• Which decision-making approach would you use to resolve this ethical dilemma?
• How will you respond to the question below the ethical dilemma you selected?
Scenario E: Out the Side Door?*You are a municipal judge deciding less serious cases involving violations of traffic laws, disorderly conduct, fish and game regulations, and local ordinances. A case involving an undocumented landscape worker charged with reckless driving is on your court docket. You know that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials will be waiting outside the courtroom to take this individual into custody following the hearing. He has lived in the country for over 20 years, is married to an American citizen, and has three children. He will be deported even though his crime is a minor one. Relations between your local court system and ICE are tense. Federal officials have stepped up their efforts to deport illegal aliens at the same time your town has declared itself a sanctuary city, which limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. You and the other judges are committed to keeping the courtroom a safe place for all citizens. You and your colleagues worry that members of immigrant communities will refuse to report rape, domestic violence, and other crimes if they know they will be taken into custody when they come to court to testify. You could let your reckless driving defendant escape ICE officers by having him exit through the door used by court officials. Doing so could be seen as interfering with federal law enforcement and might bring obstruction of justice charges and an investigation by the local bar association. Nevertheless, you believe that you would have the support of the chief municipal judge and your fellow jurists if you let the defendant walk out the side door. Would you let this defendant use the side (court employee) door?*Inspired by actual events.
