Death is a serious part of the living of human beings, thus being placed in a position to decide who lives and who dies, not only requires a lot of wisdom. However, it also calls for clear-cut ethical indications, as is the case for judges in a court of law. The United States society has been faced with several state, Federal government, and community challenges, one of which includes racial segregation. Over the years, racial-related police violence has been a problem which has led to the death of hundreds of Americans of black origin. The police are an important force in society, mandated by the laws of the government to keep and restore order. They do so by ensuring the security of everyone in the community, regardless of the color of their skin. However, a lot of structural inequalities have been fueled by actions of the police force, an example being the recently recorded and widely televised death of an American black man, George Floyd, in Minneapolis. Following a wide public outcry over the killing of George Floyd, the police officers involved in the murder were arrested, chief of them being Derek Chauvin (The Killing of George Floyd and trial of Derek Chauvin).
In the Derek Chauvin case, the presiding judge over the case, Judge Peter Cahill from Hennepin County is faced with an ethical dilemma, one based on two options. The judge is faced with the option of whether to administer full justice by critically analyzing all the details of the case or to offer half justice by bowing to political influencers in the case, seeking to save the face of the killer police system in the United States. In his ruling, the judge is faced with decisions indicative of whether the rogue police officer ends up behind bars for life as sentenced by three counts of murder, second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter respectively. The challenge the judge has in determining the case is highlighted by the fact that the government has offered a civil settlement package of USD 27 million (Edwards et al. 16793). However, the city officials have kept talking about the settlement in a way to magnify it over the court proceedings.
Judge Peter Cahill is concerned as to whether this settlement is meant to wade off the publics’ deep interest in the case and subvert justice, or is well-meant as a way of seeking reconciliation. On the other hand, the settlement seems as a good thing to the family of Floyd, whereas on the other hand, the settlement could be a clear indication that Chauvin is guilty and is buying his way out of justice. It is up to the judge to establish the case proceedings, and determine the next course of action in the case.
The situation is a dire one, as it seeks to address a single case out of the many cases that have previously been up for discussion, over the black American lives in the American society. The judge is faced with many considerations prior to a final ruling. First, the public uprising that followed George Floyds killing as championed by the Black Lives Matter, and the All Lives Matter campaigns seek the justice of the matter. Further, the incriminated police system in Minneapolis is seeking to redeem its confidence with the public, following the bid by presenting the expensive settlement.
On the part of justice, the judge is furious over the ongoing negotiation talks as the talks hold the powers to influence the jurists’ decisions over the case, in what could hinder partiality and justice for either party (Henschen 34-46). These choices are consequential in that any bad move would elicit more harm than good in this and future cases of a similar manner. It is therefore in the judge’s power to wield the justice stick by prompt analysis of the details provided without showing favoritism to either side. The judge executed this mandate by showing partiality, honesty and professionalism in the case, for a fair trial by directing the jurists to stop talking about the settlement.
If it were in my powers to be the judge, I would hold on to, and maintain my professional and experiential expertise by informing the decisions over the case, based on the evidence provided As to the settlement process with the victim’s family, I would consider it as part of the evidence in the case, as it had come at a point when the case is not fully determined. I would be informed about any news of interest over the case and analyze all findings promptly, so as to maintain sanity and order over the case proceedings in every court session.
Like in many other societies, the American society is bedeviled with numerous challenges, some of which take life away from minorities in a cruel way. It is estimated that one in every a thousand Americans of color will be killed, especially men, with the ages of men and women in this category ranging between the ages of twenty to thirty (Edwards et al. 16793). The ethical requirements of a judge beckon him to be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, fear, or public pressure (Henschen 34-46). In this regard, a judge stands at a higher pedestal, a vantage point for justice delivery for all at all times. This aspect of judges’ ethical duties should be envisioned over the Chauvin and Floyd case.
The laws and bylaws in a society exist for the sole purpose of restoring order and providing unmerited justice to all persons in a population. This is supposed to be achieved regardless of the society members’ status, political influence, and influence of any kind in the society. The judge is mandated to correct a wrongdoing by invoking punitive measures, which are counted in terms of jail terms and other related measures. This punitive measures work to avoid the same mistake happening again.
Works Cited
Edwards, Frank, et al. “Risk of Being Killed by Police Use of Force in the United States by Age, Race–Ethnicity, and Sex.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 34, 2019, pp. 16793-16798.
Henschen, Beth. “Judging in a Mismatch: The Ethical Challenges of Pro Se Litigation.”Public Integrity, vol. 20, no. 1, 2018, pp. 34-46.