When ethics are analyzed, they're divided into a category of green and red light ethics. Obviously, from their title alone it can be determined that green light ethics are the "go ahead" ethics and red light ethics are the "cautionary" ethics.
Green light ethics highlight "affirmative responsiblity." These types of ethics tell the truth, inform the public, reveal social ills, preserve human dignity, etc. These ethics also print things they ought to and take chances.
Red light ethics have "negative constraints." The don't lie, or offend the public, don't gross out the public, don't invade privacy etc. They emphasize being careful on what to print and to place limits.
I am willing to think that both kinds of ethics can be found in one single article. I arrived at this conclusion after reading "No Paradise for Criminals Deported to Jamaica."
The article took place in a run down resort in Jamaica where criminals arrested on the streets of Canada, Britain and the United States are given housing. Most have served lengthy prison sentences before being deported to the island. Most, who are originally from Jamaica claim they hate being back.
According to the article, the resort is home to a bank robber and people convicted of drug offenses. This is where I see red light ethics coming into play. Listing the kinds of people that live in this resort need to be mentioned lightly. Jamaica is a prime vactation spot for many Americans and other people around the world. Knowing its an island full of criminals isn't exactly brochure material. (Then again, knowing they are out of our country does make it a little more settling, so maybe they could be turned around to green light ethics.)
The United States, Canada and Britain have deported 33,268 Jamaicans over the past 15 years. When these deportees arive, politicians and police officers automatically blame them for spiraling crime, causing others to turn their backs on the ex-convicts. These ethics do need to be printed in such an article, therefore, they would classify as green light ethics. They tell the truth and aren't afraid to put the information out there.
It is stated that deportees often find their way back to the countries that deported them, and live even harsher lives of crime. This fact is nice to know. I see this as part of the red light ethical points to the article. The public is said to not be grossed out during an ethical issue. I classify scaring the public with such a fact as something equivelant to grossing them out as well. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium when it comes to this point of fact.
The green light ethics jolt right back into play when The Times reports that the deportees are dislocated from the rest of Jamaica. They have little or no connection to Jamaica and see themselves as outcasts. Still, it is unfair that Jamaicans have to live with these failures of society. The United States will not give in to pleas to keep the convicts there. That is an very appropriate ethical decision. We didn't produce these criminals, we don't want them.
What I found very interesting was towards the end of the article. Evelyn Mason gives housing for those that have no place to go, she keeps the run down resort as a place for the ex convicts to reside. You may wonder what provokes such behavior of Mason. Turns out she is a three-time deportee. She was thrown out of Britain and the United States for drug use. She is now Jamaica's leading deportee advocate. Her actions are a mixture of red and green light ethics. Although, as far as the article goes it prints what it ought to, especially the facts about Ms. Mason.
The ending quote is from Ms. Mason and it sums up ethical issues completely. "Now I'm the deportee who is on the radio and in the public eye. I'm not ashamed. I don't care that Jamaicans look down on me. I've changed, and they can to."
Article by: MARC LACEY
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment