The difference between plants or animals and human being is the rational principle. The rational principle makes human being have ability to make decisions and act in a particular way. Through thoughts, human being can coordinate actions that determine ethics because actions underscore ethics.
For instance, the goodness or badness of ‘a good player’ or ‘a bad player’, are descriptions of the act of playing, and they portray virtues of players. Actions are imperative in achieving virtues since no one can have virtues by mere theoretical understanding of what ethics are. Due to diversity and degree of actions, it is very complicated to attribute certain actions to specific virtues, thus humans do not have stable character traits.
There are two types of virtues, moral and intellectual virtues; moral virtues emanate from habits, while intellectual virtue is an innate characteristic that undergoes transformation in the course of life due to learning and experience. Nature gives primary moral virtues and through perfection by habitual activities, one attains a set of given moral virtues.
Therefore, habituation is a process of achieving ethics because learning and continued exercising is fundamental in achieving excellence in a certain field. For example, one becomes a runner by running, likewise, people become ‘good’ when they do good or ‘bad’ by doing bad deeds. The emphasis here is that, actions have direct relation with virtues for virtues cannot occur without actions. Consequently, some actions underscore certain virtues. Interestingly, same action produces both a virtue and vice.
For instance, in the act of playing there are both good and bad players. This shows that, deficiency or excess of an action results into vices, while intermediate actions give virtues. Some actions such as killing have no virtues, and therefore, if actions only determine moral virtues, there could be indefinite virtues in society proving that humans do not have stable characters.
The assertion that human beings do not have stable characteristics poses a serious threat to ethical theories because it demands continued teaching of morality. If human moral values changes constantly due the influence of actions, then it is a daunting task to control moral virtues.
Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More The weakness of philosophical theories is that they are mere intellectual theories void actions or activities, which require habitual practice as a process of achieving moral virtues. Ethical theories need to incorporate flexible models that have actions to gather the unstable characters of humans.
Since humans do not have stable character traits, ethical theories provide basis of the understanding moral virtues, but achieving the virtues demands actions. Knowing what actions give certain moral virtues enables one to pursue morality by habitually exercising them.
However, one should also know that excesses or deficiencies of actions will result into vices and moderation of actions is vital in achieving desired virtues. Pleasures and pains accompany pursuit of actions because excessive pleasures results into overindulgence, which is a vice, while too much pain results into great fear, which is also a vice. Hence, moderation of actions enables one to achieve moral virtues, though it is hard to determine what are the actions, and the extent of exercising them.
Due Legal Process in the United States Essay (Critical Writing)
Nursing Assignment Help Table of Contents Introduction
Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause
Exceptions to Warrant Requirement
Right to Counsel
Introduction Due process is legal principle that ensures protection of civil rights against violation by the government in order to guarantee justice, fairness, and liberty in the application of the law. The due process of the law is fundamental in law application since at some instances, government can act in contravention to the law process thus violating an individual’s rights. The United States amendments provide for the basic rights of citizens and further protect them against unfair treatment by the government.
According to Fourteenth Amendment of United States, “no State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” (Garlinger, 2009, p. 32). This amendment gives United States citizens immunity against undue processes of the law by the government. This essay explores the due process of law regarding the Fourth and the Sixth Amendment of the United States.
Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause The fourth Amendment in the United States constitution provides rights to citizen not to have unreasonable searches of their premises and arrests without warrant. However, the police too have right to conduct warrantless searches under exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances are situations that require immediate and expedient action of law enforcement by the police, for example, in face of evidence destruction or planning of crime.
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are two approaches that the police use in determining exigent circumstances. Reasonable suspicion requires the police to use their judgment in deciding the exigent circumstances without any tangible evidence so that they can conduct warrantless searches. On the other hand, probable cause demands the police to have tangible evidence of exigent circumstances before conducting warrantless searches.
Sonntag argues that, ” reasonable suspicion as opposed to a probable cause requirement strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual privacy interests affected by no-knock entries” (2003, p. 635). Probable cause limits police investigation and gives a chance to the suspect to escape or destroy important evidence.
For example, an exigent circumstance where the police suspect destruction of criminal evidence demands the police to either use probable cause or reasonable suspicion approach. Exigent circumstances based on probable cause exist when “facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense” (Sonntag, 2003, p. 651).
The requirement of facts and concrete reasons when determining exigent circumstances are quite strict for the police to conduct warrantless searches and arrests. Reasonable suspicion approach gives the police leeway to conduct warrantless searches and arrests contrary to the United States Fourth Amendment because the police can determine exigent circumstances based on mere speculation.
Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Under circumstances where the police officers do not have enough evidence to determine exigent circumstances by probable cause approach, and the matter in question is of great public interest, then, reasonable suspicion can warrant searches or arrests. Davidson describes reasonable suspicion as “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, and probable cause to search as existing in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found (2006, p. 3).
The determination of reasonableness needs objective suspicion of suspects. If the police officer believes and suspects that there is an imminent criminal activity, destruction of evidence, and the criminals are aware of police tracking them, then reasonable suspicion can suffice warrantless searches or arrests. Therefore, factors surrounding exigent circumstances determine whether the police will employ probable cause or reasonable suspicion in their warrantless searches and arrests.
Exceptions to Warrant Requirement Although the Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution protects citizens against searches and arrests unless warranted, the Supreme Court has realized that this is not always applicable and has come up with exceptions to warrant requirement. These exceptions are exigent circumstances, searches with consent and automobile exception amongst others.
An exigent circumstance is a situation where it compels police officers to conduct warrantless searches or arrests due to danger the circumstances pose. Glenn argues that, “police officers who have established probable cause that evidence is likely to be at a certain place and do not have time to get a search warrant may conduct a warrantless search or seizure” (2007, p. 142). Due to danger an exigent circumstance poses to the police, public, or destruction of evidence, it qualifies warrantless searches or arrests of the suspects.
For instance, exigent circumstances occur when one is in great danger and needs rescue, when there is danger of evidence destruction, and when there is an impending criminal activity. Under such circumstances, there is no enough time for the police to acquire warrant and at the same time prevent the imminent danger.
Warrantless search can also occur when an individual consent to it. The condition of the consent demands that, the person giving out consent must be the owner or sharing the searched property or residence. For example, husband or wife can consent search of their bedroom but not a relative living in the same house. Automobile search is an exception of warrant requirement because automobile cannot wait for the police officer to obtain a warrant.
Warrantless searches and arrests are applicable “if a government agent has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime in the time it would take to get a warrant, the car, driver and contraband or evidence could be long gone” (Harr