Ethical Dilemmas in Law Enforcement- Navigating Competing Rights in Critical Situations

Ethical Dilemmas in Law Enforcement- Navigating Competing Rights in Critical Situations

The Competing Rights in this Scenario

The main competing rights in this scenario are the child’s right to life and the car’s occupants’ right to life. If the driver decides to stay on the road and strike and kill the six-year-old, the child’s right to life would be violated because they would die. Alternatively, if the driver decided to veer left, their right to life would be violated because they would die. Therefore, the only viable option would be to think of a solution that would not harm the people inside the car and those around the car.

Three Ways to Cope with Competing Rights, and Which One Must be Used in this Circumstance

Competing rights impact decision-making due to the controversies that arise about what is right and wrong. According to Foster (2020), competing human rights pose a challenge, such as the dilemma of whether human rights are equal and whether state institutions can facilitate processes and offer remedies when there is a conflict in human rights. One of the ways to cope with competing rights is to consider the damage caused by the decision made by each party in the situation. The individuals involved in the situation can focus on ensuring that the damage to each party is minimal. For example, I can ensure that my partner and I are not harmed as we proceed to rescue that officer who needs our help. The second way is to give up the rights of the six-year-old, hit her, and later explain why the situation was unavoidable. The third option is to veer left and try controlling the vehicle to avoid causing a fatal accident. The most appropriate option in the current situation would have been to stay on the road and strike the six-year-old because the child was on the wrong, and there was limited time to determine how to veer off the road and avoid hitting the child.

What I Will Do and Why

According to An‐Na’im (2013), decisions are influenced by self-determination, which is the right to determine the foundation of human rights. Based on this argument, the most appropriate decision would be to stay on the road and strike the six-year-old because I would be saving two lives at the expense of one.

References

An‐Na’im, A. A. (2013). An inclusive approach to the mediation of competing human rights claims. Constellations, 20(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/cons.12016

Foster, L. (2020). Balancing competing human rights. Researchgate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344906765_Balancing_Competing_Human_Rights

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

You and your patrol car partner receive a Code‐3 dispatch “Officer down and needs help.” You’re driving and decide on a hairpin route, but much shorter in time. It is a narrow, one‐lane road with a rock wall on your right and a 100‐yard sheer drop on the left side. At your best speed practical and with all due regard to the environment, you round a curve with a little child playing in the road. There isn’t time to brake!

Ethical Dilemmas in Law Enforcement- Navigating Competing Rights in Critical Situations

Your options are:

to stay on the road, strike and kill the six‐year‐old, or
veer left, lose your life, and kill your partner.
Questions to address in your post:

What are the competing rights in this scenario?
What are the three ways to cope with competing rights and which one must be used in this circumstance?
What will you do and why?
Please review the Discussion Assignment Instructions prior to posting. You may also click the three dots in the upper corner to Show Rubric.

Post-First: This course utilizes the Post-First feature in all Discussions. This means you will only be able to read and interact with your classmates’ threads after you have submitted your thread in response to the provided prompt.