The Pros And Cons Of Special Surveillance

1281 Words6 Pages
Is special surveillance of any person not in state custody or previously convicted of an offense against the state an ethical thing to do? I’m here to answer the question of: Is special surveillance of any person not in state custody or previously convicted of an offense against the state an ethical thing to do? I will argue that special surveillance of any person not in state custody or previously convicted of an offense against the state is an ethical thing to do. I will define surveillance, state my claims which are: a) Surveillance is ethical under certain boundaries. b) Special surveillance of those suspected of crimes should be carried out to verify if they actually committed them, even if they have not been previously imprisoned before. c) It is then ethical to carry out surveillance on someone who has not been imprisoned before or who is not in state custody as long as the surveillance fits the ethical boundaries. I will justify my claim by defining the ethical boundaries that surveillance exists within for it to be justified and ethical, arguing that someone who has never been imprisoned may still be a suspect in a crime and…show more content…
There were two criteria, one being that the surveillance must be a last resort, something that you do as long as you find no other alternatives. The other criteria involved the surveillance being the best of the options. If there are other better options instead of surveillance they should be taken, now if your options are either surveillance or arrest, surveillance would be the better option in this scenario. An example for this necessity would be extreme constant surveillance to learn what a person eats. This surveillance would be extremely invasive while not being necessary. There exist better alternatives such as asking the person what they eat, in this scenario surveillance is not needed and would not be

More about The Pros And Cons Of Special Surveillance

Open Document