My philosophy on approach for balancing individual rights and the public’s protection
The members of the public often look at what ought to have been done as done, especially in the justice system. The public would always want fairness and justice to be administered on criminals without any hitches or delays. The reality of things, however, is that so much inequality is prevalent when it comes to matters about personal traits. Such traits include gender and ethnicity. The two, among other personal characteristics, are the most affected when it comes to fairness. Criminal justice does not go without saying that concern is evident when it comes to these personal traits against the protection that the government ought to offer to the public.
It is true that sometimes, a social contract exists where citizens give up some of their rights to the government in exchange for the protection of other rights. Some personal rights fail to apply in many circumstances in that regard. An example is when the right to life is supposed to be upheld at all times and by all means. We find out that even so, incidences like terror attack make it hard to achieve that right to the fullest capacity. Such a situation may now necessitate a balance between individual rights and public protection.
Another example is when rights such as peaceful enjoyment of personal property are curtailed due to security reasons, and the court issues search warrants. That is the effect of giving away individual rights for public protection. A balance is therefore necessary for such instances.
My approach to the use of reward and punishment of criminals
There is a vast diversity in the views of the public on the use of reward and punishment in the administration of justice. Utilitarian and justice are the two philosophical approaches that are used in rewarding and punishing criminals. Utilitarian revolves around rewarding good results while justice, on the other hand, revolves about a reward for effort. I think that it is impossible to limit the justice system in one of these approaches as different situations have different factors that determine the use of punishment method. One example is where a criminal shows good effort towards reformation. They may be accorded a sentence reduction. Another example is where the criminal has completely reformed; prerogatives of mercy can be used in their favor.
Use of immoral means to achieve desirable ends.
A common phrase is used by those justifying the use of immoral means to reach a desirable end. One can be heard saying that the end justifies the means. Others call it a “Dirty Harry problem.” The real deal is that in most situations, the use of bribes and sham methods are used to deter the offenders. It is also true that criminals are controversial people and one may be left with no choice but use immoral means to achieve an end that is good. It is arguable that in using unethical methods to curtail crime places the professionals of justice on the same level as the criminals.
Use of ethics in making decisions in criminal justice
I believe that the use of care is one of the most commendable steps that can be undertaken in ethical decision-making when it comes to the field of criminal justice. Care will help criminal justice procedures be carried out in a way that will result in good order and to the greater good of the members of the public. An example is where individual rights and public protection overlaps. Peace-making criminology, on the other hand, is essential in the attaining deterrence of crime and should be brought on board in the criminal justice system. An example is the use of peaceful approaches when dealing with gangs that have a course that they are fighting.