The primary purpose that the criminal justice system is meant to serve is the delivery of justice. Officials in this system seek to rid communities of individuals who are intent on committing crimes and causing harm. As they perform their duties, these officials need to ensure that they act ethically (Gruber, n.d). Ethical conduct allows the officials to effectively combat crime and to safeguard communities. Judicial officers and other members of the criminal justice system face situations that call for ethical considerations to be made. These situations arise at all phases of the criminal justice process; from the arrest of suspects to the issuing of rulings by judges. The parties that make up the system need to exercise great care when navigating these scenarios. Ethical guidelines have been developed to aid in resolving ethical issues. This paper seeks to shed light on ethical issues that arise in the criminal justice system.
Racial Profiling
Police officers are among the primary actors in the criminal justice system. Their main mandate involves making arrests and carrying out investigations. Racial profiling is one of the techniques that police officers have been using for the purposes of identifying criminals. Racial profiling involves using physical traits that are tied to race to make conclusions about individuals. For example, color is used to profile criminals (Wasserman, 2010). This issue has become more controversial in the United States following the fatal shooting of black men by police officers. When making arrests, police officers need to rely on reason and judgment. Instead, officers in the US have been accused of arresting and shooting black men because they happen to be black. Other communities have also borne the brunt of racial profiling (‘Wasserman, 2010). The Muslim community is among these. There have been reports where Muslims have been linked to terrorist attacks without any evidence that suggests this. While racial profiling may be the result of natural biases, it impedes the delivery of justice. Too many black men have died and many more live in fear. The criminal justice system relies on collaboration with communities. Given that communities that look to the police for protection cannot trust police officers, it will become difficult for the United States to gain the support of communities in its efforts against crime. Racial profiling is indeed a criminal justice issue. Thanks to racial profiling, communities are denied justice as innocent members are subjected to harassment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Police officers are not the only parties in the criminal justice that have been accused of using race to profile suspects. Judges have also come under fire for perpetuating racial profiling. They do this by issuing judgments that appear biased against certain communities. For example, in an effort to curb drug abuse, an initiative that was termed ‘the war on drugs’, was created (Fraser, 2011). Among other things, this initiative stipulated minimum sentences that those convicted of drug-related offenses should serve. The result of this initiative is that hundreds of black men have been sent to prison. Despite making up only a small portion of the US population, the black community has contributed the most to the nation’s prison population (Fraser, 2011). This has been blamed on the drug-war policies. It is true that judges are only obeying the law by using the minimum sentence provision to send drug-related offenders to prison. However, these officials need to play a more activist role. The judges need to ask themselves whether they should obey the letter of the law or do what is right. This is what makes racial profiling an ethical issue that the criminal justice system continues to grapple with. They should stand up and demand an end to the biases that exist throughout the criminal justice system. Other than boosting confidence in the system, the actions of the judges will also spare non-violent offenders jail terms.
In truth the police have been scrutinized for using racial profiling as a defensive and protective police strategy meant to deter criminal activities. Law enforcement agencies in the United States have been known to judge people by their race, ethnicity or even national background. An ACLU lawsuit showed that while 73% of suspects pulled over on Interstate 95 between Baltimore and Delaware since 1995 were African Americans, they were no more likely to be in possession of drugs or illegal weapons in their cars that whites (Wasserman, 2010). With reference to the Public Health Service, roughly 70% of drug users were found to be white, 15% were African Americans while 8% were Latinos (Wasserman, 2010). However, the department of justice reported that among those apprehended on drug charges, 26% were whites, 45% were African Americans while 21% were Latinos (Wasserman, 2010). With such statistics, one cannot beg to question the credibility of police officers in using racial profiling as a tool of judging who is guilty or not.
Janet Chan, the author of “Racial profiling and police subculture” noted that while racial profiling is regarded as a racist and discriminative approach, law enforcers percieve it as part of thei work culture. The rationale is that raical profiling helps police narrow down their search for potential criminals out in the street. They overlook the fact that they could be oppressing an individual thus violating that person’s rights, which is against the constitution (Chan, 2011). Rather, their focus is based on teh likelihood that the individual whom they have apprehended based on race, for instance, could be linked to a terrorist or criminal activity. In essence, their approach is based on chance that they could capture a key member to a gang or terrorist group. This explains their rationale for supporting the continued use of racial profiling.
The very idea that an individual may be a suspect or not, for instance, owing to their skin color, creates the notion of guilty until one is proven innocent. This is unfortunately the wave that is being experienced in the United States. Such kind of police strategy should not be tolerated by anybody whatsoever. Whether a person is innocent or guilty of a supposed criminal activity should be totally dependent on that individual, but not on their race, skin color, ethnicity or national background. Race or even national background should never be considered into the equation of whether one committed a law offence or not. The police or any other law enforcement agency should thus not be allowed to use racial profiling no matter what. This is against the principals of any nation around the globe, the United States inclusive.
Indeed, reforms are required as far as police work culture is concerned. There is need to elaborate on the varied negative impacts of using racial profiling as a method to capture criminals. Individuals from a particular community would feel that the law enforcement body has a personal vendetta against them, thus limiting their involvement in improving national security. They would not feel obliged to help the police who are the same people that subject them to harsh treatment just because of their race. In this regard, police agencies should develop another strategy towards assesing for potential criminal related characteristics instead of relying solely on the idea of race. Admittedly, anybody can be involved in a criminal activity, therefore focusing only on a particular community would undermine the effectiveness of police to apprehend the real culprits. Attention should, therefore, shift from basing search and seizures on a suspect’s racial or ethnic backgrounds.
The Death Penalty
For years, the United States has been schizophrenic about what position to assume on the question of death penalty. The American public seems divided on this issue (Fraser, 2011). There are those who hold that the death penalty is necessary as it protects communities from dangerous criminals. On the other hand, those who are opposed to this punishment argue that it amounts to a violation of the sanctity of human life. This penalty is handed down in some states while it is prohibited in other states (Peffley & Hurwitz, 2007). The fact that there is no common position among all states about this issue further highlights its contentious nature. It is the criminal justice system that ultimately shapes the debate on the death penalty. Prosecutors need to determine if crimes in a given case warrant the call for the death penalty to be handed down. It is common for prosecutors to demand the death penalty in cases where the suspect is accused of committing heinous crimes such as murder (Fraser 2011). Prosecutors argue that the death penalty matches the gravity of these crimes. It is judges and juries who ultimately decide whether to hand down the death penalty. When deliberating, judges and juries do not limit themselves to the facts of the case. Other considerations such as personal beliefs and values play a role as well. For example, juries made up of conservative individuals who recognize the sanctity of human life are less likely to recommend the death penalty. On the other hand, jury members who believe that crime should be tackled at all costs will be more ready to call for the death penalty. That morality plays a role in the decision making process makes the issue of the death penalty an ethical one.
The question of the death penalty keeps evolving. The United States is being urged to declare this punishment illegal and bring its practice to an end (Fraser, 2011). Such regions as Europe have already abolished the punishment and have been leading the calls for the United States to follow suit. It is likely that the United States will eventually yield to the pressure and scrap the death penalty. This is more so given that the firms that supply the substances that make up the lethal injections used in executions are refusing to sell the substances to US states that still execute criminals on death row. This has resulted in a shortage of the substances and has forced US states to obtain new substances for the lethal injections (Fraser, 2011). That the issue of capital punishment is an ethical one is not in question. This issue will continue to define how the criminal justice system operates. Perhaps in the near future, the federal government will do away with this punishment.
Notably, capital punishment has brought about serious debates over its effectiveness when it comes to deterrence of crime and its ethical use. Arguments against this particular approach focus on the view that it violates the right to life as is stated in human rights declarations (Kastrup, 1988). Apart from this, there are concerns that the death penalty also undermines the various religious beliefs, which regard it as inhuman and cruel (Kastrup, 1988). The argument is that instead of curbing crime, capital punishment condones violence as an acceptable approach when it comes to dealing with problems in the society. Therefore, opponents of the death penalty believe that there are better ways to deal with individuals who commit the most serious crimes, but killing them should not and should never have been an option.
Nonetheless, of central concern are the continued rising rates of racial disparity when it comes to the death penalty. In courts across various regions in the United States, there is blatant demonstration of racial discrimination. In support of this, Fraser (2011) noted that the concept of race is of major significance when it comes to application of the death penalty. Emphasis is on the race of the victim, which is used as the determining factor of whether the offender is likely to get the death penalty or not. Statistics actually confirm a huge disparity in reference to the race of the victim. For instance, even though African Americans make up half the number of homicide victims annually, 85% of those condemned to face the death penalty were found guilty of killed white individuals (Fraser, 2011). The Southern region of the US is known for its racial discrimination, which is present in the courtroom. In Georgia, for instance, the prosecutor and the judge referred to the defendant calling him "colored boy" or "colored" (Fraser, 2011). Another case scenario was when jurors signed affidavits noting that some jurors used racial slurs during their deliberations. The revelation of this information led to the death penalty being upheld (Fraser, 2011).
McAdams (1998) noted that racial disparity in the US has led to the criminal justice system being rather tougher on black or colored offenders compared to their white counterparts. This means that the court is more likely to execute blacks, as it is the case with whites. Generically, black people are susceptible to unfair treatment from most American institutions especially when it comes to the aspect of crime. In order to make sense of this belief, McAdams (1998) noted a scholar, Frank Chapman, who stated that 48% of the inmates in death row were black; this demonstrates some form of genocide keeping in mind that African Americans make up only 12% of America's population. According to McAdams (1998), this particular disparity is the outcome of racism and prejudice from prosecutors, jurors as well as the voting public.
Peffley and Hurwitz (2007) noted that when it came to support for the death penalty, 65% of whites supported the policy while only 50% of African Americans supported the same. This particular difference in reaction the death penalty demonstrates divided views between races, possibly due to increases cases of racial discrimination when it comes to making judgments. Focusing on two key determinants, race of victim and race of defendant, McAdams (1998) noted that race of victim had extreme influence on indictments on sentences. For instance, when it came to blacks who killed whites and whites who killed whites, the likelihood of defendants suffering the death penalty was high. This was compared to incidences involving whites who killed blacks and blacks who killed blacks (McAdams, 1998).
The death penalty is controversial based on the ethics of its use and most importantly, when it comes to the aspect of race. Evidence demonstrates that there is racial discrimination in the criminal justice system whereby jurors and judges give their judgments based on the racial background of the defendant as well as that of the victim. For instance, an individual who kills a white person is likely to face the death penalty compared to an individual who kills a black or colored person. Such disparity presents various ethical concerns such as racial prejudice, which has continued to be a hindering factor as far as social cohesiveness is concerned. Most importantly, it undermines the effectiveness of courts across the US paying particular attention to certain regions such as the South where racial discrimination is rampant.
Conclusion
The commitment by the American criminal justice system to combat crime and ensure that justice is delivered is not in question. However, there are a number of ethical questions that hamper the delivery of justice. These issues include the question of the death penalty and racial profiling. Left unaddressed, these issues threaten to impair the ability of the criminal justice system to serve the American public. All actors in the system need to combine their efforts to address these issues. Encouraging progress is being made as regards such issues as the use of the death penalty. However, more effort is needed if all the issues are to be resolved. It is quite unfortunate that criminal activities have been on the rise. However, this does not mean that law enforcement agencies should start scrutinizing poeple with regards to their race, age, gender or even nationality. As law enforcers, police are expected to employ other more effective and less discriminatory strategies in dealing with crime. There are obviously a number of ways that crime can be handled without having to violate the rights of a particular group of people. Racial profiling should not be condoned. It leads to continued rise in racism against minority communities especially in the United States. For this reason, police and other law enforcement agencies should consider working together with community members in order to identify potential criminal offenders.
References
Chan, J. (2011). Racial profiling and police subculture. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice , 53 (1): 75-78. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/414625/pdf
Fraser, M. (2011). Crime for crime: Racism and the death penalty in the American South. Social Sciences Journal,10 (1): 21-24. Retrieved from http://repository.wcsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=ssj
Kastrup, M. (1988). Psychiatry and the death penalty . Journal of Medical Ethics, 14: 179-183. Retrieved from http://jme.bmj.com/content/14/4/179.full.pdf+html
McAdams, J. (1998). Racial disparity and the death penalty. Law and Contemporary Problems, 61 (4):153-170. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=lcp
Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2007). Persuasion and Resistance: Race and the Death Penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science, 51 (4), 996-1012. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4620112
Wasserman, D. (2010). Is Racial Profiling More Benign in Medicine Than Law Enforcement? The Journal of Ethics, 15 (1-2), 119-129. doi:10.1007/s10892-010-9100-0
