Utilitarianism, duty, deontology, egalitarianism, right, and virtues

Full Answer Section

Why other ethical frameworks are less central:

• Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness or well-being. While the Court's decisions might ultimately contribute to a fairer justice system and thus greater societal well-being, the immediate justification wasn't based on a calculation of utility. The Court didn't argue that six-person juries or unanimous verdicts always lead to better outcomes; they argued that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to these safeguards.
• Egalitarianism: Egalitarianism emphasizes equality. While the right to a jury trial applies equally to all defendants, the specific issue in these cases wasn't about ensuring equal distribution of resources or opportunities. The focus was more narrowly on the right to a particular process.
• Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics focuses on character traits and the cultivation of virtuous behavior. While the justices themselves might be motivated by virtues like fairness and justice, the legal reasoning in these cases wasn't framed in terms of cultivating virtuous judges or jurors. The decisions were based on interpreting and protecting a specific right.

It's important to note that ethical frameworks are not always mutually exclusive. The Court's decision to protect a constitutional right likely also contributes to greater fairness and societal well-being (utilitarian considerations). However, the primary justification in Ballew and Burch is deontological, emphasizing the inherent importance of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Sample Answer

The ethical theory that most closely aligns with the reasoning in Ballew v. Georgia and Burch v. Louisiana is deontology, specifically focusing on the concept of rights. While elements of other ethical frameworks might be present, the Court's emphasis on protecting the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is the dominant factor.

Here's why:

• Deontology (specifically rights-based deontology): Deontology emphasizes the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, regardless of their consequences. In these cases, the Supreme Court wasn't primarily concerned with whether a five-person jury or a non-unanimous verdict would lead to better or worse outcomes in specific trials. Instead, they focused on whether these practices violated the right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The Court's reasoning centered on protecting this fundamental right, even if, in some individual cases, a smaller jury or a non-unanimous verdict might seem to produce a "just" outcome. The focus is on the right of the accused, not the overall utility or consequences.