This scenаriо is bаsed оn reаl events, but yоu are not required to know the details of any specific case. Focus on the ethical principles involved, not legal technicalities. You are a state judge responsible for sentencing the owner of a funeral home (age 46) who, over several years, knowingly and repeatedly deceived over a hundred grieving families. Instead of properly cremating or caring for human remains, the owner returned false materials to families claiming they were the remains of their loved ones. Investigators later discovered that many bodies were stored for years in degrading and unsafe conditions. Some were stacked, unrefrigerated, and allowed to decompose. Others were placed in sealed containers, closets, or makeshift storage spaces. Families had held funerals, religious services, and final rites believing their loved ones had been laid to rest, only to later learn that this was not true. The harm caused was not only financial, but profound and lasting. Families describe emotional devastation, violation of trust, religious distress, and the loss of closure that comes from properly mourning the dead. The prosecution argues that this conduct represents a severe moral wrongdoing that corrupts social trust and disrespects both the dead and the living. The defense argues that the crime, while serious, did not involve direct physical violence against living persons and that the offender poses no future threat if permanently barred from the funeral industry. As the sentencing judge, you must decide what punishment is just. You must choose one of the following positions. You may not argue for a compromise, blended sentence, or alternative option. Option A: The offender should receive a long-term prison sentence of approximately 40 to 50 years. On this view, punishment should reflect the gravity of the wrongdoing itself. Some actions are so morally egregious and so destructive to social trust that only a severe sentence adequately affirms the seriousness of the harm and communicates moral condemnation. Leniency would fail both the victims and society by treating the crime as less than it truly is. Option B: The offender should receive a shorter prison sentence of approximately a minimum of 3 years to 10 years with possibility of probation, combined with permanent removal from the profession. On this view, punishment should remain proportionate and restrained, even in cases involving severe moral wrongdoing. The purpose of punishment is to prevent future harm, allow for correction, and avoid irreversible moral judgments. Excessively long sentences risk becoming acts of vengeance rather than justice. In determining the ethics of this question, you devise a thought experiment of creating a council of 3 philosophers (that we have covered in your CEI Ethics class, only 1 may be from before midterms). Which three philosophers would you choose to sit on your council and what important perspective do they each offer? What are the biggest themes to consider? What advice do you think each philosopher would give? Make sure to cite evidence from the reading to justify your reasoning. How would each philosopher answer the other’s points? By the end of your exam, you should be clear about your final choice and why. You do not need to agree with your council. As your teacher, I care more about you explaining the reading material and how it would apply to this situation than the outcome that you chose. Make sure to address the complexity of the issue. Knowledge is measured by using correct terms, providing definitions, and giving examples. Cite authors by last name and page number. Advice from the midterm Beware of echo chambers and justify your reasoning for inviting each philosopher. Define terms and give definitions (For example: universal morals are the idea that certain ethical principles and values are widely shared across cultures) Interaction of ideas between authors - go more thematically instead of by author More quotations and page numbers Make clear your position (Give an opinion, ok to use qualifiers)