CRJ- 220 Ethics and Leadership
Is there a way to balance the protection of individual rights while protecting the public at the same time? There are many arguments to this question due to the grey areas surrounding individual rights and public rights. Many argue that their rights are violated but then complain when the protection of the public is breached. This needs to be a give and take situation and people need to realize that they will have to give up some privacy for the good of all.
When people speak of rights do they really understand what they are speaking of? This is a catered society and I feel people think everything should just be given to them. “The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life protects the individual’s ability to take all those actions necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of his life. The right to liberty protects the individual’s ability to think and to act on his own judgment. The right to pursue happiness protects the individual’s ability to live for his own sake, rather than for the sake of society (Rand, A. n.d).” What if one’s pursuit of happiness violates someone else’s rights? The government philosophy is to protect the good of all you must give up some of your rights and to be frank, it isn’t fair but it is true. Today’s society is much more advanced and different than when the Declaration of Independence was written. With terrorism more prevalent today there does need to be some protection from the government, with that being said it is our duty to give up some rights to SOME of our privacy. If the government wants to monitor phone calls, text messages, etc. it should be no problem. The problem is that it needs to be understood that they are only monitoring for certain things, and if someone is lying, cheating, or committing petty crimes, this
information is still their privacy and the government should not be allowed to use any of that information against them. In fact the government should not be allowed to reveal any information about you, such as with doctor patient confidentiality unless it is of national security or of a certain nature of crime.
From a communitarian point of view, giving up some measure of privacy serves the common good. Keeping computerized data on physicians who have had their hospital privileges revoked shadows them long after they paid their dues for the original infractions. Child-care centers can now find out if prospective employees have been convicted of child abuse (Etzioni, A. 1997).” People need to realize you must give a little for the common good.
In the criminal justice system criminal offenders are punished, the purpose of punishment is deterrence and retribution. The punishment is mostly incapacitation but can include monetary fines and community service. Rewards are a hard thing to fathom in the criminal justice system. The offender committed a crime, why should they be rewarded? But I look at it another way, some offenders commit repetitive crimes, while others have learned from their mistakes and need help getting their lives back together. These are the offenders that need rehabilitation, job training, and want our help. I do not think of this as a reward but as a stepping stone to becoming a better citizen, so I do not agree in calling it a reward. “An intervention tested by CJ-DATS researchers, called “Step’n Out,” used a contingency management approach whereby criminal justice staff monitored specific behaviors (e.g., abstinence, employment searches, and counseling attendance) and rewarded individuals who met agreed upon goals with social acknowledgement (e.g., congratulatory letter from parole supervisor) and small material incentives (e.g., partial payment for clothes for job interviews). This approach improved parolees’...