Ethics - Duty - Emotions
The situation is between father and son. Suppose if you are a police officer (father) and your son committed a crime, you had two choices. One is to turn in your son because it is the ‘RIGHT’ thing to do and the other is to protect your son by doing the ‘DUTY’ of the father towards a son. What is the more ethical thing to do? Discuss the duty ethics VS. right space theories with the situation in mind. Which one does the good outweigh the bad in either of them?
This post was prepared by Kunal Shah and he is the leader for this topic. This blogging was started on 5th Saturday and will be end on midnight of 14th Monday.
Police are expected to utilize their independent judgment in carrying out their professional responsibilities and are held to the same ethical standards as everyone else. The decisions made by a police man is important to the welfare of the public. In order to serve the public effectively, police must maintain a high level of technical competence. A high level of technical expertise without adherence to ethical guidelines is as much a threat to public welfare as is professional incompetence. Many ethical decision are bittersweet.
In stating this the police must do the “right” thing and turn in his son. No one is above the law and this applies to the son. Society has given the police his rights and also they gave him their trust. How is society suppose to believe the police with out him effectively using his rights without bias. The police is at risk of losing his integrity if he sides with the son. Society outweighs his son.
The ethical thing to do as a father is to turn my son in for the crime he did no matter what’s the reason is. As a police man you want to set agood example and teach the son that he had to pay for his action and doesn’t mater what’s the father position is. But on the other side I think as a father, I may look what type is the crime is and if it is a small crime that doesn’t heart or affect anyone I may just bunch him myself and teach him his mistake.
All crimes have an effect.
I think it would vary depending on what the crime was. If my son murdered someone or something along those lines I would definitely turn him in. But if it was shoplifting or something minor I would feel compelled to try and handle it on my own. To me the most ethical thing to do would be to turn him in no matter what be the case, but I believe my duty instincts would kick in if it was something I deemed to be a minor crime.
If the crime was murder then turning him in is definitely the ethically correct move. Nothing good is going to come from trying to cover something like that up and you probably couldn’t live with yourself or your son after that. But still, No matter what the circumstances are, I really just can’t see a parent completely ignoring the well-being of their child to do the right thing ethically. Your instinct would be to do everything in your power to keep them out of serious trouble and as a cop you would have some influence on the situation. I think there is a law in some states that says that a parent cannot be prosectued for refusing to incriminate their children or for harboring them if they are wanted by the law. I don’t know that they can force you to testify either. Those laws speak to just how difficult it would be to do something like that. The legal system recognizes that it is just not the nature of humans, or even animals, to turn their back on family under any circumstance.
I agree that if a serious crime was committed there is no good in keeping it from the authorities. I think that for minor offenses then the discipline should come from the home. But if the the behavior of committing small crimes becomes routine then I would not see any wrong in turning the child in. If the parent thinks that the child would benefit from the state punishment and it would turn his life around then I do not see anything wrong with it.
Yeah, if they become a repeat offender (regardless of crime, age, anything) then at some point you have to give up on the home discipline and turn them in, hoping that the state can teach them the lesson they have refused to learn from whatever punishment you’ve given them.
Age does not takeaway from our responsobilities to our community or ourselves to be good citicems. We as a nation seem to have problems living up to our own duties and accepting responsobiitie for our own actions. We are quick to fight or run but not to reason. This lack of assertivness is bringing us a generation taught by the best at dogeing resonsobility. It is no wonder the new term for dogeing is “I’m bad” or the old favorite of “I’m Sorry” both alude to its not my responsibility to change this behavior yet I will aknowledge it is wrong. People say you should do the right thing but they don’t its the old do as I say not as I do and that does not work. We teach our childen to lie and hide the truth in stead of taking responsobility for their own actions. For example if you speed whil driving your children to school what have you taught them? You taught them that they do not have to obey the law except when it suits you. What makes us think they won’t do simular when given a chance. If we smoke it works the same way we are teaching our childen to ignore reality and do as you please. Ethics are great yet sometimes idealistic especialy if we only practice it on sunday mourning. In the brook the balance is our assertive middle path of selfcontrol that allows us to ballance the oars of life. We must demonstrate our ethical ballance to other so they can receioprcate. Talk is cheap.
Agreed. Age has nothing to do with our responsibility
Turning your son in will always be the more ethical action. But some people will probably think that the degree or nature of the crime should factor in the decision. Some parents may not have to think twice about turning their son in, depending on what type of relationship they have with their son. I suspect that some parents would consider excusing the offense if their son would not get caught. Also, another consideration is “what is the hypothetical age of this son?” Is this son 13 years old or 31?
For the purpose of this blog, I am going to assume the crime committed is identity theft via computer and credit card purchases. I am also going to assume that the son committed the crime at both different ages of 13 and 31.
(Son at 13 years old)—-One day a Playstation 3 gaming console and a couple video games (approximately $500-600 value) shows up to the house which UPS delivered. The father signs for it and noticed that it is addressed as a gift to his son. Asking his son where it came from and how could he afford it, his son tells him that he saved up the money from mowing lawns and used his Visa Check Card to purchase it online. A few days later he finds a credit card in his sons back pack as he was preparing to help his son study some math. The credit card happens to be the son’s grandfathers. Long story short, the son was caught and the father alerted the grandfather what his son had done. The son was severely punished and all was forgiven.
Although in this instance, the “duty” of the father was to severely punish his son and tell the grandfather what happened so he would not be alarmed when he saw the bill. I am sure that the credit card company would believe that the “right” course of action would have been to alert the authorities. The father chose to keep it a family matter believing the son would learn from his mistake and punishment.
(Son at 31 years old)—-The son works at a local, prestigious, private golf resort as a golf instructor. He makes a decent living and enjoys the occasional tip from the members. One in the locker room, he finds a members credit card on the floor near the lockers. Well most of the members’ income exceeds $500K per year, so he figures the credit card will have a high limit. He takes it and goes on to purchase a very nice, used cruising boat for his father (approximately $30,000). Now retired from the force, the son tells his dad that a member at the resort had sold it to him for $15,000 as a favor, and he wanted to give it to him as a gift for all his years of hard work on the force, as well as always being there for him. The father does not believe his son could afford such a purchase even on his decent salary and tips. The son breaks down and tells his father he found the credit card and that they deserved the boat since they did not have much money growing up. Further he explained that it would not hurt the member he stole the card from because they were rich. The father finds out who the member is and alerts them what his son had done. Pleads with them to not turn his son in and that he would take money out of his retirement to pay for the damages. The members suggest that he turn himself in or they would. The son refuses and threatens to flee the state. At which time, his father has his son arrested.
In this instance, his father still tried to keep it an inside matter. But when his hand was forced, he did his “duty” as a father and as a citizen, as well as the “right” thing.
In the instance of when the son had stolen the credit card as a 13 year boy, the overall good outweighed the bad. In the other case at 31 years old, the bad outweighed the good, but the overall effect was the right thing to do.
So, should age and the degree of the crime affect your decision of “duty” versus “right” even though at both ages they were the exact same crime?
Yes the ethical thing to do is to turn the son in but age and the degree of the crime will affect the decision. In these two scenarios a 31 years old should know better than a 13 years old about stealing.
Although I agree with Cade to a certain extent, who gets to decide how serious the crime has to be before they decide to turn them in? I don’t agree with all the laws, especially speed limits, I think maybe if the kid was shoplifting, the father could take him back to the store to return the items and appologize. What about a parent who would use their influence with the courts to basicly get the charges dropped or thrown out of court? This brings in a whole new set of ethics.
Thats a good point, Chuck. To me it is clearly unethical to use influence with courts to get charges throw out, but I also would feel compelled to try and do anything I can to help my kid out. Again for me it would vary depending on situation and crime committed.
Chuck I don’t think using your position to get the charges dropped is a good idea either. One of my relative has been in trouble with the law and he has a friend that works in the courts system. His charges keep getting dropped and he has never learned his lesson. As hard as it is, sometimes we must see our children punished for their wrong doings.
Well, I think there should be one thinking this situation. Just like a lie is lie, a crime is a crime. If you take your son back to the store after shoplifting, he maight think it is alright to do a bigger crime. It is very important on giving children the right direction and discipline in life. It is even more important to be consistent. This is where I see most people fail with their kids. They will teach them something, but won’t be consistent with it throughout. For Chuck’s example, would the father take the son to apologize after murdering someone? Probably not. It would be a turn in or he father does whatever it takes to protect the son. I think regardless of crime, the punishment should be same FROM the parent’s side, off course it will vary from the law side depending on the crime.