Read each paragraph and give me your opinion do you agree do you disagree with those two paragraphs one for each para and if you agree or disagree he why or why not
1.Explain the relevant facts and ruling of the court in a case on point with this ethical dilemma: The facts, in this case, is that the investigators did not read the suspect his Miranda rights before questioning him, therefore, whatever the suspect admitted or did not admit to cannot be used in the court of law. Another fact is that the suspect admitted guilt to his attorney so therefore ethically the attorney should not represent his client and hand it over to someone else.
Articulate what you would do if faced with this ethical dilemma: What I would do in this ethical dilemma is, prove to the courts that my client did not have his Miranda rights read to him before the interrogation started, therefore, all evidence or statements should be removed from the evidence. Another thing I would do as an attorney is to ask for his client to be appointed another attorney due to ethical reasons, which would hinder his client’s case.
Differentiate the action you would take under situational versus systems model of ethics: Situational ethics is based on Fletcher’s model, which states that decision—making should be based upon the circumstances of a particular situation, and not upon fixed law (“All About Philosophy”, 2002). Therefore, system model ethics is basically right or wrong that sets certain laws for certain crimes. However, my action for this situation would be to use the situational ethics based on Fletcher’s model because the decision should be based on the circumstances instead of a set law for those crimes. I believe everything should be included in the circumstances before punishing the suspect.
Explore whether your answer would be different if you believed your client was innocent or did not know for sure either way: I do think that not knowing for sure if your client is guilty or believe that your client is innocent could change the way you handle the case. So I would state that yes it would change my answer until I looked at all the evidence.
2. Every defendant has the right to a trial and the right to be heard. Part of the job often requires defending guilty people. Lawyers cannot knowingly commit perjury, helping their client lie in a court of law. Under these circumstances the attorney should advise his client/defendant that there is a good chance he will be convicted for his crimes, and provide his client with the best defense possible while maintaining ethical practices. Perhaps a plea bargain option might be in his client’s best interest. As an attorney I cannot legally help the defendant lie. I would either step down as his legal counsel or at best suggest that he does not testify. Another option later on would be would be to suggest sentencing options.
The Fifth Amendment provides the defendant the right where they cannot be forced the incriminate themselves. This often coincides with the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits the act of coercive questing by law enforcement professionals. Any type of coerced or involuntary confession strategies should be suppressed because the way it was obtained violated the two amendments.
The reading of Miranda rights is very specific. To keep these rights from being violated many law enforcement professionals read them at the time of arrest, that way any questioning later on cannot be disregarded when a case goes to court. Since my client was not read his rights, I would motion to have his confession thrown out. At this point there may not be enough evidence to convict my client beyond a reasonable doubt.
Situational Ethics is based upon the circumstances of a particular situation, and not upon fixed Law. The only absolute is Love. Love should be the motive behind every decision (Situational ethics, 2015). I think my recommendation would be the same and he would be given the same sentence which would include jail time and maybe a less severe sentence than would be given on murder charges.
As an attorney if I knew my client was innocent, than I would be doing everything I could to make sure that he was not convicted of a crime in which he did not commit. If I was unsure about his confessions, I would work hard to seek the truth. Sometimes this means conducting an investigation of your own. I would want to always make sure that my client had the fairest trial under any circumstances. Although his confession was coerced, if he was guilty he should still be accountable for his crimes and should be tried as such.
Bottom of Form 1
