- A man is falsely accused of a crime and spends fourteen years in a jail. Finally, his accuser is overcome with remorse and admits having lied. When the man is released, he sues the state for wrongful imprisonment and seeks monetary compensation. The courts rule that the state has no legal responsibility. But does it have the moral responsibility? Why or why not?
What are your thoughts regarding the difference between legality and morality with respect to the case you chose? Do you think that if the action in question is immoral, it thus ought to be illegal, or if morally permissible then it ought to be for this reason legally permissible? Or is the action immoral but nonetheless ought to be legally permissible? Your explanations should have reasons that support them and make use of concrete examples from the Burnor and Raley text.