The criminal justice system players have a mandate of ensuring that the communities perceive fairness in all their undertakings. Despite there being codes of conduct for regulating behaviour, the system is faulted for engaging in actions that compromise citizens' wellbeing. A focus on various ethical dilemmas in the criminal justice system highlights the most practical approaches administrators ought to adopt to improve fairness. At times, they would be forced to either use their discretion or follow applicable legal provisions based on the severity of crime and threat as long they allow for objectiveness.
Ethical Dilemma 1: Gun Rally
Law enforcement officers have the responsibility of maintaining law and order as enshrined in the US Constitution. This mandate would guide me in dealing with this scenario to ensure that the gun advocacy group rally does not put the lives of others at risk. As the police department administrator, the first thing that I would do is to analyze the information that I have received from the tipster. I would take the report seriously because whistleblowing discourages a culture of wrongdoing, which in turn increases the likelihood for an orderly society (Krinsky, 2016). After engaging with the tipster, I will inform the officers in my team about the alleged event so that together we can launch the investigation into the matter. This decision would align with Article 2 of the US Constitution, which gives the police who are part of the Executive the power to enforce laws. I would request the officer to inform the event organizers that they should ensure that the rally is peaceful and get the permit in the future. This decision would be based on the First Amendment to the Constitution, which permits people to gather and at the same time empower the place to intervene if the events become chaotic. The fact that the advocacy group has been holding peaceful rallies is comforting, but in the future, the leaders must inform the police department one week before the event. In the same way, the police department would be issuing them with a permit as a way of setting new precedence that aligns with existing legal provisions on public gatherings.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical Dilemma 2: Chief's Orders
The law enforcement discipline has a strict bureaucratic hierarchal system which is critical for maintenance and order. Law enforcement officers have to act upon all the information they have received from their superiors without delay or questions. However, the law provides for discretion where officers may use their judgement to decide the course of action they would take to deal with a situation (Nowacki & Spencer, 2019). This form of discretion would use while dealing with the people who would attend the gun advocacy group rally. As much as it is my responsibility to follow the directives that the chief officer on duty gives me, I also have an obligation to the public. For this reason, I will assess whether the gathering poses any significant risk to property or public peace. If I realize that the organizers and the crowd are peaceful while voicing their concerns, I will request my officers to let the meeting continue. On the other hand, if I have a reason to believe that the meeting is going to become chaotic, then I have no other option but to intervene. The decision to use force or not will be left to my discretion, considering that it may result in a high rate of fatalities since some people may be wielding guns. I would consult with the chief officer on duty so that we adopt an intervention that enhances public order while protecting the lives of the group members. I would help her realize that we need to objective as opposed to being biased while handling this scenario to guard the integrity and credibility of the police department.
Ethical Dilemma 3: Accepting Favors
Law enforcement officers are expected to adopt very high moral standards so that they are in a position to influence citizens to do the same. Their professional code of conduct requires them to model acceptable behaviours to enhance their authority and credibility. A failure to adhere to these provisions complicates their mandate in that citizens no longer trust that they can execute justice. Law enforcement officers who receive gifts from citizens are more likely to be biased because they make decisions that favour their friends and acquaintances. The officer who picks coffee and sandwich from a convenient market without paying indicates an employee who disregards ethical provisions. His advice that I also go to the store and choose whatever I want would comprise my commitment to providing citizens with the justice they deserve. As much as I appreciate that he is helping with the investigation into the gun advocacy group, I would let him know my stand on receiving gifts. I would base my response on Schweinfurth & Call (2019), who focus on the theory of reciprocity where people tend to believe that they owe individuals who give them gifts. I would go to the convenience store and pay for whatever I take to emphasize my commitment to adhering to the professional code of conduct. Such an action would go a long way in helping the officer to realize that he should not use his position to demand favours from the people he ought to be protecting. If he continues with the trend, he would be placed in a compromising situation that would require breaking laws to return the favour he owes.
Ethical Dilemma 4: Reporting a Deal
The criminal justice system players are responsible for upholding fairness in all processes despite the nature of the crime that has purportedly been committed. In particular, they are supposed to treat suspects as innocent until proven guilty with the contribution of a jury. The incidence where the judge is discussing with a prosecutor in the chambers depicts the likelihood for partiality. The use of derogatory comments to describe one of the defendants shows that the judge is biased, and the prosecutor's presence complicates the issue. Despite the judge having a record of fairness and impartiality, there is a high chance that he is letting his views on gun advocacy guide his judgement. The situation is made worse because the judge would render the verdict without the benefit of the jury. Having overheard their conversation, I would confer with both the judge and the persecutor, considering that I am part of this case, considering that it occurred in my jurisdiction. I would advise the judge to follow legal provisions that regulate how such cases should be determined instead of relying on his emotions and guts. If the judge feels that this strategy would not work, he may ask for a recess so that the courthouse can convene a jury of peers to determine the case. According to O'Malley (2019), a jury increases the likelihood for a fair trial, considering that the final decision rests with a larger number of people, thus reducing the possibility for bias. These decisions will improve the chances of having a fair and favourable trial and cushion the judge from public scrutiny if this conversation leaks.
Ethical Dilemma 5: Breaking Prison Rules
The criminal justice system operates on a strict legal code that highlights all players' need to uphold high moral standards. This provision is crucial since they ensure that the players will not let their views, beliefs, perspectives and convictions get in the way of justice. As much as I support the gun advocacy group, I must adhere to legal provisions that outline the expected behaviours when dealing with criminal suspects. This assertion would apply more to the particular inmate who is categorized as a high-risk offender because he is being held in solitary confinement. His request that I make a note to an individual involved in the group is not as bad, but it would make me his co-conspirator. However, I know that the note would increase his chances of being released if the recipient acts on its message. For this reason, I would discuss the matter with the county prison's authority to find a legal way of ensuring that he sends his message. If the management at the prison approves, I would have no problem delivering his message if it would improve his chances for a fair trial. On the other hand, if the management refuses, I would advise them to talk with his lawyer if he has one or appoints him to handle the inmate's concern. I would engage with prison management because the inmate falls under my jurisdiction, meaning I have a responsibility of ensuring that he has a fair outcome. Collaborating with the prison management would send a clear message that I am keen on adhering to bureaucracies and existing legal provisions.
Ethical Dilemma 6: Crisis Intervention or Use of Force?
The police encounter various suspects in the line of duty, meaning that they have to adopt different approaches to improve criminal justice outcomes. At times, law enforcement officers would be required to deal with mentally disturbed suspects with no regard for law or morality. In such instances, the police are required to use their discretion on whether to use force or discretion. The tenant's scenario threatening other tenants refuses to comply with commands that the police are issuing depicts an abnormal behaviour that mentally disturbed individuals exude. The first thing that I would do in this situation is to assess the extent of the threat that the suspect poses, most specifically if he has a weapon that he would use to inflict injuries. I need to evaluate the threat level to ensure that I do not use excessive or unnecessary force. According to Pollack & Humphreys (2020), law enforcement officers are 16 times more likely to kill mentally disturbed patients since they rarely respond to commands. The fact that I am a strict adherent of the code of conduct means that I would not jeopardize the suspect's life and wellbeing. At the same time, I would use my discretion to protect the other tenants if the suspect decides to continue harassing them. While I have the option of using force to contain the situation, I would prefer crisis intervention. Rogers et al. (2019) note that crisis intervention results in fewer arrests and enhances understanding of mental health illnesses. In that case, I will be focused more on calming the suspects and victims since this is the option that would yield better results.
References
Krinsky, K. L. (2016) Whistleblowing in American police agencies. Crime Psychology Review , 2 (1), 45-59. DOI: 10.1080/23744006.2016.1242302
Nowacki, J. S., & Spencer, T. (2019). Police discretion, organizational characteristics, and traffic stops: An analysis of racial disparity in Illinois. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 21 (1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461355719832617
O'Malley, K. M. (2019). Trial by jury: Why it works and why it matters. American University Law Review, 68 (4), 1095-1109.
Pollack, H. A., & Humphreys, K. (2020). Reducing violent incidents between police officers and people with psychiatric or substance use disorders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 687 (1), 166–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219897057
Rogers, M. S., McNiel, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (2019). Effectiveness of police crisis intervention training programs. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online , 49 (1), 38-54. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.003863-19
