One of the longest running 15 years!), most popular, and never honored TV procedurals is CBS’s “NCIS,” starring Mark Harmon. The show frequently has ethics themes, and tonight’s was especially provocative.
Jethro Gibbs'(that’s Harmon) boss, NCIS chief Leon Vance, found that his daughter Kayla, a top student who had already been accepted at Georgetown, had been arrested for shoplifting. Vance was troubled by his daughter’s dismissive treatment of the arrest and her crime, as she shrugged it off as a first offense that would likely result in community service because of her age, 17. Her father, played by Rocky Carroll, felt that his daughter’s values has been corrupted because he was a single father with a demanding job.
Then he discovered that daughter Kayla had not really committed the crime. She had taken the rap for her troubled 18-year old friend, who had multiple previous shoplifting arrests, but who wanted to go to college. Rocky realizes that his daughter had accepted blame to help her friend, so she might realize her dream of a college education. “I figure I’ll have to do about 30 hours of public service,” Kayla tells her beaming father between hugs. “I think I’ll help teach some poor kids to read, or maybe help some needy seniors.”
Vance beams. He is so proud. Kayla did the right thing.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is..
Is this the right ethics message for “NCIS” to promote?
I know my answer to this one, and maybe you know me well enough to guess it. But I’ll let readers weigh in first.
Ethics Alarms 
“Is this the right ethics message for “NCIS” to promote?”
No.
I’d suspect your answer is “no, not the right message”
My thinking… it speaks well of Kayla’s unselfishness and loyalty to her friend.
Still, she now has a blemish on her record – one that could follow her for the rest of her life. How many employers will just not look at her past having that pop on a background check?
My instincts tell me that Kayla’s *conduct* is not the deciding factor here, but the *object* of her conduct is the most important piece in this. If the troubled teen who has received yet one more chance in life despite apparently not trying to change their ways should NOT receive this chance, then the message is wrong, if the troubled teen does deserve this chance, then the message is ok.
But that’s my first take on this. Maybe Kayla’s conduct IS wrong also, I mean, she is lying, however “good” of a cause it is.
Perhaps the troubled teen, still in formative years, can benefit from a chance in college where if they don’t muck it up, they may have a shot in life, but if they do muck it up, it won’t be because of Kayla giving the teen another chance.
The premise is that she is 17, and the record would be sealed.
I’ve had to completely stop watching the NCIS: New Orleans because of the terrible ethical problems that are being promoted as the right thing to do, I just can’t stand it anymore.
I had to stop New Orleans during the second season, I could not state at the reason at the time, but watching it was like fingernails on the chalkboard. Meaning well wasn’t enough to excuse the so-called FBI token for her actions. I’m saying no, because I believe in second chances, not tenth. If the 17 year old really cared she’d help her get klepto treatment and give a good place to flop the next time when she gets out of jail. Partial credits won’t mean much then.
It hurt because I was really fond of Bakula on Quantuum Leap. (still can’t see polls, I think my hostfile blocks to datamining are hitting somein between site)
You are really tempting me to show my ethics cards prematurely. I’ll wait for comment #20.
If I can stand it…
What if it never reaches #20. 😉
But it might.
Definitely no. She is denying her friend the opportunity to experience the natural consequences of her actions, which ultimately does her a disservice. This is called being an enabler.
I think I know you well enough by now to know your answer will be similar, but you do still sometimes surprise me. I don’t know if my answer would have been the same before I started reading here. I also don’t know if it would have been the same before I became a teacher.
I was about to write a comment along this lines, but Chris already did it better. I would only add that the media being an influence, this now gives the original wrongdoer a weapon to pressure the friend to cover for them.
My knee-jerk reaction was “Wow, that’s noble”. Also, (correct me if I’m wrong) wouldn’t the fact that she’s a minor mean that her record will be expunged when she turns 18?
However, even if that’s true, her klepto friend gets off scot-free, and will likely continue thieving, possibly escalating the level of her crimes. Hence, the longer she goes without getting caught, the nastier the inevitable arrest and conviction will be. Therefore, I think the MORE noble thing to do would be to let the friend learn a hard lesson now, to spare her an even harder one in the future.
This is not a good message for any show.
No
I would say that the daughter acted foolishly and the father acted unethically.
The father has a duty to teach and protect his children, which he utterly failed to fulfill in this case. His daughter is showing disastrously poor judgment, placing her future seriously at risk, and he needed to set her straight. He should have lectured her on the enduring truth of the adage, “Lie down with dogs, rise up with fleas.” She should not be spending any time at all with an incorrigible thief. This other girl is big trouble. She has already gotten the daughter arrested once and if the daughter continues to hang out with her, the odds are high that she will do it again. The lesson that the daughter should have learned from this incident is that she needs to shun the company of this supposed friend. Instead, the incident has bound them together even more closely.
The father should have explained all of this. He should also have made his daughter understand that this other girl is utterly untrustworthy and not a true friend at all. Whose idea was it that the daughter should take the fall for this crime? The daughter’s or the other girl’s? No decent person would allow a friend to take the fall for a crime, much less ask her to do so. The shoplifter Is a liar and manipulator, like all inveterate criminals and addicts. The daughter needs to learn to recognize these traits and to avoid people who exhibit them. In her innocence and immaturity, the daughter is unaware of the danger. It was absolutely imperative for the father to make her understand it, for her own protection, but instead he smiled approvingly and encouraged her to continue a foolish and self-destructive connection with an immoral and dangerous person.
To those commenters who suggest that the thief would benefit in the long run from being forced to suffer the consequences of her latest theft, I say, “Who cares?” Maybe she would and maybe she wouldn’t. She’s already been caught and punished several times, and she continues to steal. Criminals and addicts often need to take many hard blows over a period of many years before they learn that they need to change. Many of them never learn. They just keep falling without ever hitting bottom and starting to climb back up. None of that is the father’s concern. His obligation is to try to save his daughter from being dragged down, too.
Bullseye. Who among us hasn’t had to deal with a friend, or worse, a relative, who just can’t stay out of trouble?
I bet you grew up with a friend who was always leading you into danger, asking you to back him on something you knew was a bad idea, or asking you to cover for him after he overreached. If you said no, he called you a chicken or said you were being a snitch/snake/tattletale. Maybe the guy wasn’t even really your friend, just the kid perceived as cool, and you hung around with him hoping for some of his coolness. He didn’t give a damn about you, he just saw a chance for someone else to take the rap for what he did, and wouldn’t hesitate to turn on you if it served him. If you were smart you distanced yourself from this guy once you figured him out.
I bet there’s also a problem relative in the family. I’ve seen them all, the boy-crazy aunt/cousin/big sis who was always in and out of relationships and needing a ride/money/food and cleaning products, the uncle/brother/cousin who couldn’t break off with alcohol or drugs, or kept chasing ridiculous ideas, or who just couldn’t get into the habit of working, and always needed someone to bail him out. Of course you bailed these people out, because you didn’t want them talking smack about you to the rest of the family and have them shaking their heads at Thanksgiving. Eventually you also got wise to the situation and walked away.
Ladies out there, did you ever get closer than you should have to a bad boy who you knew was trouble, but you didn’t care because his butt looked soooo cute in tight jeans and it was such a thrill to ride on his motorcycle? Your friends told you he was trouble, but he said they were just jealous. Your family said he was leading you the wrong way, but he said they just wanted to hold you back. Guys, did you ever get too close to an ingénue or a flirt who you knew was poison, but you didn’t care because those eyes… Your friends told you she was just playing you, but you said they just didn’t look as good in skinny jeans. Your family said she was going to bring you to a bad end, but hey, what did they know about a man’s needs? If you were wise you got out of there before everything collapsed. However, I bet there are a few of you ladies out there still simmering that you “gave it up” for a guy who disappeared right after, and a few guys out there who are still trying to make back the money they wasted on a woman who just saw them as an ATM and placeholder.
Loyalty is an important ethical value, but, like a drug that can save your life in the right amount, it can be deadly when abused.
I hadn’t even considered that angle, Greg. Excellent comment.
No.
A seemingly similar act, where she sacrifices herself, and only herself, for the sake of her friend, could be ethical…anything from letting her have the last donut, to pushing her out of the way of a car and taking the hit instead, for example.
But that’s not what the daughter did here. She envisions her “sacrifice” to be inconsequential: a bit of community service and an expunged record…”it never happened”. However, besides perverting the legal system, she also set up others to involuntarily sacrifice for her friend. Her friend’s next victims could be more merchants, fellow students, etc., and it’s not the daughter’s place to expose THEM to potential harm.
Going meta:
1. Before answering the question, “Is this the right ethics message for “NCIS” to promote?”, one should be clear about what the ethics message really is? And is there one messages or are there multiple messages to be found in this episode?
2. Is this the right moment to ask /answer the question? If for instance, in the next episode the daughter gets refused by Georgetown would that change the ethics message NCIS ‘promotes’?
(That would than be a case of the old guideline for movie makers, “Don’t tell but show!” The father berating his daughter would be the ‘tell’ option.).
3.An interesting and fun exercise before one answers the question is to review the behavior of all involved using Gibbs’ Rules.
( http://ncis.wikia.com/wiki/Gibbs%27s_Rules )
Nope. Ethics does not require you to set yourself on fire to keep someone else warm.
lots of ethical issues. daughter accepting responsibility, father praising her, not teaching her the correct response, friend not accepting responsibility, friend allowing friend to fall on the sword, a show with limited time to have such deep conversations with an expectation of solving issues or teaching lessons properly. writers bias in trying to convey those messages, watching stuff like this and having to think about the ramifications on others about poorly designed conveyance of poorly thought out lesson…………………….I stopped watching when they got rid of Ziva
one other thing, how bout the ethics alarms of the actors and crew and………
I guess an argument could be made that by taking some of the burdens she is doing what is collectively good. Justice often provides grace where punishment is required. However, this is not hers to give.
On the whole, ethically no. Maybe if she was willing to fully accept the consequences of her actions.
1. Being who she is, she has to know that any punishment will be a slap on the wrist.
2. Being a first time offender, she has to know it will be a slap on the wrist.
3. Her parent finds out (from her telling her I guess?) so she doesn’t even receive those consequences.
4. By taking the blame, she becomes an accomplice.
Furthermore,
The boy actually committed the crime. As such, he is the one who should take responsibility.
Based on what I’ve learned from your post, this is a habit. Her taking responsibility does not stop the problem, only increases its likelihood of happening again.
I’m not sure what the correlation is between him not going to college and committing petty theft. Regardless, it shouldn’t matter. If he knew it was a possibility, he also knew not to do it.
Hell no.
Since when do those required to do community service get to pick their punishment. She is not a saint. She could teach kids to read or help seniors anyway. Perhaps she should ba assigned a particular laborius task of cleaning the comfort stations at the women’s march.
I haven’t even touched on the fact that she just taught her guilty friend how to avoid punishment.
I’ve never watched the show. I certainly won’t now. I wouldn’t beam with pride – I’d march her down to the police station to “confess.” And still make her read to poor kids.
EA may have to come up with a variation of one of its signature rationalizations: “If just ONE shoplifter can be saved.”
A “Leader” in the 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality has an interesting take on shoplifting.
Everett D. Mitchell (Director of Community Relations/U.W.-Madison [GO BADGERS!!]):
“I just don’t think that they should be prosecuting cases … for people who steal from Wal-Mart. I just don’t think that, right? I don’t think [with] Target or all them other places, them big box stores that have insurance, they should be using justification, the fact that people steal from there as justification to start engaging in aggressive police practices, right?”
This attracted many accolades, not the least of which was the…um…attention of one Jack Marshall.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2015/08/22/kaboom-university-of-wisconsin-director-of-community-relations-says-that-arresting-shoplifters-is-over-policing/
My short answer to the questions is NO. My Longer answer is:
I like Greg’s reference to the old adage about dogs and fleas but I was thinking of the more contemporary maxims “Two wrongs don’t make a right (regardless that two Wrights made an airplane)” and “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up”. I don’t understand why people think that more crime is better than less crime.
Seems to me that Vance’s conclusion that his daughter’s values may be corrupted because “he is a single father with a demanding job” is off the mark. The writers have it wrong. Her values are skewed and in need of realignment likely because she shares his misaligned values. They both need an ethics refresher.
I get that he has some prosecutorial discretion as a member of law enforcement to choose when and when not to look the other way but he doesn’t have the proper tools to make this decision. First he is in a position of serious conflict given his daughter’s involvement. Second, he has shown he doesn’t make proper ethical decisions.
Why are so many shows all about the feels and not about teaching what’s right and wrong and why something is right or wrong? I think I know why.
Jack – On a different note, I commend your attention to a recent-ish story having a development this week involving an intersection of business professionals (the accounting profession), their regulator and alleged greed/self-interest. I think the major issues are self-evident here on the surface but wonder what your take may be on the wider issues.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-22/ex-accounting-oversight-regulators-accused-of-tipping-kpmg
I am not trying to pick on accountants. I think there are parallels in many professions and industries. The competition in the accounting space may make the issues more acute, but I am not an accountant. (I don’t have enough personality, so I am just a patent lawyer!)
Is it that professionals (and other businesses in general) are getting lazier and don’t want to put in the necessary work or is it that their clients in seeking greater and greater profits are making unrealistic demands of their professional firms (or other suppliers and service providers) to provide inputs to the client businesses at unsustainable prices, resulting in unethical and sometimes illegal behaviors? Or is it both or something else?
The commodification of many professional services and the race to the bottom on pricing will inevitably lead to cutting corners and is no different from the pet food and milk issues we saw over the last 10 or so years where the products were adulterated with melamine from cheap inputs from Chinese manufacturers.
Here’s a set of stretch questions that would be interesting to discuss (IMHO on this forum) – Will Trump’s desire to reduce international trade, evidenced by his avoidance of TPP and his apparent desire to scrap NAFTA, to repatriate jobs to America lead to better or worse US business practices? Will enough American’s pay more for the things the currently buy from abroad for less to support a wider Made in America policy? Will shareholders temper their demand for higher returns and allow the businesses to compete fairly and ethically in this new reality? Or are we in for some fun times ahead?
I hope I have provoked an interest.
You have, and the accounting story couldn’t be more timely, as I am working up an accounting ethics program this week.
My first reaction is that the daughter’s act was made based on an ethical virtue (Loyalty) but ultimately was an unethical act (as thoroughly covered above- avoids proper responsibility, allows the thief to continue stealing, etc.)
However, as has been stated above, the fact that her father is Law Enforcement makes it much more likely that she would receive a slap on the wrist (even beyond the fact that she’s 17 with a clean record). Assuming she didn’t think at all about the other unethical factors, does the unethical presumption of gentle treatment due to bias completely cancel out the ethical impulse to protect a friend? It perpetuates a system where it’s wise to cozy up to law enforcement in order to shelter from consequences in their good graces (or those of their families).
As I’ve recently discovered that “Get Out of Jail Free” cards are a real thing that exist and are given out to whomever the members of the NYPD like at the moment, your analysis is very timely. Too many TV shows, even ones that wear their progressive hearts on their sleeves, definitely glorify the system you’re describing.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/21/police-union-slashes-number-of-get-out-of-jail-free-cards-issued/
Aaaaand now I’m sadder than I was before knowing that was a thing.
It’s tough because there’s no way around the fact that connections have benefits. Pick a profession and there’s bound to be some way that a person could benefit from being friends with someone in that field. But my girlfriend being allowed to comp me a free drink at the restaurant she manages vs a cop friend deciding who goes to jail sounds some major ethics alarms (I presume I get some sort of check for that name drop…)