The criminal case involved was the United States versus Blewett in which there was a need to reexamine the fair sentencing act that was being used to sentence criminals found in possession of drugs, especially cocaine and crack.
The law applied a given ratio in the sentencing of 100:1 but Blewett argued for the need to apply the law fairly to all the offenders who had already been prosecuted yet the new ratio for sentencing was 18:1. Thus, those who had already been prosecuted using the 100:1 ratio were serving unfair and inflated sentences that were against their human rights (LDF: United States vs Blewett, 2014).
The criminal justice lawyer was Vincent Southerland, who is a senior counsel. He was acting out of virtue ethics since what he was fighting for and defending is what he believed in and thought was right. According to him, it was unethical to subject new prisoners to the new ratio, while the older criminals who had been prosecuted earlier had been sentenced under the older ratio. Thus, the main concern was to ensure that even those who had been prosecuted earlier are subjected to the new ratio by giving them the right to appeal their cases under the new ratio.
The law that was used to sentence the criminals found in possession of crack cocaine is deemed unethical and unfair since the community that suffers most is the African Americans who seem to be found in possession of the substance most of the time in comparison to those found in possession of powder cocaine who are mostly white and Hispanics. In this case, Blewett was seeking to have the law used to sentence both the holders of crack and powder cocaine sentenced fairly. This was to apply to all those sentenced before or after the law was passed by congress.
The lawyer, Vincent Southerland, is a senior counsel and a member of the criminal justice practice. He is mainly involved in efforts that are aimed at eradicating and advocating for fair racial justice to all offenders by eliminating the presence of racial bias. Furthermore, he strongly believes that race plays a role in the justice system.
The ethical dilemma, in this case, is that the law being used to sentence offenders is thought to be biased against African Americans and yet the lawyer representing the defendant is also an American American who is a strong advocate against racial bias in the administration of justice. Thus, while many people may view the case as unethical since the lawyer appears to have a conflict of interest, I believe it is ethical.
The lawyer acts out of virtue ethics that is more focused on the person than the action (Carr & Steutel, 2012). This branch of ethics tends to incline towards the morals and characters of an individual rather than the ethical values of society. Thus, the lawyer believes in ensuring that there is an eradication of racial bias in the criminal justice system and it does not matter if he is African American or white he still goes ahead to defend what he believes to be morally right. In conclusion, it was through the efforts of the lawyer that Blewett won the case and through a majority decision that found it unfair for the state to continue holding most of the prisoners who are African Americans on the previous ratio of 100:1.
References
Carr, D. & Steutel, J. (2012). Virtue Ethics and Moral Education. London, UK: McGraw Hill.
LDF: United States vs Blewett. (2014). Web.