Introduction
In the enforcement of law and order department of the American justice system, the correctional officers play a vital role in the rehabilitation of lawbreakers and offenders. A correction officer, also called a prison officer, is charged with the mandate of caring, custody, and rehabilitation of American citizens who have been arrested and are awaiting court hearings while on remand, or those persons who have been tried of a crime and sentenced to a term in prison or jail. Though the term corrections officer is used largely to refer to the latter situation, prison officers are also responsible for the safety, peaceful running and security of the correctional facility itself. It is right to point out that the uniform bestows the authority of rationale and reasonable control to the correctional officer, but not unbridled domination. This is what the law commonly refers to as the corrections officer's professional discretion. According to this provision, the officer has the position of unquestionable authority and power over the inmates, and as such is presented with the possibility and the potential of abusing those inmates under their control. This is what the law would term as the abuse of professional discretion as far as the misuse of ethical considerations and boundaries are concerned. The abuse of this professional discretion ranges from a full range of coercive control, which to a great extent includes the loss of liberty through physical force if the officer deems to be necessary.
Duties and Responsibilities
Correction officers are mainly tasked with maintaining order and daily operations of the correctional facility, in addition to being responsible for the care, rehabilitation, and control of the inmates. It is also correct to point out that this person has the responsibility of controlling the inmates who may be perceived as being dangerous, and the ones who the society do not wish to accommodate unless they correct their behaviors. The correction officer must at all times prevent disturbance, assaults, and attempted escapes of the inmates by supervising the activities and work assigned to the inmates. In addition to protecting the public from the incarcerated criminals, these officers also have the duty of protecting their fellow officers from the inmates and protecting the inmates from other inmates who are termed as dangerous always. Lastly, prison officers assist in transportation responsibilities of the inmates which include transfer to other correctional facilities, going for medical checkups and appointments, going for court appearances and other locations as approved by the correctional facility (Schultz, 2017). The prison officers also to some extent assist the regular police officers either on or off duty in investigations and running tests on the inmates for court purposes, but this depends mainly on their peace officer status and area of jurisdiction.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical Considerations
The correctional facility being a center of rehabilitation, there are some ethical considerations that a correction officer must bear in mind while in their line of duty, the main of which is the upholding of professional discretion in their work. Professional discretion implies carrying out their mandate in a confidential manner and not allowing these forms of operations and duties to be open or made accessible for a thirds party, which in no small extent includes the inmates and their families. One of these ethical considerations is brutality. It is correct to point out that a prison is an unsafe place by the very nature that it houses criminals, gangs, and other types of lawbreakers. This poses a security threat even to the prison wardens and the officers themselves who must be aware and cautious of this environment in which assaults, murders, and drug trade are prone to occur. Since the officers have an unquestionable authority in this setting, they have the privilege of carrying live weapons, and may as well be situated in towers which might be far situated from the yard. It is correct to point out that the potential threat to their safety may trigger these officers to overcompensate when dealing with rowdy inmates in which case a taser may be employed instead of reprimanding the inmates, fits may be countered with bullets. And in worse case scenarios, a prison warden may attempt to conceal misconduct by the prison workers to avoid facing legal scrutiny (Wooditch, Duhaime, & Meyer, 2016). This, in most cases, occurs under the professional discretion flag since the warden may tend to feel protected and provided for as far as the transparency in the manner and tools used to employ their services and maintain peace in the correctional facility are not subjects open for public questioning.
Corruption is another way of how professional discretion in the correctional facilities crosses the ethical boundaries. It is not new to the public knowledge that prisoners often smuggle prohibited items in the facilities. This to a great extent includes drugs, alcohol and mobile phones. The fact that getting drugs into the prisons is not as hard or any harder than securing them on the streets raises the question of how such transactions and operations take place despite the oak-eyed watches by the prison officers. It is sad to point out that the black-market operations of the correctional facilities cannot run effectively without the oversight, which is deliberate in this case, of the corrections officers, which in most cases entails actual cooperation. In this case, the leaders of the prison gangs bribe the officers to look the other way when such transactions are underway. And due to the professional discretion accorded to the wardens and guards in their line of duty, it becomes hard for the facility management to keep tabs on the officers' every movement within the cell. In more extreme cases, this explains why such operations are only brought to the attention of the facility management when prison wardens report them. This kind of corruption at face value appears to be a harmless crime since no direct victims are being inconvenienced in the process. This makes it even more tempting and more comfortable for the correction officers to engage themselves. Corruption in the cells can be a two-way traffic (McCafferty, 2017). This entails such instances as a male guard in a female correctional institution trading privileges for sex with the inmates. This is considered a violation of the professional discretion accord since the officer, in this case, abuses the trust and privacy accorded to them in the carrying out of their duties.
Insularity also dramatically affects the professional discretion in correctional facilities. Like the police, prison officers heed a code of silence. What this means is that an officer will not tell on another officer when he commits any violations. In most cases, a warden who catches a colleague engaging in brutality and the assault of inmates, or participating in corrupt activities like smuggling of drugs into the facility will either look the other way or join in the act by playing the third part and equally enjoying the benefits. But either way, they will not take the matter to the authority for corrective measures. This being the case, correctional officers tend to expel any officer caught contacting a representative of a prison reform group. This is because having developed a form of union that is geared towards protecting their common interests and having each other's back; it is essential to ensure a code of secrecy in which case any officer who is suspected of speaking with another party. In this case, this mostly refers to the prison reform group, is considered a snitch and the rest of the officer squad tends to seclude them in their operations. Given the uncertainties of the profession, a sense of a union tends to develop among the prison officers, leading to the creation of a "us versus them" mentality which in most cases leads to corruption, brutality, and reluctance to implement the much-needed changes in the correctional facilities, however much camaraderie may be a virtue that could come in handy in such a profession (Lombardo, 2016). This is because the two divides fail to get along in harmony to ensure the upholding of the common goal of the correctional facility, but instead, spend much of their time and resources limiting the operations of the other as far as carrying out their duties are concerned.
Like a typical classroom, a correctional facility tends to have prions from different backgrounds with different personalities. Some of these may be funny and naturally lively, easy to get along with. Still, some may be angry, aggressive, and violent. The challenge of the corrections officer, just like the class teacher, lies in applying the standards to all the inmates equally. This means that the laws of the correctional facility should not be any more helpful, or any harsher to one prisoner than it is to the other. However, due to professional discretion, it becomes easier for the prison wardens to abuse the right to equal treatment of the inmates where they would tend to show favoritism of an inmate over the other openly. This is because the officers are protected by professional discretion, and as such, it becomes difficult to have them held accountable for such discriminatory treatment of the inmates. Having been allowed privacy in their line of duty, it becomes even more difficult for the correctional facility management to track the movement and activities of the prison officers to ensure they are carried out following a specific criterion. In the same line, the systems in the facility are such that it becomes difficult for the inmates themselves to complain of unfair treatment to the management and have the administration look into the matter in a manner that would be considered to be digging into the truth. Unequal treatment is not only known to breed hatred among the prison officers and the inmates, or between the infants themselves who may tend to resent those favored by the guards at their expense (Lombardo, 2016). Additionally, such unequal treatment weakens the correctional facility's ability to uphold order. This is because the approved inmates will tend to break the rules whenever they feel like it.
Correctional profession ethics holds that the correctional officer at all times should act in a just, clear and transparent manner while in their line of duty this to a great extent means passing sound and just judgment to the inmates in case of a security incident that requires the culpable inmates to face disciplinary action. One such scenario when a correctional officer would misuse professional discretion in the passing of judgment is when such an officer decides to issue a mere verbal reprimand when they were supposed to write a disciplinary ticket. Professional direction allows the officer the privacy to pass whatever disciplinary judgment they deem fit for a given offense. This judgment is not open for scrutiny by any other body. This being the case, a correctional officer may misuse this privilege by issuing a verbal reprimand in such serious offenses that deserve disciplinary tickets, or the vice versa (issuing a disciplinary ticket in such light matters that would only call for a mere verbal reprimand). The nature of the judgment to be passed by the officer, in this case, would depend on such personal factors as the relationship between the officer and the inmate in question. This brings back the issue of corruption and equal treatment (Schultz, 2017). The officer may exchange the correctional act for other privileges or sex, in which case the inmate liked by the correctional officer for whatever reason walks away with their actions while the last liked inmate takes the fall for a crime they know nothing about in most cases, based on such factors as being the officer's least favorite inmate.
Conclusion
In summary, it is important to point out that professional discretion, which is meant to accord the correctional officer an ample time and authority to exercise their duties in a manner that is intended to protect and uphold the peace and wellbeing of the inmates should not be used for personal gains. It is sad to observe how the officers charged with the mandate of overseeing the transformation and rehabilitation of lawbreakers and offenders to a great deal facilitate lawbreaking in the correctional facilities through talking bribes and other forms of favors to look the other way when atrocities are committed inside the correctional facilities. The federal government should find avenues to bring a little bit more transparency into the manner of how the officers carry out their duties to ensure they conform to a given standard. This should be done in such a way that allows the officers enough room to carry out their duties and responsibilities with very minimal interference if any from the facility management, but at the end, such activities facilitating their duties and professional obligations should meet the given standards.
References
Lombardo, L. X. (2016). Routledge Revivals: Guards Imprisoned (1989): Correctional Officers at Work . Routledge.
McCafferty, J. T. (2017). Professional discretion and the predictive validity of a juvenile risk assessment instrument: Exploring the overlooked principle of effective correctional classification. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice , 15 (2), 103-118.
Schultz, W. J. (2017). Unlocking Radicalization: Correctional Officers, Risk Perception, and Ideological Extremism in Albertan Prisons (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta).
Wooditch, A., Duhaime, L., & Meyer, K. (2016). Street-level Discretion and Organizational Effectiveness in Probation Services. Fed. Probation , 80 , 39.
