St. Petersburg College Applied Ethics Program
Critical Thinking & Application Paper
Fall Session 2010
Instructions: Read the case, and answer the questions that follow. Instead of writing one, long traditional
essay based on the questions, reflect on each question and then answer each question individually,
giving a detailed and thorough answer for reach question.
Case study: Pedophile Housing
Before 1994, few states had laws that even defined „sex-offender‟, much less laws that regulated
convicted sex offenders' movements and required their registration with local law enforcement.
This state of affairs changed with passage of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, which required each state to implement a sex-offender registration
program or risk forfeiture of federal grants for law enforcement. The 1994 Act was amended in
1996 to oblige states to establish community notification programs to make sex-offender registry
information readily available to those who seek it. The Act was subsequently amended in 1998
and 2000 to broaden its scope and heighten some of its registration requirements.
More recently, over one-half of the U.S. states proactively passed legislation to restrict the
locations where sex-offenders may reside. These laws commonly restrict sex-offenders from
living, and sometimes from working, within a given distance (ranging from 500 to 2,000 feet) of
places where children gather: parks, schools, school bus stops, day care facilities, community
centers, and churches.
Sex-offender laws enjoy widespread support in many quarters. From the beginning, only civil
libertarians seem to have challenged some of these laws, usually on constitutional grounds. For
example, laws that require some sex-offenders to remain in prison after their sentences have been
completed have been challenged on due process grounds. Also, from a constitutional perspective,
draconian public notification requirements seem to place convicted sex-offenders who have paid
their debt to society in double jeopardy.
On the other hand, sex-offender residency restrictions have lost support in recent years from
constituencies that traditionally endorsed them. The most notable, perhaps, is the Iowa County
Attorneys Association (ICAA), an organization of county prosecutors, which issued its
Statement on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Iowa explaining that sex-offender
residency restrictions do “not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost
of [enforcement]…and the unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the
restriction[s] with more effective protective measure[s].” Among other things, the document
contends that residency restrictions force offenders into homelessness and otherwise cause them
to provide false or no information to state sex-offender registries. According to the Statement,
the negative consequences of the lifetime residency restrictions also have caused a reduction in
the number of confessions made by offenders in cases where defendants usually confess…."
State Attorney General Harriet Abca is currently running for Governor. As the Attorney General
her role is to function as the “top cop” for the state. Currently the state laws are all in-line with
the federal requirements. However, in her heart and mind she agrees that many of the postrelease requirements placed on sex offenders are unfair to the offenders and hurt law
C:\Users\grano.barbara\Documents\CTAP\2010-11 Fall 0430\CTAP_Fall430Draft_jet[2].doc
1
enforcement‟s ability to obtain confessions. Attorney General Abca would like to challenge the
federal requirements by filing a lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of the state.
The Attorney General‟s office staff agrees with her and has advised her to proceed. However, the
Attorney General‟s campaign staff has advised her to wait until she is elected (hopefully) and to
force the next Attorney General to file the lawsuit, so Mrs. Abca can avoid any negative political
ramifications for being seen as weak on crime.
The Central Ethical Issue to Resolve: What should Attorney General Abca do about the
federal requirements placed on sex offenders?
This case was based on and adapted from a case published by the Association of Practical and Professional Ethics
for use in the national intercollegiate Ethics Bowl competition, and is being used with their permission.
APPLYING THE CRITICAL THINKING MODEL
Chapter 4 “Critical Thinking” in your textbook has a detailed explanation of the critical thinking
model and how to apply it.
1.
Identification (10 points possible)
You have been given a central ethical issue to use throughout the paper – “What should Attorney
General Abca do about the federal requirements placed on sex offenders?”
In this section you must identify as many OTHER ethical issues, questions, or problems as you
can find in the scenario. Distinguish the central issue from the others you identified. Use details
and examples to explain your response. Be sure to use the central issue - “What should Attorney
General Abca do about the federal requirements placed on sex offenders?”as the central issuethroughout the rest of this paper.
10-8 points
Identifies the ethical
ideas or issues with
numerous supporting
details and examples
which are organized
logically and coherently
2.
7-5 points
Identifies the ethical ideas or
issues with some supporting
details and examples in an
organized manner
4-3 points
Identifies the ethical ideas
or issues with few details
or examples in a somewhat
organized manner
2-1 point(s)
Identifies the ethical
ideas or issues poorly
with few or no details
with little organization
0 points
Does not identify
the main idea or
issue and/or
includes no other
ethical issues.
Research (10 points possible)
Gather information relevant to the central ethical issue. Use a minimum of three outside sources
to gain a better understanding of the issue and potential solutions/options. Explain relevance of
information found. (Your instructor will provide specific details regarding appropriate sources
and citation format).
10-8 points
Insightfully relates
concepts and ideas from
multiple sources; uses new
information to better define
issue and identify options;
recognizes missing
7-5 points
Accurately relates
concepts and ideas from
multiple sources; uses
new information to better
define issue and identify
options; correctly
4-3 points
Inaccurately or
incompletely relates
concepts and ideas from
multiple sources; shallow
determination of effect of
new information; or
C:\Users\grano.barbara\Documents\CTAP\2010-11 Fall 0430\CTAP_Fall430Draft_jet[2].doc
2-1 point(s)
Poorly integrates
information from
more than one source
to support final
solution; Incorrectly
predicts the effect of
0 points
Does not identify
new information
2
information; correctly
identifies potential effects
of new information
3.
identifies potential effects
of new information
11-8 points
Uses logical reasoning to
make inferences
regarding options;
addresses implications
and consequences for the
stakeholders; Identifies
facts and morally
relevant information
correctly
7-4 points
Uses superficial
reasoning to make
inferences regarding
options; major
stakeholder (s)
missing; Shows some
confusion regarding
facts, opinions, and
morally relevant,
evidence, data, or
information
3-1 point(s)
Makes unexplained,
unsupported, or
unreasonable inferences
regarding options;
irrelevant stakeholders
identified; makes
multiple errors in
distinguishing fact from
fiction or in selecting
morally relevant
evidence.
0 points
Does not analyze
multiple
solutions/options.
Major stakeholders
not identified.
Application (30 points)
Apply two ethical theories to reach a resolution of the central ethical issue. What would the
central principles of each theory imply is the morally right or best course of action or option?
A. Apply one (1) consequential theory (Act or Rule Utilitarianism) 15pts.
B. Apply one (1) non-consequential theory (Deontology (KANT), Contractarianism,
Natural Rights, Natural Law or Virtue Ethics) 15 pts.
For each (A and B) you are to resolve the central ethical issue using the central principles of
the theory. A brief summary of the theory should be included and you are encouraged to use the
“Steps in Applying” the theories presented in Chapters 5 and 6.
15-12 points
Central principles of the
theories are logically and
systematically explained
and applied to the central
ethical issue to reach a
resolution of the main
problem.
5.
new information
Analysis (15 points)
Compare and contrast available solution/ options relevant to the central ethical issue. Using
logical (inductive or deductive) moral reasoning, clearly explain the ethical implications the
potential solutions/options may have on the stakeholders.
15-12 points
Uses specific inductive or
deductive moral reasoning
to make inferences
regarding premises;
addresses implications and
consequences for the
stakeholders; identifies
facts and morally relevant
information correctly
4.
limited sources
11-8 points
Central principles of
the theories are
explained and applied,
but may not be
logically consistent or
applied to specifics of
case.
7-4 points
Applications of the
central principles of
the theories and the
summary may be
shallow, cursory, or
too general.
3-1 point(s)
Applications of the central
principles of the theories and
the theory summaries are
either missing or are not
connected to the central issue
and options in the case.
0 points
Does not apply
central principles to
reach a resolution of
main issue. Summary
of theory missing.
Decision-Making (10 points)
Choose the wisest, most ethical option and justify your decision. This is NOT an opinion. Using
your research and analysis of the options and stakeholders and your applications of the ethical
theories, laws, and rules, select and defend the morally right (or most ethical) resolution to the
central ethical issue. Using facts and relevant evidence from your research and analysis,
thoroughly explain why this is the best solution.
10-8 points
Thoroughly identifies
and addresses key
aspects of the issue
and insightfully uses
facts and relevant
7-5 points
Identifies and addresses
key aspects of the issue
and uses facts and
relevant evidence from
analysis to develop
4-3 points
Identifies and addresses
some aspects of the
issue; develops possible
conclusion or solution
using some inappropriate
2-1 point(s)
Identifies and addresses only
one aspect of the issue but
develops untestable
hypothesis; or develops
invalid conclusions or
C:\Users\grano.barbara\Documents\CTAP\2010-11 Fall 0430\CTAP_Fall430Draft_jet[2].doc
0 points
Does not select and
defend a solution
3
evidence from analysis
to support and defend
potentially valid
solution
6.
opinions and irrelevant
information from
analysis
solutions based on opinion or
irrelevant information.
Evaluation (10 points)
Identify and provide a minimum of three counter arguments against the option that you selected
as being morally right (or ethically best). What are the possible arguments against the
resolution/option you chose? How would you defend against those arguments?
10-8 points
Insightfully interprets data
or information;
identifies obvious as well
as hidden assumptions,
establishes credibility of
sources on points other
than authority alone,
avoids fallacies in
reasoning; distinguishes
appropriate arguments
from extraneous elements;
provides sufficient logical
support
7.
potentially valid
conclusion or solution
7-5 points
Accurately interprets data
or information;
identifies obvious
assumptions, establishes
credibility of sources on
points other than authority
alone, avoids fallacies in
reasoning; distinguishes
appropriate arguments from
extraneous elements;
provides sufficient logical
support
4-3 points
Makes some errors
in data or
information
interpretation;
makes arguments
using weak
evidence; provides
superficial support
for conclusions or
solutions
2-1 point(s)
Interprets data or
information incorrectly;
Supports conclusions or
solutions without evidence
or logic; uses data,
information, or evidence
skewed by invalid
assumptions; uses poor
sources of information;
uses fallacious arguments
0 points
Does not evaluate
data, information, or
evidence related to
best option.
Reflection (5 points)
Reflect on your own thought process. What did you learn from this process? What could you do
differently next time to improve the problem-solving process?
5 points
Identifies strengths and
weaknesses in own thinking:
recognizes personal
assumptions, values and
perspectives, compares to
others‟, and evaluates them in
the context of alternate points
of view
4 points
Identifies strengths and
weaknesses in own
thinking: recognizes
personal assumptions,
values and perspectives,
compares to others‟, and
evaluates them in the
context of alternate
points of view
3-2 points
Identifies some
personal assumptions,
values, and
perspectives;
recognizes some
assumptions, values
and perspectives of
others; shallow
comparisons of
alternate points of view
1 point
Identifies some
personal
assumptions,
values, and
perspectives;
does not consider
alternate points of
view
0 points
Does not reflect on
own thinking
Writing/Composition (10 points)
Remember that this is a Gordon Rule writing assignment. 10 points of your grade will be based
on the writing skills you demonstrate in the paper. So organize your thoughts carefully, explain
them clearly, and proof-read carefully for errors in grammar and spelling.
10-8 points
Writing is clear, coherent, and wellorganized. Very few grammar or spelling
errors. Format meets college standards.
All sources are cited.
7-4 points
Overall writing is acceptable, but
clear weaknesses in organization,
clarity, grammar or spelling.
Format is acceptable. Some
sources are cited.
3-0 points
Writing is unacceptable. Poor organization,
meanings are not clear, and/or numerous errors in
grammar or spelling. Format is poor. No sources
cited.
C:\Users\grano.barbara\Documents\CTAP\2010-11 Fall 0430\CTAP_Fall430Draft_jet[2].doc
4
NOTE: Make sure to review the “Instructor Guidelines for Success” and the information on Gordon
Rule assignments that your instructor has also provided.
C:\Users\grano.barbara\Documents\CTAP\2010-11 Fall 0430\CTAP_Fall430Draft_jet[2].doc
5