Return to Paradise Joseph Ruben, Director (1998) Vince Vaughan (Sheriff), Joaqui

Question

Return to Paradise Joseph Ruben, Director (1998) Vince Vaughan (Sheriff), Joaquin Phoenix (Lewis), and David Conrad (Tony) are three friends on a five-week vacation in Malaysia who use and possess drugs for recreational use while there. Two of the friends return to the United States, and they all go their separate ways. Two years later a young lawyer, Beth Eastern (Anne Heche), tracks down the two friends in the United States, informing them that the third (Lewis) has been jailed for the last two years in Malaysia and faces a possible death sentence there for drug possession. A few days after they had left Malaysia from their vacation, police had raided their camp and found large quantities of hashish. Lewis was still residing there, so he was held responsible. He is scheduled to be put to death in eight days, and the only way the charges can be decreased is if the two friends come back to “paradise” and take their share of the responsibility. If they do, they both will spend three years in prison. If only one does, he will spend six years behind bars. The film centers on the agonizing decisions of Sheriff and Tony in deciding if they should go back to Malaysia in the hopes of saving their friend. Return to Paradise poses one of the ultimate ethical dilemmas: Should you sacrifice your freedom for a friend, when you have at least partial responsibility for his predicament? In a subplot, a journalist (Jada Pinkett) gets wind of the story of the pending execution in Malaysia and wants to write a story about it, but she is begged by the lawyer not to write about it because Malaysia is very sensitive about American criticism of Malaysian justice, and a critical story might endanger the agreement to reduce Joaquin Phoenix’s death sentence. The journalist must make the decision to either sit on the story because it might affect the outcome of the case, or to print it because it is an important story.

Questions

1. Would you return to face six years in prison to spare a friend’s life in a similar situation? What is your ethical rationale?

2. What are the ethical considerations of the journalist in deciding whether to publish the story, and what should her conclusion be?

Explanation / Answer

Sacrificing freedom of six years for a friend who may possibly face death sentence, is indeed quite a dilemma. Six years of life is no joke. However, I have a conscience and probably would feel uncomfortable being held responsible for a friend's death. We were together during the good times. When we stuck together in good times, I reckon, it's only moral for me to be for him during a time like this. I would go back and face six years in prison if it means it will spare a friend's life. It's only six years of life in an average life of seventy years. I would definitely go back, face the brunt and save his life.

One needs to make money for a living, thus, one's job can be of utmost importance to them. However, when it comes to being humane and morality, it can put us in a dilemma. The journalist needs to do her job, however, I reckon, she must not publish the story because of the dire consequences that publishing may lead to. She could save a life by not publishing it. Her article would get published and she would get all the attention for only a while. Once that story is old, she has to look for different, new stories. That's her job. However, if she chooses to not publish it, she has nothing to lose but she would save a life.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.