acetaminophen and the guy at the counter did not tell her. BAM prison. This was so ridiculous that a particular state senator had to go down there and ask for her release. But the prosecutor, wouldn't you know it, was very pragmatic about the arrest. "No, she broke the law! I don't care what the circumstances were!"
So naturally, it had to take his reformed bill to create guideline additions for the law to release her from jail first.
So moral of the story, it's good to know your law, but you just gotta know when things are arbitrarily inoffensive.
Or you could just pull a Kohlberg-fasty and do whatever you'd like. Moral psychology is highly subjective and it creates a lot of problems. But on the other hand, your family would need that bread...
Thank you guys for your input. I guess I'll have to go with the flow, and try to adjust as I make my way through!
Why am I friends with this guy is my question. Not because he's a thief, but because he's raising his child to be materialistic despite his income level. Also, what is he trying to buy that he can't afford on his company salary? He's only raising her expectations. If he can't find a way to make her happy without material objects, daddy's little girl is going to end up quite spoiled.
I like to make people happy, and I certainly want to teach my kids to be materialistic, but at the same time, I wouldn't say I would deny them toys/other material wishes, not expensive toys, but sometimes children deserve to be pampered. It was a bad example indeed. :L
@Emily,
Thank you for your kind words! Yes I'm definitely going to try and stick to my principles throughout; although years back I might look back and realise how hollow and naive I was, but I'll still try.
@phil
You have a point there, working for the state. Although I would rather rise to the lofty position of judge (Could be a pipe dream!), and make the final decision, have the final say, after careful judgement.
Wouldn't most if not all of these examples be where mitigating circumstances would apply?
Mhmm...well, without revealing too much, I can say that I've seen one of the cases irl, and it wasn't treated with any mitigation. I'm sure many of such cases will, but there will always be prosecutors who go strictly by the book.
Nich, my previous suggestion wasn't being flippant: I'm not sure of the English phrase (probably varies internationally anyway), but for what we call "social lawyers" I find such terms as cause lawyer, public interest lawyer, or indeed social lawyer.
Basically, it'd be assisting those of lesser means, through some sort of construct (often state-funded) where ideally it remains affordable and so accessible to them (or ideally, free altogether).
It's not renowned to get you rich, but maybe it'd be something for you to consider.
@Macll
Yup I've considered that as well. I don't think we have that kind of lawyer here specifically, or I just haven't heard of it; but it's encouraged that most lawyers put aside some time monthly to do pro-bono work, so I think that strikes a balance between charity, and the money earned! ^^
there will always be prosecutors who go strictly by the book.
That is the prosecutor's job. The Jury decide whether a crime has been committed by the accused, and the judge decides the sentence based on the evidence and verdict.
We don't have a jury system. But in any case, I was citing Frank's example, not sure if that would really qualify?
You must be logged in to post a reply!