No More Worries!

Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Paper Formatting

Double or single-spaced
1-inch margin
12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
300 words per page

No Lateness!

Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

AEW Guarantees

Free Unlimited revisions
Guaranteed Privacy
Money Return guarantee
Plagiarism Free Writing

Unjust punishment

Scenario: You were arrested and charged with a serious crime you did not commit. You did NOT commit this crime. After standing trial, however, a jury of your peers found you guilty and sentenced you to 15 years of incarceration in a federal penitentiary.

Let’s assume the following is true:

Your trial was fair since an attorney represented you, and the jury was not coerced in their decision.
The jury’s guilty verdict was unanimous.
Your representation was fair since you were represented by a competent attorney with adequate time and resources to develop your case.
You believe that your attorney truly had your best interests in mind.
You do not need to be concerned that you may appear guilty if you flee, since that is a psychological concern, not a moral one.
The prison you will be incarcerated in is a federal penitentiary and not a federal prison with “white-collar criminals.”
Respond to one of the following:

Would you be morally justified if you could escape and flee to another country? In your profession, would it be morally justifiable to avoid an unjust punishment your employer is issuing? Contrast what a virtue ethicist would say according to its core principles of telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom with what a utilitarian would say using its core principles of welfare, impartiality, sum-ranking, and consequences. Explain how one of these theories supports your answer. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4)
In your profession, would it be morally justifiable to help a colleague avoid an unjust punishment your employer is issuing? Which ethical system (virtue ethics, Kantian, utilitarian, etc.), based on its core principles, best supports your answers? What would the Code of EthicsOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReader say you should do? Explain how that theory supports your answer. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLOs 5.1, 5.3, 5.4)

Conclusion: A virtue ethicist would likely find the escape morally justified. Accepting 15 years of unjust imprisonment would be an act of resignation, potentially demonstrating a lack of courage or self-respect, and directly contradicting the pursuit of eudaimonia. The escape is seen as an act of self-preservation consistent with the virtue of justice.

📈 Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, championed by thinkers like Bentham and Mill, holds that the morally correct action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or welfare and minimizes suffering for the greatest number of affected individuals.

Core Principle	Application to Escape/Avoidance
Welfare	The central focus is maximizing net well-being. The unjust imprisonment causes immense suffering to the innocent person and their family.
Consequences	The moral calculus must weigh the consequences of A) Escaping versus B) Serving the Sentence.
Impartiality	The suffering of the wrongfully convicted person is counted equally with the suffering/utility of all others (e.g., the prison system, the public).
Sum-Ranking	The action that produces the highest total sum of happiness is chosen.

Analysis of Consequences:

Serving (B): Utility is negative. The innocent person suffers 15 years of misery; society experiences a slight loss of utility by imprisoning an innocent person and failing true justice.

Escaping (A): Utility is complex. The innocent person and their family experience a massive positive utility gain (freedom, happiness). The negative utility comes from the public's diminished confidence in the justice system, the cost of the manhunt, and the frustration of

Sample Answer

Moral Justification for Escape and Flight

Given the scenario—being convicted of a serious crime you did not commit, despite a fair trial process—I believe that escaping and fleeing to another country would be morally justified. The fundamental principle being violated is justice. An unjust sentence transforms the legal system from an instrument of public good into a source of personal oppression, making self-preservation a morally justifiable response.

In the professional scenario, it would be morally justifiable to avoid an unjust punishment issued by an employer. The primary moral defense here is the duty to protect one's livelihood, reputation, and eudaimonia (for the virtue ethicist) or overall welfare (for the utilitarian) from a fundamentally baseless harm.