We discussed the morality of the cave divers case yesterday during class. Some people said they were guilty and some said they were not. I feel that if you are trapped in a cave with no connection to the real world, then you are in your own world. I feel that since they navigated the proper discourse about rolling the dice and the alternative options (which there really were not any) they did not commit any crime. I also think it to be audacious for the courts to even pursue such a case as one of the justices had said "they have been through an enormous amount of suffering already". Obviously the entire case was hypothetical but instances like that do occur on a variety of scales (having to pay legally after paying so much physically and emotionally)
For example, a high school teenage girl who suffers from blackout episodes (due to large amounts of stress) passes out at the wheel (from stress) on a local road and slams into a tree, she is taken to the hospital and recovers from multiple fractures and lacerations and upon discharge is arraigned for reckless driving (true story) and is sentenced to pay 8 thousand in fines.
Do you think prosecutors do their research on a person before eagerly signing warrants and the like? We talk so much about the "higher law" but how come we never see it implemented via law enforcement?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is the way legality is structured in this country. Someone pointed it out today in class if a driver caused an accident unintentionally; they are still liable for the damages done i.e. neck fractures etc. With the example of the teenage girl, I am in full moral agreement with reasoning. Why cause more damage than already in place? It’s a question that plagues our legal system. On the other hand, we have to sometimes have positivist perspective when dealing with society. Our laws are placed for us to explicitly follow them and enforce them. It’s a difficult thing to do, but it must be done in most cases.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because when you are under those type of circumstances more damage is usually caused. But it is true that this is the way legality is structured in the country whether it’s right or wrong. It is the law and sometimes after you have suffered so much emotionally and physically you are hit with legal ramifications as well, it may not seem fair, but the law rarely is depending on who you ask. To answer the question, I do not think prosecutors do any research before going forward with warrants and investigations. To me it seems they just take the word of police and go from there.
ReplyDeleteI think that law enforcement is more concerned with "facts" rather than the circumstances under which the law was broken. I would say that the teenage girl did not deserve to be charged with reckless driving and that the spelunkers did not deserve to die for acting outside law when the law was not even accessible. However I could also argue that in the case of the accident victim she should not have been driving if she was aware of her condition and therefore the charges could be justified.With regard to the prosecutors, it is possible that they look toward the monetary benefit of winning a case rather than questioning the actions of law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that in the situation of the spelunken explorers that they ramining members of the part themselves should have been found innocent in a court of law. This is because I believe that in dire situations like the one that they were in, split second decisions sometimes need to be made in order to save the lives of everyone. I think that it would be better to risk the life of one specific individual instead of the lives of everyone else in the party. However, I tend to disagree with the example of law enforcement and doing things such as obtaining a warrent. In order for police to do so, they need to have strong probable cause and bring hard proof to a judge. For example, if police were to raid a warehouse that they believed was to house large numbers of drugs or be the headquarters of a chop shop for cars, the police would have to do long hours of surveillance and document their findings. They then would go before the judge and show him these facts and the judge would then decide if there was sufficient enough evidence for a warrent or not.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of spelunkers, I do believe that technically they are guilty of murder, but should be pardoned. What they did was wrong, was illegal, but due to their specific circumstances and the measures they took to exhaust all other options they ha no choice really. The law is based on facts, but it is also expected to be interpreted, and it is clear that any rational person should conclude their innocence. As for the prosecutors, they’re just doing their jobs and I really don’t think they research or frankly care about the personal aspects of the case. It’s rather black and white, you broke the law therefore you are now subject to punishment. As for “higher law” being implemented, that is a slippery slope. There is probably no uniformity on what higher law is and further more that being a means to reach a decision would likely cause more injustice that actual good.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that in most cases that the prosecutors do research before convicting someone of a crime. In the case of the spelunkers, I believe that they are innocent. They had to make a quick decision in order to save their lives. In situations like that our survival instinct takes over and we do what we can to survive. In the case of the teenage girl I agree with Benita and she should not have been driving if she knew she had a condition that could have injured someone.
ReplyDelete