Introduction
Some of the facts of Robbie’s case must be listed before analyzing the moral dilemma he created for his lawyer. He is a repeat offender who recently committed an armed robbery of a store and is now facing trial. According to the defendant, his motivation was not greed but a desperate need to raise money for his sick mother. Regarding ethical philosophy, it is clear that an ethic of care consciously or subconsciously drove him according to which “what is good is that which meets the needs of those concerned” (Pollock, 2018, p. 47). When the time to testify came, Robbie took an unexpected line of defense and claimed that he had an alibi; he was in another state at the time of the crime.
Ethical Dilemma Identified
Now the attorney faces a dilemma he needs to solve quickly because two fates depend on it. Unfortunately, situations without positive outcomes or where all ends are bittersweet are common in jurisprudence (Pollock, 2018). The ethical conflict that resulted from the recidivist’s lies involves ethics of care and deontological ethics. The question is whether the lawyer should continue defending Robbie because of his mother or withdraw from representing the client because it will violate professional ethics and be a criminal offense.
Possible Decisions
As noted above, the ethical actor, the lawyer, has two options. The first one, which can be called following the heart, is the decision to ignore the fact that the defendant lied to the judge. The lawyer continues to protect Robbie so that he has a chance to come out innocent in this case and proceed to seek money for his mother’s surgery. However, not only are the chances of a successful defense low given Robbie’s previous crimes and weak alibi but there is a high risk of incurring disciplinary and even criminal penalties for dishonesty for the attorney. According to layers’ professional and ethical standards, “it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to… engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” (Rendleman, 2019, paras. 8-10).
The second option is to stop further representation of Robbie because he is committing perjury. It is a more rational alternative but less kindhearted because it will more likely lead to the client’s imprisonment and difficulties paying for surgery for his sick mother.
Values Involved
Several personal and professional values closely related to the application of the law may influence the final decision of the attorney. One is justice, which is “the quality of being impartial, fair, and just” (Pollock, 2018, p. 54). While it is the duty and obligation of the attorney to protect their client, they must not involve themselves in potentially criminal activities to save their defendant from imprisonment or any other punishment. Compassion can also affect how the ethical actor resolves the dilemma under discussion. The lawyer may begin to feel guilty about being impartial to the defendant’s family problems and decide to get involved in his perjury to help him and his mother.
On Ethical Systems Involved
From the discipline of ethics perspective, the dilemma is that the attorney has to choose either deontological ethics or moral theory. According to philosophy experts, “In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2022, para). An inner sense of duty and ethicality should drive the individual’s actions. There lies the main difference between deontology and other paradigms, including the ethics of care, namely non-contextuality. This branch of ethics also differs from moral theory in that it considers the reason, rather than the nature and perception of human relationships, as a sufficient source for understanding what is ethical and what is not.
Unlike deontology, the ethics of care see supportive actions and empathic relationships as proper ethical behavior rather than following a moral law based on the inferences of one’s mind. Sander-Staudt (n.d.) states that it “implies that there is moral significance in the fundamental elements of relationships and dependencies in human life” (para. 1). The two ethical perspectives analyzed also conflict in terms of the value of context of human interactions, as it is crucial in moral theory. The historical origins of deontology and ethical concerns vary; the former is deeply rooted in pre-Christian European philosophy, while the latter comes from Chinese and African philosophical disciplines and Western feminism.
Conclusion
Just like any other dilemma, the one discussed in this paper offers two morally uncomfortable outcomes. Whereas the first one leads the lawyer to be a liar, committing a crime and trampling on their professional ethics, the other involves leaving a sick person alone and with no money for treatment. It will be the best choice for the lawyer if they prefer to follow deontological ethics and refuse to represent Robbie further. By doing so, they will avoid greater internal moral conflict and involvement in a crime. The lawyer can help Robbie’s mother with their own money or through social media crowdfunding. Moreover, Robbie should be punished for endangering people’s lives in an armed robbery.
References
Pollock, J. M. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Rendleman, D. A. (2019). What to do when your client lies. American Bar Association. Web.
Sander-Staudt, M. (n.d.). Care ethics. In J. F. B. Dowden (Ed.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2022). Deontological ethics. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web.