Comment, agree, disagree

If I were on a jury in a first-degree murder case, I would make my decision wisely by listening thoroughly to the case and think about goals and what I believe morally. Some virtues/principles that I would take into consideration for the goals that I would be trying to achieve would be taking the life of another, deterrence of future crime, prevention of reoffending, and giving closure. All of these are important when it comes to any murder case. Morally, I believe with any first-degree murder cases should be straight into life in prison without parole. The main thing that I would be focused on is the prevention of reoffending. Depending on the special circumstances and if the case falls in that category, I would believe the death penalty is acceptable. I d o think that the death penalty is harsh but depending on the crime and the details of the crime will determine the severity.

Comment, agree, disagree

You are on the jury in a first-degree murder case. You and your peers have already unanimously convicted the defendant. The task before you is to decide the penalty, either life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. The special circumstances allow for the death penalty under the law.

In this particular circumstance, I would vote against the death penalty and side with life in prison. To me, if someone has committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, life in prison or solitary confinement is just as bad. I am not saying that I am against the death penalty, I feel that someone needs to serve their time for a crime worthy of such a penalty.

Also, I feel that my Christian values and principles would play a part in such a decision. I believe that anyone can be saved, maybe serving time in prison leads one to Christ. This would be an extremely tough situation to be in as a juror.

Comment, agree, disagree

As I consider the scenario as a juror in a first-degree murder case, I am drawn to the virtues and principles that guide my decision-making process. The principles of justice, compassion, and respect for human life come to the forefront. According to Rae (2018), justice demands that the guilty party be held accountable for their actions, while compassion urges me to consider the inherent value of human life, even that of the defendant. The principle of respect for human life also weighs heavily, as I consider the morality of taking a life, even in the name of justice. Ultimately, I must balance these competing virtues and principles to make a decision that aligns with my Christian values.

Comment, agree, disagree

"Whoever shes human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed" (Rae 269). There are only a few instances where I believe that if you shed blood that the death penalty would not be warranted. One would be if the blood shed was out of self defense or the defense of a loved one. I believe that every means necessary should be taken not to take another person's life though. In the case of first degree murder, the act was malicious and or premeditated. I believe it takes a very evil and vile person to commit a murder in cold blood and it is for that reason that I believe that they deserve the death penalty. If the murder had been committed by accident, someone shoved another person and they fell and hit their head, I believe that a long term prison sentence would be enough. I would also want to know was remorse of any kind shown for their actions or did they seemed pleased with what they had done. In some cases you hear about family members killing others for harming their family members, such as sexual assault of a child. While I can understand the anger they would be feeling, I don't think it makes it right for them to take the law into their own hands and not expect consequences. If we truly trust God, then we have to trust Him in all areas of our life and let Him control the outcomes.

Comment, agree, disagree

In my opinion, when a defendant is found guilty, they need to be executed. I believe that when it comes to murder in particular, there should be an eye for an eye. When that time comes, some families might not want to hear about suspects dealing with death threats.The primary justifications for the death penalty are commonly invoked, along with the victims' rights to closure and appropriate recompense. However, a lot of people in this case believe that another murder would not provide closure and that the death penalty is unjust to the victims.

debate this issue respectfully agree or disagree

Self-determination and nonmaleficence are both crucial in social work. Social work strives for people to be self-determined if they are not causing any harm to themselves or others. In end-of-life situations, self-determination can lead a person to want help ending their life. According to whom you ask, euthanasia can be considered harmful and nonharmful. There is no definite answer as to whether euthanasia is right or wrong.

Due to my beliefs, I d o not agree with physician-induced euthanasia. I believe that all induced death is considered murder or suicide. Although I d o not believe in it, I understand I cannot allow my beliefs to interfere with my professionalism in social work.

The concern I have with euthanasia becoming more common is using euthanasia for convenience. I am concerned with people using it to cause death to people that burden them. This concern could be mitigated by making a law that euthanasia must be administered under a physician's care.

A social worker's role in situations like this is to counsel the patient to make sure euthanasia is what they want. I would find it appropriate to use physician-induced euthanasia if the person is nearing death in a few days to weeks. Euthanasia would ease the pain of a person who is already terminal and severely suffering.

debate this issue respectfully agree or disagree

• Consider the ethical dilemma often presented in these situations between the social work values of self-determination and nonmaleficence (i.e., d o not harm). Share your personal feelings about euthanasia.

The fact of one taking their life is bad enough being by suicide or even attempting it. But for one person to issue meds to help them to end their life is wrong and immoral. You don't know how one person feels or needs something unless they express it to them. But then, when they d o, is it real, or is it just for show and attention? Social workers can not decide to help or assist one in deciding to end their life. They should encourage them to seek help. They should offer them other options.

• What concerns d o you have about such a practice becoming more commonplace? How could these concerns be mitigated on a policy level? What role d o social workers play in these kinds of situations?

My concern is that some people use this for the wrong reasons. They would use it to get away from their cares and heartaches. If this becomes a policy, yes, it should be on levels to determine the necessities of this practice. A social worker and a team of doctors would be needed for this determination. A social worker would be required in this situation to be able to ask the right questions and see the right signs available and active.

• In what kind of situation would you determine euthanasia to be an appropriate option? In other words, where should the line be drawn?

There isn't a time when this would be okay. I believe a person dies when God calls their number and not before. Nor d o I think that suicide is an option as well, but you can't convince one not to take one's life. Once they decide what to d o, they will d o one way or another. You can't talk one down from it unless you are qualified to d o it and know the proper words. I don't think it is appropriate or humane to d o this.

Thank you.