i need 4 Solutions include a.Support #1 – not supported by (use language of ethics here)b.Support #2 – research that shows this is a bad ideac.Limits – why some could argue that it isan acceptable solution5 RESOURCES
ethics_rounds_outline_model_10.18.18_1___1_.docx
my_case11.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
John Doe, Jane Smith and Malik Johnston
SCED 304: Ethics, Education and Change
Ethics Rounds Outline: Making a Murderer
Thesis Statement: Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted of assault and rape in 1985, and
Manitowoc County could have prevented this life-changing error. Avery served 18 years in
prison before he was released in 2003. Then in 2005, he was convicted for the murder of Teresa
Halbach, a photographer who was last seen taking pictures of the Avery junkyard. Avery and his
nephew, Brendan Dassey, are currently serving life sentences for the rape and murder of Teresa
Halbach (Netflix). The documentary Making a Murderer highlights the mistakes made by the
Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department, and suggests that Avery was framed for both criminal
charges. Avery’s innocence or guilt is a universally controversial debate.
I.
Crux of Ethical Dilemma
a. What is the ethical dilemma? What type of dilemma is it?
i. The decisions made by the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department were
unethical and preventable. The Manitowoc County Police Department
specifically asked the sheriff’s department to further investigate another
suspect named Gregory Allen, who better fit the description of the attacker.
However, the sheriff’s department declined because they were “certain” it had
to be Avery. Because of this avoidable, poor decision, Steven Avery was
robbed of 18 years of his life for a crime he did not commit.
b. Why is this an ethical dilemma and not a “hard choice?”
ii. This is an ethical dilemma because the choices made by the Manitowoc
County Sheriff’s department completely ruined Steven Avery’s life, and some
would argue that the wrongful conviction in the 1985 case affected the
outcome of the murder case in 2005.
c. What are the facts of the case? What do we know? What don’t we know?
iii. We know that Steven Avery was innocent of the charges in the Penny
Beernsten case of 1985, and Gregory Allen was found guilty. We know that
Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department could have prevented this error
because the police department had reasonable suspicion that Gregory Allen
was the real attacker, but the sheriff’s department wanted to convict Avery.
Also, we know that the producers of Making a Murderer were accused of
leaving out key information, and only presenting evidence that accused the
sheriff’s department of framing Steven Avery in 2005. We do not know if
Avery is guilty or innocent in the case against Teresa Halbach, but we know
the jury found him guilty.
d. What are the legal implications?
iv. After 18 of the 32 years that he was convicted, Avery was released for his
innocence. Since DNA testing was not available in the 1980s, there was little
physical evidence to prove that it was Gregory Allen. Later, Allen confessed
and upon his release Avery filed a lawsuit against the county for 36 million
dollars (Shulz, 2016).
e. If relevant where does this fall on the Cultural Proficiency Continuum?
II.
III.
IV.
i. On the Cultural Proficiency Continuum, the case would fall under
blindness. The Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department knew about
the other suspect, Gregory Allen, but acted as if they didn’t in order to
convict Steven Avery.
f. Who are the Stakeholders?
1. Steven Avery
2. The Avery Family
3. Gregory Allen
4. Penny Beernsten
5. The Beernsten Family
6. Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department
7. Manitowoc County Police Department
8. The Wisconsin Judiciary System
9. The producers of Making a Murderer
Introduce Possible Solutions (Decisions)
a. Solution 1 – Sheriff Department admits that they made a mistake in 1985, and
compensate Steven Avery for the 18 years he spent behind bars with 36 million from
the lawsuit
b. Solution 2 – Release Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey on the Teresa Halbach
charges for cross contamination of evidence from the Beernsten investigation
c. Solution 3 – Keep Avery imprisoned for the murder of Halbach until proven innocent
d. Solution 4 – Producers of the Netflix documentary series release a statement saying
they suggested the sheriff’s department framed Avery, and release more seasons of
Making a Murderer with the whole story (including all the neglected evidence against
Avery and more on his violent/sexually abusive past)
Rejected Solution: Sheriff Department admits that they made a mistake in 1985,
compensate Steven Avery for the 18 years he spent behind bars with 36 million he was
suing for before he was convicted in 2005
a. Support #1 – Not supported by the Ethics of Justice
b. Support #2 – Even though he was robbed 18 years of his life for being wrongfully
convicted, Steven Avery is guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach. For legal reasons,
he should not receive any compensation. He still committed a crime and should not
be rewarded.
c. Limits – Although he was convicted of murder on another case, Avery was still
robbed of 18 years of his life that he will never get back. Murderer or not, the
Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department made a huge error and should be held
accountable for it. Therefore, they should give Avery 36 million dollars and admit
they were 100% wrong.
Rejected Solution: Release Steven Avery on the Teresa Halbach charges for cross
contamination of evidence from the Beernsten investigation
d. Support #1 – Not supported by the Ethics of Justice
e. Support #2 – Although the sheriff’s department had a history of making mistakes
concerning Steven Avery, these cases are completely separate. The case in 1985 had
no influence on the decision made on Avery’s guilt in 2005.
f. Limits – If there were no wrongful conviction in 1985, would Avery be innocent
today?
V.
VI.
Rejected Solution: Producers of the Netflix documentary release a statement saying they
suggested the sheriff’s department framed Avery and release more seasons of Making a
Murderer with the whole story (including all the neglected evidence against Avery and
more on his violent/sexually abusive past)
g. Support #1 – Not supported by the Ethics of Rights
h. Support #2 – The producers had the right of freedom of speech, and set out to follow
the controversial case. In the end, they are filmmakers highlighting where the
Manitowoc County departments failed to practice ethically. They included the most
important parts of the case, and claim they were not suggestive to one side of the case
or the other.
i. Limits – If the producers really presented all sides of the case fairly, why was there so
much controversy and backlash when the documentary was released? Why did they
not include any of the key DNA evidence or the negative sides to Avery’s past? So
many people believe that Avery is really innocent, which speaks to the bias presented
in the documentary
Best Solution: Keep Avery imprisoned for the murder of Halbach until proven innocent
a. Support #1 – Supporting the Ethics of Justice, the best solution is to keep Avery and
his nephew Brendan Dassey imprisoned until they are proven innocent.
b. Support #2 – They both must have had some kind of involvement because the
nephew, Brendan Dassey, also admitted to helping his uncle rape and murder
Halbach. There was too much detailed evidence for Dassey to fabricate the story.
Along with confessions, they were both found guilty and sentenced to life in prison
because of the physical evidence
c. Limits to the solution – On the other hand, he was wrongfully convicted in the past
and was begging for his innocence and still no one said anything. What if the sheriff’s
department made the same mistake again and they have the wrong guy? What makes
this time different and how are they so certain that it was Avery? Is he being framed
once again because he filed the lawsuit for 36 million?
.
Bibliography
Demo, M. & Ricciardi, L. (2015). Making a Murderer. Retrieved from http://www.netflix.com/
Gray, E. (2015, November 5). Netflix Announces New Original Documentary Series Making A
Murderer. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from https://media.netflix.com/en/pressreleases/netflix-announces-new-original-documentary-series-making-a-murderer
Lopez, G. (2016, January 21). Making a Murderer’s creators have finally responded to criticisms
of missing evidence. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/20/10802262/netflix-making-a-murderer-missing-evidence
Prudom, L. (2016, January 17). ‘Making A Murderer’ Creators Defend Steven Avery: ‘The
Media is Demonizing This Man’. Retrieved March 24, 2016, from
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/making-a-murderer-creators-steven-avery-mediacoverage-nancy-grace-demonizing-1201681855/
Schulz, K. (2016, January 25). Dead Wrong: How “Making a Murderer” Goes Wrong. Retrieved
March 24, 2016, from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/dead-certainty
Student Name:
Course: SCED 304
Date: 23/03/2019
Racism against refugee
This statement about teenage boy, named Jamal. He is from Syria. He and his family
fleeing homes in Syria and arriving in Britain in 2016 through United Nations refugee program.
Jamal and his family are hiving suffered since arriving in Britain. Jamal have been some bullied
outside a school in Northern England. One day after school when Jamal go back to home where
was a boy older Jamal, being attacked then throat and thrower to the ground then pouring
water in his face. The older boy told to Jamal ‘I wall drown you’ after that he walks away after
the attack. Where were some students watched and recorded what happed as the a group of
students laughs.
This is an ethical dilemma because this case will always be affected in Jamal and his
family life. Jamal and his family left them country because the war. The U.K government gives
to Jamal’s family a green light to living, gives them a big chanced to live and free Education.
Jamal get being choked and bullied outside a school then attacked from a citizen British, and
there were anther students were recording a British boy when he attacked Jamal.
Because Jamal is refugee, he gets attack. As we know the British boy did mistake but we
have to go back to the roots of the problem we will find too many ethical dilemmas, whether
inside the British house family or a way to teaching student in side schools.
We know how the attack started because we have the video. We know that it is not first
time Jamal and his family suffered abuse from citizens British. We know the police said Jamal
had suffered a wrist injury from other attack. We know Jamal lawyer said Jamal his younger
sister had been bullied so much at the same school, then she tried to kill herself. We do not know
what kind of relationship between Jamal and the British boy and does the boy attack Jamal
because he is refugee or there was another reason.
Jamal’s family is becoming under police protection. Authorities in Britain requested from
people, they do not share the videos or give a like. because the video for refugee led to
widespread there were people around the world contributed to an online outpouring of offers to
help the family, more than 5,600 contributed $143,000 for Jamal’s family.
What happened for Jamal was not acceptable in the British society. There was reaction
against the boy who attacked Jamal. Dr. Vaillancourt said ‘There’s the public humiliation of
someone different from the group, the flock of silent bystanders – some fearful perhaps, others
endorsing – and a high-status boy abusing his social power with impunity’. Dr. Vaillancourt said
the percentage of races in the school leigh against the minorities.
I do not think Jamal and the boy who attacked, had any benefited about what happed. The
case bothers the public opinion and made more attention.it made the Britain government more
alert. The video show there some people have unhealthy idea about refugee. Finally, the boy
went to court and Jamal get same money of the people they sympathize with Jamal.
Because the video led to widespread, my solution the boy force to portrays himself in
video apologizes to Britain government, citizens British, and apologizes to Jamal. If he does
video the government, no not have to punish him. The students who support attack part of
problem and the school have to punish them.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
