Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Weakness and strength of situation ethics
Weakness and strength of situation ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Morality in the Courtroom Runaway Jury is a movie about a court case that deals with a shooting in an office. Throughout the movie, Nick Easter, one of the jury members, and his girlfriend, Marley, tamper with the jury and try to collect bribes from each side, so they can pay back their home city’s debt from a previous shooting case. This is situational ethics because they know it is immoral to tamper with the jury, but they can give a reason to justify their actions. In Runaway Jury, there is relativism, situational ethics, and the objectification of good and evil which helps the characters in the movie make the right decisions about the court case.
Relativism is a view that states that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups
…show more content…
They did many things to manipulate the jury like changing the lunch time on the first day to a later time. Nick Easter also used Carmex to make it look like he was hungover to try to get other jurors to help him and connect with him, and one night, Nick noticed that all of them were full of melancholy so he decided to go to each and every single juror individually and talk to them so that they could listen to him later, and help him take down Fitch. The object of Nick and Marley’s actions was the court case. The intent was to take down Fitch and to try to pay back their city’s debt from when they lost a court case that Rankin Fitch was working on. The circumstances of these actions was that Rankin Fitch knew that they were tampering with the jury so he, too, was messing with the jury to try to gain an advantage in the case. Another circumstance is Judge Harkin and the other jurors make an impact to the overall outcome of the case. Nick and Marley’s actions are clearly bad on a civil level, but by using situational ethics, their actions can be justified for good over evil. For example, Nick and Marley meddle with the jury so they can pay back their city’s debt from the shooting case that many believe was a very poor verdict. For most people, this would be very immoral and wrong but looking from their …show more content…
The object of his actions is the court case. His intent was to keep his reputation as one of the best jury consultants in the nation, even if it meant breaking the law and moral values. One of the circumstances of the situation was Wendell Rohr. Wendell Rohr worked for Celeste Wood, and he was a big challenge to Fitch because he is hard-working, and he never gives up. Another circumstance is Fitch’s underground research lab. In this lab, Fitch and his workers videotape the courtroom, and they do illegal research on the jurors so that they can try to emotionally hurt them anonymously, so they are tricked into voting in Fitch’s favor. All of Fitch’s actions in the movie are illegal and are mostly morally bad, too. For example, he was looking into people’s private records without permission and he was physically and mentally scarring the jurors just so he could get a slight edge. He went so far on one of the jurors that she tried to commit suicide. Even with using situational ethics, it is very difficult to find good in this situation because of how morally wrong and how evil these acts are. From Fitch’s standpoint, the only good to come out of these terrible actions is that his reputation will not get
He simply wanted to show and explain to his readers how the jury system really works. Instead of writing a book solely on the
Ethical relativism is a perspective that emphasizes on people's different standards of evaluating acts as good or bad. These standard beliefs are true in their particular society or circumstances, and the beliefs are not necessarily example of a basic moral values. Ethical relativism also takes a position that there are no moral right and wrongs. Right and wrongs are justified based on the particular social norms. Martin Luther King's moral critique against racial injustice is reliable with the idea of ethical relativism. Dr. King took a moral judgment that institutionalized racism is unacceptable in America about the nature of ethical truth. King's moral views about the discrimination of blacks in the United States were inappropriate. His
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
Unfortunately crime and murder is an issue in all areas of the country. Trials take place every day from a basic traffic offense to capital murder and the offender’s consequences depend on the jury. The jury consist of ordinary people that live an ordinary life. When faced with these trials, the decision making process is not easy. Some cases may hit home for many of the jurors so when deciding one’s fate does not make the process easy. The court case of Lizzie Borden is a story of a young girl who took an axe to her mother then to her father, the evidence led straight to her and she was later found not guilty by a stunned jury.
Within the pool of jurors, Nick Easter attempts to excuse himself from the obligation of jury duty that most Americans dread. Instead, he receives a lesson on civic duty from Judge Frederick Harkin and find himself being selected as a juror. Nevertheless, almost all the fellow jurors takes a liking to Nick expect one, Frank Herrera the veteran. The games begin when a women named Marlee makes an offer to Fitch and Rohr proposing that the highest bidder will be victorious in winning the verdict. Rohr assumes he is being set up by Fitch in an attempt to obtain a mistrial, therefore he dismisses the offer. Instead, Nick provides proof that the offer is a solid deal with leads to Rohr’s consideration. Suspicious, Fitch orders Nick’s apartment search but comes up short. In retaliation, Marlee gets one of Fitch’s jurors
As time goes on he becomes more and more passionate and seems to be somehow personally involved with the case. At one point, he tells the other jurors about an argument between him and his son. Juror 3 and his son had an argument which made his son run away. When his son returned to apologize, Juror 3 hit him for leaving the first time thus leading him to run away once more. He has not seen his son in two years and this has left him somewhat bitter inside. His anger toward his supposed ungrateful son is projected toward the young man on trial. Juror 3 has no concern for the life of the defendant. He makes it clear that he would have been an executioner and would have pulled the switch on the boy himself. His personal troubles have imposed on his ability to come to a verdict.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Serving on a jury is a challenge for any person. They are responsible for making a decision that will impact many people’s lives. Being that, the jury must use the facts to make the decision and make the decision without bias. A person needs to remain ethical when they take an oath to follow the rules of the court. When many people come together to make a decision it is important everyone is in agreement on how the process will proceed. When a person serving on a jury follows these they will feel confident in their
The book “12 Angry Men” by Reginald Rose is a book about twelve jurors who are trying to come to a unanimous decision about their case. One man stands alone while the others vote guilty without giving it a second thought. Throughout the book this man, the eighth juror, tries to provide a fair trial to the defendant by reviewing all the evidence. After reassessing all the evidence presented, it becomes clear that most of the men were swayed by each of their own personal experiences and prejudices. Not only was it a factor in their final decisions but it was the most influential variable when the arbitration for the defendant was finally decided.
The film 12 Angry Men depicts the challenge faced by a jury as they deliberate the charges brought against an 18-year-old boy for the first-degree murder of his father. Their task is to come to an impartial verdict, based on the testimony that was heard in court. The group went through the case over and over while personal prejudices, personality differences, and tension mounted as the process evolved. While the scorching hot weather conditions and personal affairs to tend to led the juror to make quick and rash decisions, one juror convinced them the fate of the 18 year old was more important than everyone’s problems an convinced them that they could not be sure he was guilty. Juror three took the most convincing. After fighting till he
Another conflict is that some of the jurors were hard/hot headed and stubborn. They refused to accept the stories that juror 8 proposed even when they knew he was right. It's a conflict that could've easily been avoided if half of them weren't so fulsome. The decision in the case could've been resolved sooner if not for their stubbornness.
Especially in the start when juror#9, the old man votes non guilty in order to extent his support for the protagonist, juror#8. He did that because he felt that juror#8 was the only one standing against the decision and if pitches in, the jury might face it difficult to convince two people, therefore will start looking at the evidences more deeply and clearly. The protagonist influenced every single person in the jury one after the other with his logical capability. He was consistent with his thought of discussing the evidences so that justice is given to the boy. He corners few people in the jury with his logical ability, so that the statements about the case which the jury believed as facts, goes haywire. He as a single person had minority influence in many occasions in the
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
As the deliberation continues it becomes obvious that the members of the jury are basing their findings on their past experiences. Juror #1 Martin Balsam, #2 John Fiedler, and #9 Joseph Sweeney, do not like to deal with confrontation so these laid back slackers just go with the flow. E.G. Marshall, Juror #4 is a stock broker that only knows how to rationaliz...