The case of the murder of Lois is the case, which raises a number of ethical issues. The murder was committed cynically and openly but not a single person has managed to prevent the crime. Moreover, no one has informed the police about the crime, although, if the police was informed in time about the crime, it could be investigated fast and criminals arrested shortly after the crime. Instead, the police had to spend about a week on the investigation of the crime. In this regard, the behavior of Maria Frank was highly controversial because she knew about the crime but she failed to inform the police about the crime.
On analyzing the case, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that Maria Frank should call to the police to inform about the possible crime she witnessed. To put it more precisely, she should call to the police, when she witnessed that the drug dealer pulled Lois and when she heard shouts of the victim. She apparently guessed about the essence of the crime but she did not inform anyone about the crime. Instead, she just fled away.
In this regard, it should be said that she should not escape and hide. In contrast, she should provide all the information she had about the crime and parties involved in the crime. In fact, Maria Frank was probably paralyzed with fear and she could hardly control her actions. Her only desire was to run and to hide from criminals, whom she knew. However, in spite of her fear, she should inform the police and provide police officers with the detailed information on the murder of her friend.
On the other hand, she was afraid of being murdered or injured by criminals for informing police. She knew the criminal and she understood that she could become the next victim of the drug dealer. Therefore, the fear drove her away. At the same time, such a behavior of Maria Frank contradicted to existing legal norms. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that Maria Frank was primarily concerned with her own good and security but she totally ignored concerns of the public safety. She underestimated the risk and threats the drug dealer exposed to the society. As a result, she viewed her personal interests above interests of the society.
In such a situation, the police should support her and grant her with the high degree security to protect from possible offense from the part of the drug dealer or other offenders. In such a way, the police is also responsible for actions of Marie Frank because the police failed to provide the witness with the protection from possible offense. To put it more precisely, the police’s actions could not persuade Marie Frank in her security, in case she called to the police immediately after the crime. As a result, the police is also responsible for the failure of Marie Frank to inform the police about the crime immediately.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that Marie Frank acted irresponsibly because she was concerned with her own interests and security above all. On the other hand, the police should also create conditions, in which witnesses like Mary Frank could feel being secured.
Baier, Kurt. (1990). “Egoisim” in A Companion to Ethics, Peter Singer (ed.), Blackwell: Oxford.
Rand, Ayn. (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness. Signet.
Waller, Bruce, N. (2005). “Egoism.” In Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson Longman, 79–83.