Reference no: EM133494060
Case Study: In Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson, a recent Harvard Law School graduate undertakes to represent individuals on death row in Alabama. After investigating the circumstances surrounding his client Walter McMillan, known as Johnny D, he comes to believe that Johnny D was wrongfully convicted of murdering an young woman and was sentenced to death. After a great deal of work, Stevenson succeeds in getting Johnny D's conviction overturned and wins his freedom. As a first set, he decides to set up a meeting to discuss reopening the case with the new prosecutor.
Question: Write an essay in which you answer the following questions about the dilemma facing the prosecutor:
1. What make an action right according to the version of moral objectivism known as Utilitarianism/Consequentialism?
2. What make an action right according to the version of moral objectivism that is Kant's Deontology (Duty/Rule Based Moral Theory)?
3. What alternatives did Stevenson have in seeking to reopenthe case, what did he choose to do, and was it the right thing to do?
a. How would a defender of Utilitarianism/Consequentialism answer this question?
b. How would a defender of Kant's Deontology (Duty/Rule based Moral Theory) answer this question?
c. What do you think the right answer was in this case and why?
4. What alternatives did the new prosecutor have with respect to granting Stevenson's request, which alternative did he choose and was it the right thing to do?
a. How would a defender of Utilitarian/Consequentialist answer this question?
b. How would a defender of Kant's Deontology (Duty/Rule Based moral theory) answer this question?
c. What do you think is the right answer and why?
5. What were the good and bad consequences that could have followed from Stevenson's actions and why should these or should these not have determined how Stevenson approach?