What are morals and ethics and how do they apply to the case?

-

 What are morals compared to Ethics? 

"Morals are the prevailing standards of behaviour that enable people to live co-operatively in groups" is the definition according to ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/morals (published 17/2/2017; viewed 2/9/2021). Morals are what society believes is right and acceptable, and to be living within these morals enables people to live as part of a large group. However, the website goes onto say that "morality is not fixed", so it can adapt and change over time as society does with it. Morals and society are intertwined more than ethics and society, as ethics will only affect decisions whereas morality allows people to feel a sense of belonging.  According to britanica.com/topics/ethics-philosophy (reviewed 22/8/2021; viewed 2/9/2021) ethics are what society considers "morally good and bad", note the morally part. For decisions to be ethical, they first need to be morally acceptable by society, so a decision that is considered ethical in 1900 for example would not be in 2021, as society's morals change so the ethics attached to those morals changes with it. The source then goes on to say that ethics "consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision making". A good example of this is modern day, when many people won't shop from a certain brand if the way it carries out business is not considered ethical; i.e Sports Direct and the treatment of its staff. The thing about ethics more than morals is it is dependant on personal experience and beliefs, as some change from generations, whereas some change from socio-economic positions.

The Table below shows the argument for both ethics and morals relating to the case:

Yes means morally/ ethically correct, no means morally/ ethically incorrect





What is my overall judgement?

My personal belief is that I do not think the sentence was morally and ethically right; I believe they should have served much longer in prison for the sheer nature and complexity of the lengths they went to in order to kill James Bulger, including an attempt to make it seem as though he was killed by a train. Furthermore their behaviour in the interviews denotes a few things; most notably the blame they were trying to pass onto each other as they knew the severity of the crime, but furthermore the length of time they refused to speak. Venables was how you would expect a child to act in a police interview, whereas Thompson was calm and collected, hinting that he knew what he had been doing and the seriousness of it. However, in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 1933, Section 53 (2)(b) a child offender's sentence must not exceed that of an adult and must take place in "such place and under such conditions as the secretary of state may direct". Furthermore, the trial judge stated that the offenders should be sentenced for "very many years", and in explaining that decision (see Judicial Report of Venables and Thompson for more), his ratio decidendi (reason for deciding) was that 8 years would appear to be a long time for the boys. However under section 52 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 the secretary of state can alter that, which he did to 15 years minimal, however after 8 they were released as a 6 month parole hearing was brought to a close. 

Although the law is very black and white in that aspect, I personally believe that they should have received somewhere in the region of 20 years for their crime, minimum, as although they have to receive a lesser sentence, murder comes with mandatory life so 20 years appears to be life to a 10 year old boy. 

What sources have I used?

Both https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/morals and https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy are extremely reliable sources as they give a lot of information and knowledge of subjects. The University of Texas one is reliable as it is a university, so research will be up to date and accurate. The Britannica Source is reliable as it was reviewed in August 2021, showing that if there was new information/ arguments added they are up to date and adding them to the site. 

Where next?

From this, I will look at public opinion of the crime and then look at what I have learnt. I will also decide how I would like my research to be published, and will look into how I can do that effectively. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

End of project reflection and method of findings selection

-
Image
What style of source did I use and why? I used completely secondary sources as the nature of my source meant that I had little option but to look at prior studies and publications about the two offenders and facts. This massively meant that I was looking at others work, asking what it taught me and how reliable it is. As the case is such high profile, it means that many people know about it already so would have a pre-cognitive bias against the two offenders, believing they should have a higher sentence.  Why did I feel as though this topic was right for me? I felt as though this topic was perfect for me, as I ambition to study law later on in life, so thought this would be the best avenue to start that pathway. Everyone has heard about the case of James Bulger, and most people believe that they should have received a higher sentence than they should. My question throughout all of this is "why should they have gotten a higher sentence?"; and "should they really have gott...
Read more

What was the Trial of Venables and Thompson like in November 1993?

-
  What sources have I used?  For this, I have once again used the source  https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/james-bulger#The%20Trial , dated from 2018. This source is extremely reliable because it is updated when new material comes to light, meaning that the details  used are up to date and reliable. What have I learnt from the source? on 22nd February 1993, both boys appeared at South Sefton Magistrates Court in Bottle to face the charges. Both enter a not guilty  there is a crowd of 300 outside and they riot when the boys arrive and when they leave. There is a decoy van sent out, which begs the question of what the crowd would have done if they got hold of the defendants. As a safety measure, the trial is relocated to Preston, and on the 1st November 1993 the trial begins at Preston Crown Court.  Denise Bulger refuses to come to court, as she is adamant that she won't sit in the same vicinity as James' killer.  The boys ha...
Read more

What are outlying factors and how do they apply to the case; along with what occurred post sentence?

-
 What do I mean by an outlying factor? An outlying factor is something that is not directly related to the points and facts of the case. This can take the form of politics, public opinion and the role of the media. As these are not legal factors, they shouldn't have made a large difference in the way the sentence was given. I am aiming to decide if they did make a difference in the overall sentence and why.  Media: "UK media coverage of the trial deeply affected public opinion not just about the perpetrators of the crime but also about juvenile criminals and in fact all children." "On the 25 November 1993, the day after the judgement, the Daily Star...ran the photos of the boys with the headline "How do you feel now you little bastards?" ".  The media launched a campaign to allow the anonymity of the 2 offenders to be released on conviction.  "The press were further outraged by the conditions in which the boys would live while at the Secure Traini...
Read more