Ethics of Law & Order: Episode

Identify:
The stakeholders in this case are the child's mother and the second victim's roommate, who want justice for the crimes against their family and friends. The police and the city, who want justice and to not look incompetent in the eyes of their citizens. Paula, who wants her husband to be freed because of his mental illness, and Daniel, who wishes to avoid prison. Also the insurance company which does not want to be made to look bad in the eyes of their customers. The ethical issues faced in this case include: Is it alright to give the death penalty to someone who is insane/suicidal? And should insurance companies be responsible for events that occur due to their failure to release information to a client? The possible choices in this case for Alex include: Should I go for the death penalty on someone who may be mentally ill? Should I attack the insurance company that may have indirectly caused Daniel to be in this mental state?
Analyze:
In looking at this case through the consequentialist approach, it seems that Alex should choose to offer Daniel a deal by which he can be placed into a mental health facility, and then either reach a deal with the insurance company to assure no incident such as this will happen in the future or go after the company in court so that no future families can be harmed by a company withholding information. This will provide the most good for the most people. Looking at it through the deontological approach offers a different conclusion, however. It would seem that it is the prosecutor's duty to try to get the maximum penalty possible for such violent murders. Therefore, Alex should try for either the death penalty or a lifetime prison sentence. As for the insurance company, it is her duty to assure that this does not happen again, thus she must either cut a deal or win in court to force the company to release information to their customers. This follows the Kantian aspect of deontological thinking, that is, treat people as people, not things. Using virtue ethics Alex must again decide that it is best for Daniel to be in a mental health facility, and ask that he be granted this opportunity. Also, she must attack the insurance company (legally, not physically) in order to ensure that no future persons are harmed by a similar event. These are the most virtuous choices.
Justify & Decide:
After looking at these three tools, it would seem that the choice is simple as there is convergence on all three with one choice and two with the other. The best choice for Alex as far as prosecuting Daniel is to gain him admittance to a mental health facility, this provides him with the help he needs while keeping others safe. It had convergence with two of the three tools. The best choice as far as whether or not to take legal action against the insurance company is undoubtabley yes, Alex should take action to ensure the safety of customers in future years. This choice had convergence with all three tools.