CJA 453 W4 DB
Respond to the following two scenarios:
1. A Delaware law features a new version of the scarlet letter. Anyone convicted of a sex crime (including sexual abuse of a child) is immediately issued a new driver’s license with a ”Y” stamped on the front. The meaning of the code is explained on the back of the license. If the ex-offender moves to another state and turns in the Delaware license, that state would be alerted as to the offender’s past conviction. This new law was added to the existing Megan’s law, now passed in virtually every state, that requires convicted sex offenders to register with local police and child welfare agencies so that neighbors can be notified even after the offender’s sentence has been completed. The sponsor of the new law said, ”This additional information will give police the ability to thwart some sex crimes before they occur.” Simply checking a person’s identification will alert police to a past conviction for a sex crime. Opponents argue that such a label will interface with an ex-offender’s ability to get a job, cash a check, rent an apartment, or do anything that requires picture identification. This will impede efforts of former sex offenders to live law-abiding lives. It also unfairly discriminates against sex offenders versus other kinds of ex-offenders.
Assess the moral permissibility of a scarlet letter such as that used in Delaware.
2. Michael Costin was knocked unconscious during a fight at a hockey rink and died. He had indicated that he wanted his heart donated as an organ transplant on his death, but the district attorney (DA) blocked the donation. Costin’s death at the hockey rink resulted in a criminal prosecution of the other "hockey-dad" who assaulted him. On Costin’s death, the charge against the defendant became manslaughter. The DA blocked the heart donation because she didn’t want the defendant to claim at trial that Costin died of a preexisting heart condition rather than from the fight. The result of this decision was that it may have cost a heart patient the opportunity for a life-saving transplant. Doctors claimed that preserving (and not transplanting) Costin’s heart offered little medical evidence because it was healthy—the heart would have been rejected if it was defective in any way. Several doctors believed it was clear that Costin died from head trauma and that his heart was fine. One physician declared, ”It's very, very likely that, because of this decision, someone with heart disease died.” However, a professor argued, ”there is also the interest in making sure we have all the evidence necessary so that justice is served.” The DA said that according to an EMT at the fight scene, "it was a possible heart attack [and] we didn’t want to give the defense an issue at trial to allow them to say, 'We really don't know the cause of death'’to raise doubt in the minds of jurors.
Assess the moral permissibility of the DA's decision.
Should the wishes of the family play a role in assessing the morality of this decision?
