Warden Norton is the warden at a prison in Colorado. Several inmates go on a hunger strike to protest the poor living conditions. If they don't eat soon, they'll die. The prison physician says she can sedate them and feed them through a nasogastric tube. She just needs the go-ahead. The inmates have already said, "I'd rather die than abandon my hunger strike!" Because Warden Norton's go-to normative ethical approach is natural law, he doesn't even hesitate. He orders the guards to immobilize the inmates, and he orders the prison physician to administer a sedative, followed by administering artificial nutrition. Lives are saved. However, when Pat wakes up, Pat is irate and says, "This is a battery. I'm pressing charges. Prison officials touched me, sedated me, and fed me without my consent--all as ordered by Warden Norton!" You're the prosecutor. You receive the file, which includes Pat's satement. You also see an article in the paper in which several family members praised the warden for stepping in. One family member said, "My child, Andy, was about to die, when the warden bravely stepped in--at great risk of lawsuit or prosecution--to save him. Thank you, Warden Norton, from my whole family!" You're trying to decide whether to charge Warden Norton with battery. On one hand, the case is strong; you can prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The thing is, you sort of think the warden did the right thing by saving lives. Yet, it does seem that a crime