By Jerry "Clapso" Avissato
CJ 106 Law and Ethics
Professor Beverly "Silk" Quist
October 13, 2000
In case number 8.3 we get the interesting prospect of a Correction Officer faced with the moral dilemma of whether to take part in an execution, which he finds morally wrong or risk losing any chance of promotion in the future. In the assignment, I am instructed to take the place of this Officer.
The first question the assignment requires me to answer is what role should my religious beliefs play in my decision. I find myself unable to meld the perspectives I am forced to contemplate in the assignment requirement that I "become" the Correction officer. That is, I'm not really sure where the criteria given in the text takes precedence and where I'm supposed to replace my "real" values with those indicated in the text. The best I can come up with is a three-fold answer as follows.
1. The real me places little stock in religious teachings as a reliable moral compass. In the past religious teachings have lead to wars, persecutions, genocide, and all sorts of other nasty outcomes. If faced with such a dilemma in real life I would not put my religious beliefs into play and with good reason. As a witch, I believe in reincarnation. Since I believe death is just a transition I could make the argument that the condemned will just come back, hopefully as a person less likely to face capital punishment. This flies in the face of my personal ethics, which state that to kill another human is wrong. This is based on the fact that the person killed finds an end to whatever pain they feel, while those that are connected to the murdered person live on and feel the pain of the loss of that person. This is true of both the loved ones of the victim and the condemned in capital cases. Much is now made of the suffering of the victim's family in capital cases. I feel the condemned's family is subjected to the same pain of loss the victims family is subjected too. As such, the death penalty just doubles the amount of human suffering. Since causing pain to others is morally wrong, killing is wrong. No matter if, it's an individual or the state committing the murder.
2. The real me now "replaced" by the correction officer must take the criteria given in the text into account. Said text clearly states that the correction officer is "both morally and religiously" opposed to the death penalty. Since religion is a (unfortunately to my way of thinking) commonly recognized supplier of moral standards, I would have to guess the correction officer would place much weight on the moral teachings of his religion.
3. Using my old friend, cultural relativism, I can simply state it is up to the individual how much ANY type of ethical tool plays into their decision making process.
The second question is how the law of Karma would operate in this situation. At first blush, given that I (as the correction officer) am morally and religiously opposed to the death penalty, I would expect to receive "bad Karma" from going through with playing a role in the execution. However, upon further analysis the likelihood that I will not receive a promotion due to my refusal to take part in the execution seems to indicate that my Karma will be bad in either case. I would argue, for the above stated reason, that Karma is a "wash" in this case. As such, it fails to bring me closer to a solution to this dilemma.
The third question asked in the assignment is whom am I connected to in this situation. I, the correction officer, am clearly connected to my fellow officers by duty. I, the real me as the correction officer, am connected to everyone involved, including the condemned. In either case, it makes no difference. Since both I, the real me as the correction officer and I, the correction officer are both morally opposed to the death penalty, all the personal connections fly out the window, this duty is quite simply a no-no for me. The only possible solution is to find a way out of this duty.
The forth and final question is which possible course of action would be the most empathic, show the most compassion for others, and do the best job of reducing human suffering? The simple answer is to take a line from Naners Ray gun and "Just Say NO!" There is a price to pay in this decision but since I care very little for money and status, that is the way I would go. Screw the promotion. I would do my 20 and retire in the warm feeling of having done the right thing up to and including personal sacrifice.
Another way I would consider dealing with this issue is by refusing the duty and then suing the pants off the Dept. of Corrections when they passed me over for promotion. This appeals to the activist side of me that insists that it's not good enough to just find an answer for myself. It's important to leave system changed so that the next person who may be faced with such a dilemma may have a possible precedent (should I win my suit) to avoid such duty. In this way, I spare future humans the pain I have suffered. This is a supreme moral act because I may wind up helping someone who hasn't even been born yet.
Then there's the bring it before my supervisor answer. I would explain my moral position and asked to be relieved of this duty. This way leaves me open to the loss of promotion the other two solutions do. I can argue that in a perfect world this would be the right solution, because in a perfect world my supervisor would be warm, kind and understanding and would get me my promotion even though I "failed" this assignment. Such supervisors are in fact rare in the real world. I would be less likely to try this way out.
Another possible solution would be to contact the union and see if they might intervene on my behalf. This puts the threat of further action by them at my disposal. A creative use of work rules might make this simply a matter of a few well-placed phone calls by a union official. It would be worth investigating.
Another possibility I can think of has sleazy and underhanded as two of its charms. This can be great fun for me when I'm faced with a particularly rigid and unyielding power structure. This solution can be described simply as the worm out of it solution. Find an excuse, any excuse to avoid the duty. For example, a couple of days before the duty rotation have sudden chest pains and dizzy spells. Go to the Doctor and convince him that you have trouble standing up etc. go on sick leave and drag the process out until you're put on light duty and excused from death duty. The other refinement to this solution I would explore is take the duty and hope there is no execution scheduled for the six month period I would have to serve death duty. If there were an execution within my death duty period, I would simply call in sick the day of the execution. I would use this as an absolute last resort. In fact, I can't really say I would do this at all based on the fact that I wouldn't care enough about the promotion to actually use the technique. I'm sure this kind of thing has been used by someone else in the past.
Another solution is to either find another job, or not take a correction officer position in the first place. That would be my way of dealing with this. Just not, take the job in the first place. Since I believe that the criminal justice system is immoral based on the fact that it uses force to make people act in certain ways, a CJ career just isn't in my future. Unfortunately, someone has to do such jobs. This leads me to further question the morality of the CJ system. In the given example of case 8.3, A human being is FORCED to take part in an action he finds immoral.
I've heard correction officers describe themselves as the other inmates when talking about their job. I think this case explains what they mean. After all, correction officers are locked in just like everyone else. This is why the Department of Corrections in NYC is always understaffed. The turnover on the job due to stress and burnout is very high. Most people who become correction officers in NYC also take the police and fire department tests. If you pass the correction test, you get called right away. The call up for police takes about three years and fire takes an average of six years. Many of NYC's firefighters have done three years as correction officers and three years as cops.
In the end I find myself wondering if there's a larger solution to all this. I must at this point return to my wish for the building of the just society. Such a society based on equity and cooperation, instead of the greed and competition based system we now have, would have little or no need for corrections departments. If all share in the fruits of our labors equally, there would be far less theft and other criminal behavior. If everyone were assured a good life of plenty, few would be tempted to live a bad life of crime. This truly classless dream of mine can be done. It can be done under any economic system, including capitalism. The first thing we need do is to proclaim that each human life is worth as much as any other. In this way we do away with the "fry the scumbags" mentality that allows the state to murder people in the name of justice. This proclamation also makes war far more difficult to have, both on our streets and overseas.
In my dream society, all receive a fair portion of the production of the society. I believe that most crime is predicated on inequity. That is, that many people realize that due to the limits the class structure of our society places on them they are precluded from raising upward within the class system. Faced with a life of too much work for too many hours for too little money and constantly bombarded with images and messages that compels them to BUY, BUY, BUY (advertising) some of us innovate. This innovation often is criminal in nature. Once someone makes the leap to ignoring the law in order to profit, any and all behavior is possible for him or her.
This outlaw mentality, which I will call criminal disconnect, then separates such people from the mores and ethics that lead most of us to lead honest lives. The criminal justice systems answer to this is to FURTHER separate these people by placing them behind the walls of the total institution. No wonder the recidivism rate is so high! It's the connection to society that keeps most of us on the strait and narrow. Once this connection is broken, no amount of fascist, behaviorist "correction" will make a criminally disconnected individual connected.
Even when someone "pays their debt" and is released, the abominable parole system makes it impossible for any semblance of a normal life. In August, I went to visit a friend in Oregon. The brother in law of my friend was given 5 years probation in a plea bargain. He was forced to take BI-weekly polygraph tests and random drug tests, which average twice a month. As if that weren't bad enough, he has to PAY for the cost of these tests himself! $70 for the polygraphs and $50 for the drug tests. He works over 50 hours a week for which he takes home a little more then $200 dollars a week after taxes. On weeks he has to take a polygraph, his family's income is $130. He's relatively rich on drug test weeks at $150, that is if he doesn't hit a week in which he has to take a drug AND a poly, which sometimes happens. His wife, infant daughter, and himself are punished by a system out of control. It's only a matter of time before they charge the condemned for the electric used by the chair that fries them.
Read, Think, Speak, Write, Be!