Special Offer!Use code first15 and
Get 15% off your first order
I would take the second choice of completing the paper work and documenting all the necessary confessions in the interview room or elsewhere where they might have, verbally or with gestures provide vital information regarding the case at hand. partner about what happened in the interview room. This is mainly to establish whether they are indeed quality as he claims. The rationale behind this choice is to presume innocence on the suspects until proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the crime alleged against them. It is against ethical standards to harass the suspect and to deny them fair hearing so as to impose guilt on them. To begin with, my colleague has to employ the moral ideal of prudence. This ideal or virtue requires that one chooses his or her action judiciously after thorough consultation of various experiences and thoughtfully deciding on the appropriate step.
Secondly, the virtue of justice demands that everyone be given his or her due. As an officer, it is very vital to weigh out situations based on their advantages and limitations and exercising fairness without biasness. One should not play favorites or give unfair advantage to one particular person or group against the other. Justice is the cornerstone of any law. Since the suspects were under-aged, it is not fair to frighten them so as to extract information from them. The information gained from such a situation may not grant fair trial. Secondly, my partner erred by deliberately refusing to let the parents of the accused to be involved in the case. The suspects are still treated as to under the custody of their parents and therefore decision made against should be relayed to their parents or guardian appropriately and timely.
This scenario presents a conflict between moral ideal of justice and obligations. By choosing to leave the suspects scoot-free, we might violate our obligation seeking justice for the molested women and hence it is very important to ensure the matter is clearly dealt with so as to avoid leaving any stone unturned. The suspects should therefore be detained until their innocence is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
It should be noted that detaining the suspects would help to extract the necessary information. The first choice presented may not provide a fair ground for trial. This is mainly because my partner crossed the line and intentionally avoided bringing in the parents of the suspects. This may act as a loophole to the case since the parents are equally very essential in the progress of the case.
The third option that requires reporting to the supervisor is also elusive. The recommendation of the supervisor tallies with the first choice which weakens the case. The implication is that the officer risk losing the case if they choose to proceed.
If the matter is reported to the district attorney, the case may be dropped due to lack of proper evidence to sustain the case. Hence, there is need to complete all the paperwork and document the necessary confessions.
Lastly, it would hastily to report the incident to the newspaper. This is mainly because; there is no tangible evidence to shows that the suspects actually committed the alleged crime. The attorney will only be obliged to confirm the charges if there enough evidence both documented and orally presented that shows that the suspects are indeed guilty. The last choice is also risky since the case is weak and therefore the officers may be indicted for lack of sufficient evidence to sustain the case.
This leaves us with the second choice which provides the necessary evidence to prove the guilt or innocence of the suspects.