I’m working on a criminal justice multi-part question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

W3-1 Suicide by Cop

A 19-year-old college student and problem gambler was pulled over by police on the Long Island Expressway for driving erratically. He pulled out a toy handgun, pointed it at the officer, and was shot and killed. In a separate incident, a 45-year-old cancer patient was shot by Jersey City police when he entered a pizza shop in which two officers were eating and pulled a gun on them. These incidents are difficult to explain because they do not appear to be random acts of passion, rage, or felony. As one officer put it, “Why would you point a gun at a police officer,” unless you wanted to be shot? Some experts believe that incidents such as these are forms of “suicide by cop,” where individuals force police to shoot at them in situations that normally would not involve threat or force. Studies have found that many of these shooting victims are white males in their 20s with a history of alcohol or drug abuse—a profile similar to suicide victims in general who are prone to suffer from depression, hopelessness, and deteriorating personal relationships. The use of police to carry out a death wish is difficult to explain, but suicide is often difficult for a person to carry out, and using a police officer removes the burden from the individual. Also, life insurance policies do not pay for suicide victims and most religions forbid suicide, making it more problematic for a person to consider. There are no statistics, but it is estimated that up to 10 percent of fatal police shootings are provoked by those actively seeking to die.

1. Evaluate the moral permissibility of “suicide by cop.”
2. To what extent is a police officer morally obligated to assess whether a person he or she shoots actually wants to be killed?

W3-2 Butt Charge

The state of Maine proposed a new law requiring every filter-tipped cigarettes sold there to carry a nickel surcharge. The 5 cents would be refunded when the butt was returned, in the same way that cans and bottles carry deposits in some states. Butts would be returned to the same recycling locations that handle cans and bottles. According to the proposal, cigarette manufacturers would place a mark on the filter of each cigarette sold in Maine, indicating the 5-cent deposit notice. If passed, this law would raise the price of a pack of cigarette by $1. The law arose from problems caused by an earlier ban of cigarette smoking in most public places, forcing smokers outside and leading to the problem of used butts on the ground around the entrances to stores, public buildings, and parking lots. The law also seeks to provide a new source of revenue for the state while avoiding a general tax increase. If half of all butts of the cigarettes sold were returned for a deposit, the state would gain about $50 million in unclaimed deposits. Cigarette vendors and manufacturers did not support the proposed new law, arguing that it would push smokers to buy their cigarettes in other states. There was also the question of health concerns in handling used butts and the practical matter of counting the returned used cigarette butts.

1. You are a smoker living in Maine. Is it morally permissible to enact such a law?
2. How does your argument change if you are a nonsmoker?