Part one: Introduction
For decades now, the convenient stores, mainstream restaurants and other forms of service industries have offered gifts and discounts of various quantities to the public safety professionals especially the police. However, this has over the past years attracted a heated debate whether it is ethical for the police officers to receive gifts. While this has always been a common trend in most restaurants and stores, those who do this argue that it is a way to have the officers inside their stores to increase the security within. The main issue has been on the impacts that these free items could have on the officers’ ability to do their work as required of them by the law. This has raised controversy among policy makers and scholars, with each holding a different view with regard to the issue as to whether receiving free items by the police officers could impact on their ability to fairly and ethically perform their duty. Despite other people arguing that receiving free gifts is only a form of an appreciation for the police officers and does not amount to unethical behavior, collecting free items put the police officers in a complicated situation which could push them to corruption and hinder their ability to ethically offer their services to the public as required of them by the law.
Part 2: Ethical Argument
Police officers put themselves in a complicated situation by receiving gifts as this could impact their ability to deliver the services to the public ethically. The primary issue is that accepting free items subject the police officers to s form of corruption as this could hinder them from equally offering their services to other members of the public. Whenever police receive a free item from another person, the chances are high that police officer could become biased and act in favor of the person thus amounting to unethical behavior which is against the police profession. It is very rare for something to be given for nothing, and as the police receive gratuities, they need to understand the motives of the gratuities because this can put them in a complicated situation and affect the way they carry on with their duties. Some gifts can come like a small favor or like an appreciation but can later come out to be a big issue that can significantly affect the ethical behavior of the police officers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The ethical argument is that police officer should be discouraged from receiving free items from the public because this puts them into the temptation of landing to bigger ethical issues. Receiving gifts on itself might not appear unethical, but the outcome and motive of the gifts can turn out to be against the professionalism of the police officers. Maintaining professionalism within the police sector is essential in promoting the service delivery of the police officers. Any activity that could complicate the ethics of the profession, therefore, needs to be avoided by all means. Despite other scholars arguing that free items are just a form of appreciation for the police officers and have no effect on the ethics of the profession, many police officers have fallen to the trap of such gifts and ended up engaging in unethical and unfair behavior that is contrary to the ethics of the profession. As a result, police officers receiving free items from the public establishment amounts to unethical behavior within the police profession and should not be encouraged.
Part 3: Explanation and Defense
Deontology is an ethical idea which states that we have an obligation to duties. Kant argues that one should not do an action which cannot be universalized into the law of nature (Thames, 2018). He claims that one should act according to the maxim by which it can become a universal law. The theory also focuses on the need to treat humanity and not as a means. The theory is majorly based on the idea of duties. A police officer has duties to others as well as they have duties to themselves. According to Kant, it is not the consequences of the actions that make them right, but the motives of the person who execute these actions. As such, while the police may receive gifts without any ill purpose, the persons giving the gifts usually expect some favor from the police officers who then brings in the ill motive part of the issue. As said by scholars, no one gives for free without expecting anything. The gift givers end up luring the police officers to provide them with biased support which subsequently introduces the issue of unprofessionalism and unethical behaviors.
In the deontological perspective, it would suggest that if all the businesses were to offer police gratuities and gifts, then ramification will become undesirable. In this sense, only those who pay or provide gifts would be entitled to receive services. This will automatically violate the professional code of conduct of the police and the ethical behavior expected of the police officers. Deontology is concerned with the duty and obligations of the police officers who are supposed to act professionally in the course of their duty. While on duty, police officers are not expected to receive gifts and gratuities as this may compromise their ability to act ethically. However, the formalist perspective can suggest that the motive of the person providing the gifts would be paramount and that any person who offers the gifts with good motives can make them morally permissible. However, as Coleman states, gifts tend to have fewer impacts on the ethical behavior of the police officers at the start, but the problem arises when they accumulate leading to a significant breach to the professionalism which can be difficult to control. Coleman does not suggest that receiving gifts is unethical, but the unethical part of it comes when these gifts accumulate over time with every step leading to some unacceptable behavior which can be difficult to control. Something that starts with a free cup of tea ends up with the gift giver seeking biased support and defending of a wrong which entirely erodes the principles of justice that police officers are expected to have.
According to the theory of reciprocity, people will always feel that they owe something to the giver. In this case, the police officers will be expected to provide extra services for which they are not assigned or do a favor because they have received the free items. To maintain future cooperation between the police and gift-giver, the police may be required to provide biased support despite the facts in the issue. In this case, free items can subject the police officers to act unethically by providing some biased support thus amounting to unethical behavior. Professionalism should be paramount to all the police officers, and as a result, they are expected to perform their duties with fairness, just, honest and without being biased.
Gratuities have always been viewed as the initial step on the slope towards getting into corruption. According to Coleman, every step is a slippery slope and that a cumulative of these steps that draw and pushes the police officers to bigger unethical behaviors ( Coleman, 2004 ). The moment a police officer starts a slippery slope, one move leads to another, and as the steps continue, the gift provider begins to ask for biased support which then subjects the officer to unethical behaviors. The cumulative impacts of these gifts lead to a situation that is difficult for the police officer to stop as it gets addictive. At the same time, Coleman identifies an absolute perspective in which gifts are viewed as a form of receiving a bribe. This is so especially if the intent of the gift is unethical and against the ethics of the profession. For example, receiving gifts with the intention of offering a favor or providing biased support to the provider of the gift amounts to corruption and unethical behavior.
According to John Kleinig, corruption entails accepting any goods or services for performing a specific service or failing to perform specific duties which are expected to be the normal part of their duty. Therefore, what makes the receipt of gifts as corruption is the reason it is taken. Corruption usually come in many different forms as what might seem small at the start may end up being a severe breach to the ethics of the profession ( Barker, 2011 ). The moment police officers start to open themselves to receiving gifts and gratuities, they are opening themselves to owing favor. The impact of this may that police officers may end up spending much time in the restaurants and less time in the public places where they are required to provide security to the members of the public. This results to members of the public unfairly being denied the security they need at the expense of the gifts that police have received.
At the same time, the state’s law on the conflict of interest restricts gifts and gratuities that public employees can receive. The law restricts the kind of gifts that public officers can receive, especially barring them from receiving a gift or gratuities to perform a public duty for which is part of their responsibility. This law prohibits the police from receiving any kind of gifts to perform an official obligation. This is said to amount to the conflict of interest between the duty to serve and receive gifts and favors to act in support of the providers of the gifts.
While other professionals receive gifts and this has never brought a heated debate lie in the case of police officers, the nature of the police work complicates the matter. This is because the law enforcement officers’ deals with issues of justice, and by receiving gifts, the gift givers would expect a different treatment so that the police can help them cover any injustice done by them. Similarly, because police tackle criminal issues in the society, receiving gifts might put them in a hard situation when the gift giver has committed a crime. Such complicated situations put police officers on the sloppy end towards falling into the trap of corruption and breach of the ethical conduct of the police profession.
Part 4: Objection and Response
According to the deontological theory, police officers have a duty to the public of which they are expected to perform fairly and diligently. There is a view that receiving gifts is not unethical as long as it is not accepted with the purpose of offering a service which is part of the obligation and duty of the police. However, this argument may not be strong enough because as long as police start receiving gifts whether for good motives, they are attracted to fall into the trap of unethical behavior as the gift-givers will after sometime seek favor from the officers resulting to unprofessionalism.
According to Kania’s, perspective, police receiving gifts fall under the ethics of care approach. He argues that gifts and gratuities are ethical as long as there is already a positive relationship between the police and the gift giver ( Klockars, Ivković & Haberfeld , 2007). This he claims, would create a positive social relationship and that no any unethical issues would arise as the ethics of the virtue would only be concerned with the virtues of the officer receiving the gift and not the provider of the gift. Other scholars have also argued that police work so hard to protect the members of the public and offering gifts and gratuities is just an acceptable way to say thank you and thus do not amount to any unethical behavior. However, the view that gifts cannot amount to unethical conduct as long as there is a positive relationship may not have valid evidence because studies have shown that gift provider will always seek to get favor and biased support in return to the gifts they offer. At the same time, it is true that the police work hard to protect the members of the public, but offering them gifts as a form of thank you may only land them into unethical traps. Alternatively, police receive payments from the public money, which on itself is a thank you for the work they do, and therefore gifts are not a necessity in this situation.
Part 5: Conclusion
Despite the contrary arguments that receiving gifts by the police officers does not amount to unethical behavior, there is more harm than good in receiving gifts. As long as the police get into this trap, they are more likely to end up in a severe breach of professionalism. Certainly, no one provides, and as such, gift givers tend to seek biased support from the officers resulting in unethical behaviors.
References
Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu
Coleman, S. (2004). When police should say “no!” to gratuities. Criminal Justice Ethics , 23 (1), 33-44.
Klockars, C. B., Ivković, S. K., & Haberfeld, M. R. (2007). Measuring police integrity. Enhancing Police Integrity , 13-38.
Barker, T. (2011). Police ethics: Crisis in law enforcement . Charles C Thomas Publisher.
