please see attached files
Chapter 12 From the discussion case at the end of the chapter. 1-Apply the steps for analyzing the ethical dilemma from question one to the case study. 2-Explain the deontological perspective. 3-Apply the specific steps from the deontological perspective to the discussion case. 4-Explain what Officer Colon should do according to a deontological perspective? This assignment should be 2 ½ pages APA format and 2 space Discussion Case Consider the following circumstances and the individual ethical duty of Officer Ricardo Colon by applying the deontological criteria. No Special Treatment? In the early evening hours of February 12, 1998, Captain James Brady of the homicide division of the Philadelphia Police Department, a 27-year veteran, finished his shift at police headquarters and headed for a popular bar just a few blocks away, where he partied with coworkers, New York police, and some justice professionals. He drank 64 to 80 ounces of alcohol. At about 11 p.m., Brady departed the bar, leaving behind a briefcase containing his pistol, his cell phone, and some case files. He drove off to his home. That evening an eyewitness filed a report with police. She had heard a loud noise outside her apartment shortly after 11 p.m. A police report recounted that a 1992 blue Honda Civic sedan had been struck at that location, not far from the bar where Brady had been drinking. Brady had hit this vehicle and then left the scene of the accident. The front grill of his car was badly crushed, the left side of the hood jutted straight up, and the air bag had inflated from the force of impact. Brady was driving an unmarked police vehicle, a 1989 Plymouth Grand Fury. Officer Ricardo Colon, who noted the unmarked police car riding slowly by with heavy damage, observed Brady driving away from the scene of the accident. Colon sounded two blasts on his air horn, signaling the driver to stop, but Brady continued driving until Colon switched on his lights and siren. Colon then notified police radio that he had the car stopped, and the dispatcher requested, as was customary, that an officer back up Colon in his investigation. Without waiting for the backup to arrive, Colon approached the vehicle, and Brady identified himself as a police captain. At this point, Officer Gregory Yatcilla arrived. He, like Colon, had less than a year on the job. By this time, Brady had exited the vehicle and was wobbling as he stood and was slurring his speech. Also, the inseam of Brady’s pants was soaked, indicating that he had wet his pants. Colon understood the seriousness of the situation and, as he had been trained to do, radioed for a supervisor, who arrived shortly in the person of Lt. Joseph DiLacqua, a 25-year veteran. DiLacqua had been disciplined on numerous occasions. He conducted a private conversation with Brady and then ordered Yatcilla to move the damaged car onto the sidewalk. DiLacqua then radioed in an auto accident report that gave the impression that no injuries had occurred and that an oncoming vehicle had invaded Brady’s route. When the department’s Accident Investigation Division (AID) arrived (called because a city vehicle was involved), they were told the same story by DiLacqua. Brady said nothing. After AID gave its release, DiLacqua drove Brady back to the bar to pick up his briefcase, but it had already been transported back to police headquarters, the return having been organized by a bartender. Brady was then driven home by Yatcilla. No blood alcohol test was administered. That night, accident investigators photographed the scene, and the photographs revealed a different story than that told to AID. There was no debris underneath the car, and a trail of engine coolant from the radiator stretched for 14 blocks back to the original point of impact. There were no skid marks showing that Brady had swerved or braked when he was allegedly run off the road. Question: What is Colon’s ethical dilemma? What should Colon do, according to a deontological perspective? Read Chapter 13. From the discussion case at the end of the chapter: Apply the steps for analyzing the ethical dilemma facing the prosecutor from question one. Explain the utilitarian approach. Apply the specific steps from the utilitarian perspective to the discussion case. Explain what the prosecutor’s office should do according to the utilitarian perspective? Assignment should be 2 ½ pages APA format Discussion Case New York police officer James Sullivan, 34, had a distinguished record, having made around 100 arrests, and earned nearly two dozen commendations during his nine-year career. A man he had arrested in 1998, who was subsequently convicted and jailed and then released on parole, was appearing before the U.S. district court in Brooklyn on a parole revocation hearing. Sullivan had received a subpoena to testify at this hearing. The background to the case was that Sullivan and his partner had arrested Mr. Francis on charges of attempted murder and firearms possession following a shooting. Francis, who had three prior convictions, including one for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, was tried in state court and acquitted on all charges arising from the Sullivan arrest. However, following his acquittal, Francis was indicted by federal prosecutors for firearms possession and convicted and jailed. As a convicted felon, he could not legally possess a firearm. Sullivan and his partner Melin had both testified in the state trial that they had taken the weapon from Francis, placed it in the trunk of their vehicle, and then driven straight to the police station. The officers had also testified that Sullivan had picked the weapon up from the place where Francis had dropped it. However, Sullivan later told a federal prosecutor that, in fact, Melin had picked up the gun and handed it to him (Sullivan), and that Sullivan had put it on the front seat of the patrol car. During the federal trial of Francis, the prosecutor revealed that Sullivan had given false testimony in the state trial. In 1996, New York City police commissioner Howard Safir announced a policy of firing any officer for lying to a superior or in an official proceeding. Because of this policy and his false testimony, Sullivan was told to bring a lawyer to the parole revocation hearing in case any action was taken against him. When asked their intentions regarding Sullivan and his false testimony, the state prosecutors indicated that they had not decided whether or not to pursue perjury charges against Sullivan. The main deciding factor was that the false testimony he had given was not material to the case and would not have affected the verdict. However, despite no decision having been made about Sullivan, some action had already been taken against Officer Melin, who had been placed on modified duty. It was uncertain whether further action would be taken against Melin and Sullivan. Question: After applying the criteria for a utilitarian analysis, should the state prosecutor’s office charge the officers with perjury?