fandomhigh | Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #15, Apr 20]

"Welcome to our last class together," Alex said, offering her students a light smile. "I'll be honest: I've really enjoyed our conversations this semester. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about justice, and thank you for your insights and perspectives on all the subjects we've covered. They've been nothing short of fascinating."

She gestured to the stack of papers on her desk. "This, of course, is your final. It's structured just like the midterm was. You can use anything you may have brought with you, but you shouldn't need to. You cannot work with your classmates, and I'll ask that you not talk to one another until all exams have been handed in. Even if you and your friend are both finished, the next person over might not be, and your conversation could be a distraction.

"Once you've handed in your exam, you're free to leave. Or, if you'd rather, you can stick around and tell me what you thought of class -- what I did wrong, what I did right, anything like that. But for now, you've got finals to complete. Good luck, and show me what you know."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A convict is released from prison and moves to a new residence. The local neighborhood watch posts flyers with his picture and a description of his crimes, warning citizens to avoid contact with him. The flyers are on telephone poles and posted in the windows of local businesses, even occasionally tucked under the windshield wipers of cars. Some of the businesses in question bar the convict from their premises. The convict insists this is harassment, and that he has paid his dues to society and is trying to move on with his life. The neighborhood watch argues that they have a right to inform the population about the dangerous element in their midst. Should the police intervene? Give one argument for each side.

The police shouldn't intervene because, depending on the severity of the crime, the public has a right to know and judge the convict for themselves. After all, the convict thought he had the right to commit a crime so now the public has a right to judge him for themselves. If he committed a potentially dangerous crime, I would feel more comfortable having all the knowledge of him so I could make a choice to avoid him for my own potential safety. If it progressed past information dispersal, perhaps the police should intervene but not when it's just people passing along information.

Bod stopped writing for a bit to formulate the last bit of his essay.

The police should intervene because this level of information dispersal is negatively affecting someone who has served his time and is just trying to move on with his life. At a minimum, people should probably know who he is and what he did but taking it to levels where he becomes a prisoner in his own house isn't right and should have police interaction. I don't know if that would necessarily help as that would put the public on edge and make them angry but the convict's life shouldn't be completely ruined just because he made a mistake and is trying to atone.

Ben's argument was colored entirely by having a couple of criminals (depending on which government you were talking about, of course) in the family. The argument for intervention was based on what he thought would happen if his grandfather's past ever got out on the island (not that his example used anything so specific as names) and the danger of a mob mentality causing the convict serious harm, and the argument against intervention used a hypothetically still alive and rehabilitated Jacen and the danger of a relapse that the public should be aware of.

The police should intervene, because while the public has the right to know, this constant attention compromises the released convicts right to conduct his life like any other citizen now. He can not be doubly convicted or punished for something he's already done time for.

Conversely, the public has the right to know where he lives and what he's done. This is public record, and full disclosure. Usually they can do this by checking the FBI and local police websites, which keep a map of released offenders. This is only a somewhat more obnoxious version of that, and more noticeable.

On the one hand, the neighborhood has a right to know about a dangerous element in their midst, so they can take every reasonable precaution to keep themselves and their families safe. If this convict were the pedophile from the previous question, for example, it would make sense that families with small children be warned about his presence.

On the other hand, this behavior goes beyond 'reasonable precautions.' They are treading perilously close to the tort of false light; they are informing the public of the truth, but one could argue their motives stem from malice. There is certainly no reason to put up posters on poles and under wipers--this goes beyond the community to informing random strangers of this man's identity and crimes. They are invading his privacy; even as a convict, he has rights. Furthermore, isn't barring him from certain public establishments illegal?

That being said, I don't think the police should necessarily get involved. What's going on isn't criminal in nature, and unless it gets to the point where criminal acts are being perpetrated (assault, battery, trespassing), it's probably best to keep them out of that. But I do think the convict should bring the most 'enthusiastic' members of the watch to civil court.

On the one hand, the public has the right to know. The person committed a crime, which makes it more likely that they'll commit a crime in the future, and if people don't know, that could put them in danger.

On the OTHER hand, it's going to make it really, really hard for the person to move on and stop being a criminal if nobody lets them be. And I don't know where the line is, but too many posters IS harassment. And businesses not letting the person in is just illegal.

Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #15, Apr 20]

Question 5: Case Study - Prisoners' Rights and Victims' Rights - JST15

Re: Question 5: Case Study - Prisoners' Rights and Victims' Rights - JST15

Re: Question 5: Case Study - Prisoners' Rights and Victims' Rights - JST15

Re: Question 5: Case Study - Prisoners' Rights and Victims' Rights - JST15

Re: Question 5: Case Study - Prisoners' Rights and Victims' Rights - JST15

Re: Question 5: Case Study - Prisoners' Rights and Victims' Rights - JST15