Propriet Proportionality Case Study

1323 Words 6 Pages
In this scenario I have found that the partner was very wrong for attacking the prisoner. Furthermore, he should have never been in the back sit with the prison because he did not give him any reason to be there. Although, the guy is a criminal who was molesting children it is not his job to be the judge and jury. He was risking the chance of this known molester getting off with his crimes because he decided to take the law into his own hands without follow procedures. Therefore, he was wrong and the partner was wrong because he should have stopped the car when he hit the guy the first time and made him get in the front with him.
The word intention means something intended: an aim or plan (dictionary. reference n.d.). I feel that the partner knew what his intentions were when he got in the back seat with the suspect. Although, the officer that was driving did not know what his intention were at first because he never told him. Once he saw that his intention was to beat the suspect and then falsify the report he should have let it be known that he would not be a part of it and make his own report. Therefore, when an investigation began it would not look as if he intestinally withheld evidence.
Now seemliness means fitting or becoming with respect to
…show more content…
In this scenario it would apply to the suspect as well as the officer who beat the suspect. Although, the suspect was wrong for the crime he committed the officer had no right to put his hands on him and the court did determine he was guilty and sentence him to three years in prison. Now as for the officer his punishment once found guilty of beating the suspect and falsifying a police report will fit his crimes of beating the suspect as well as having pay him the money from the civil suit for the damages he caused to him. Therefore, I feel that all punishments in this scenario do fit each crime

Related Documents