Frequently, law enforcement professionals are faced with ethical dilemmas. They are forced to make the critical decisions in accordance to their importance: the end result or the processes used to solve problems. The decisions made by the law enforcement officers reform, shape, and restrain the society whether they are lawless or lawful. Hence, every officer has an effect on various individuals in the country. When the ethical challenge presents itself, the processes used by the law enforcement officer reflect their character, their profession, and the law enforcement career. Due to the weight of their responsibilities, there are two fundamental ethical systems that can be used to approach various predicaments (Harsanyi, 2008). The two ethical systems are the utilitarianism and the deontological systems. The paper will seek to explain the two ideologies regarding human behavior and the ethical, or unethical decisions associated with them.
Over the past three decades, professional ethics in law enforcement has become an issue of concern. It has also become highly complex because every situation may require a different approach. A wrong approach by a law enforcement officer may be career ending. The choices regarding when to used force, the quantity of force, and under which situations are faced by various law enforcement officers on a daily basis. For instance, if a law enforcement officer encounters some juveniles throwing snowballs at cars that are in a park (Hammond, 2016). What is the best approach to use? The police officer may decide o pullover, confront the children and explain the adverse nature of their behavior. On the other hand, the children may become apologetic and promise never to repeat the issue again. The various ideologies often involve moral decisions because the choices are made on behalf of the society by a single person.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Deontological Ethics
One of the most sophisticated ethical ideologies is the Kantian logic or the deontological theory. The term “deontology” originates from a Greek word deon that means duty or obligation. Hence, the ideology is based on the duties or obligations of the law enforcement officer. The ideology can also be known as absolutism or formalism. It was founded by Immanuel Kant. He insisted that the consequence of an action is not critical. He believed that the moral intent of the choice that has been made by an individual such as an officer is more important than the consequences of the action. In most scenarios, he analyzed the moral intent of an individual rather than the consequences of his actions (Pollock & Becker, 2015). Kant also stated that the society has responsibilities that are very important and that they should never be ignored despite the expected outcome. He believed that the responsibilities are absolute and should equally affect every person.
In the introduction part, there was an issue with the juveniles who were throwing snowballs at cars. Due to the officer’s discretion, he allows them to go free with a warning. However, a few minutes after the officer has left, the same group of children continued throwing the snowballs at cars that were passing. One of the drivers gets startled, veers off the road and ends up running into some children who were playing with their snowman. Was it ethical to have let the juveniles with warning initially or should the officer have taken further action? Was the officer wrong? According to the deontological ideology, the officer would have been correct to let the juveniles go with a warning. His actions would have been justified because his intentions were just despite the fact that the results were negative (Pollock & Becker, 2015).
The deontological ideology is quite imperative to law enforcement officers who have been bound by legislation as they perform their duties. The responsibility, duty or obligation is an action that the individual is expected to implement despite their personal inclinations. The responsibility may have a professional or personal negative result on the individual, but since it is an obligation, the action is imperative or absolute. Kant later classified the obligations into two: categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative refers to the obligation that is required to attain a certain objective (Harsanyi, 2008). It is a responsibility that should be done to a certain end. For instance, a student should study effectively so that they can attain good grades. On the other hand, law enforcement officers such as patrol officers, they may be required to release many search warrants so that they can be considered for a promotion or for a detective job.
A categorical imperative refers to duty or obligation that is unconditional. Despite the consequences of the choice made by the law enforcement officer, the obligation remains constant and must be implemented. Therefore, the action is not synonymous with the end result. The obligation must be done regardless of the consequences. For instance, in law enforcement policies there exists the domestic assault policy where the police officer is required to charge the spouse with assault if there is evidence. It is an obligation that the officer should implement despite the outcome of the results. The spouse may have been a friend to the police officer (Crisp, 2015). The consequences of the results may result in breaking their friendship. It would be unethical for the officer not to charge the spouse when evidence exists because of their past friendship. It would be ethical according to the deontological ideology to charge the spouse when there is evidence of assault.
Moreover, Kant insists that a person should not use other individuals to attain their intended end results and that every individual should be respected regardless of the consequences. For instance, when a police officer makes a promise to a person with no intention of fulfilling the promise. A police investigator may make a promise to a witness that they will not be required to give a testimony if they give a statement. Such an action would not be respecting the person because they would be using the witness to achieve the desired end. A law enforcement officer should not make such a promise because it is not their responsibility to decide the witnesses who will testify (Harsanyi, 2008). Giving a promise to the witness would be unethical because the investigator would be using the witness to achieve the desired end. The actions of the investigator are more critical than the consequences of the results, and according to Kant, the witness should not be used to achieve an effective end.
According to Kant, an individual should never be used as a mean to achieving a certain result and should be treated respectfully. All the moral decisions that are made by the law enforcement officer should not take advantage of the individual. For instance, lying to an individual to obtain some information despite the fact that the information may be crucial in assisting other people. In the law enforcement context, an investigator may obtain information from an informant under the guise that their charges will be dropped despite the fact that the investigator knows that the charges will not be dropped (Gaus, 2011). Furthermore, Kant does not approve of coercion because it does not show respect. Due to the powers that are possessed by law enforcement officers, coercion may offer information that has a positive consequence. However, according to Kant, coercion does not respect humanity.
The deontological ideology insists that every person should consider the consequences of their actions in a universal manner. If a police officer considers not giving a ticket to an offender, they should consider if all offenders in the world are not warned. Hence, the officer should consider the ramifications of their decisions. For instance, a lead investigator may decide to give wrong information to the media so that some of the suspects are tricked into a mistake and reveal themselves (Gaus, 2011). If the investigator considers the universal implication of their actions, it allows him to understand the ramifications of their decisions if all media houses were misled despite the fact that the lie was intended to achieve a positive end. The actions of the investigator would be unethical despite the fact they have a moral consequence.
Law enforcement officers are required to fulfill their obligations despite the personal implications. If the officer is faced with a responsibility that they are unwilling to perform, they should recall that they had made a choice to carry out their required responsibilities when they took their oath. The duties must be carried out. For instance, a patrol officer may be unwilling to charge a relative or close friend criminally, but they should consider the oath they took when joining the profession. It would be unethical to disregard the law. In such a situation, the patrol officer must follow the law and the responsibility must be done in good faith (Gaus, 2011). Most experienced law enforcement officer believe that they are not paid for the services they offer but the decisions that they have to take in their profession. Hence, the officer may be unwilling to perform the task but they have been paid to perform the duty and they ought to adhere to the oath.
Utilitarian Ethics
Utilitarian ethics refers to a normative ethical ideology that is mainly associated with the results of the ethical decisions. It is also known as the consequentialist or teleological theory. The theory emphasizes the idea that the consequence of the decision that has been made by the law enforcement officer is an essential determinant of the action being immoral or moral. The reasoning behind this ideology considers that the ethical choice that has been made depends on the end results. Therefore, an individual will make the correct decision if the consequences of their actions are good (Velasquez & Rostankowski, 2005). Also, if the actions of an individual were incorrect but led to good results, the actions are regarded as a good ethical art. The ideology focuses on consequential moral reasoning where morality is the main factor in determining the consequences of an action. Due to the nature of the ideology, the ethical decision whether moral or immoral is subject to the end result.
The principles of utilitarianism focus on increasing pleasure while reducing pain. Every individual would prefer pleasure over pain. Pain is often associated with sadness. It focuses on the results of the action. For instance, the driver of a trolley car train and is speeding. As they travel, the driver realizes that the brakes have encountered some damage and did not work. The driver sees ten workers who are quite busy and cannot see the train approaching. The driver has the option to switch to another track that has one worker who is also quite busy and cannot see the train approaching. When the driver switches the track, he will save ten workers but will lose one. According to utilitarianism, the driver should consider the end result. In this case, the end result should consider the situation where most lives will be saved.
Law enforcement officers should have discretion that is respected by all offices despite their experience. Due to the discretion required in the profession, the officers often face complex issues on a daily basis. Some of the issues may not have been covered in their training or in their agency’s policies. The law enforcement officers are often required to make choices without consulting their policies and procedures or senior officers. For instance, the officers are faced with choices where they have to rely on utilitarianism to make ethical choices that can be scrutinized and defended in the future. For instance, when marijuana was illegal in the US. A police officer may have been tasked with controlling a big pro-marijuana protest. During the protest, the officer realizes that an individual is selling marijuana within the protest group. According to the law, the person could be charged.
According to the utilitarianism approach, the officer can decide not to arrest and charge the individual who was selling drugs. The officer may opt not to arrest the individual because not arresting him would make the protesters more happy in comparison to the people who will be unhappy. It is evident that most people are relaxed about taking marijuana and the legalization of marijuana would make more people happier. However, if the individual was selling cocaine, arresting and charging him would have been the right call. Also, arresting the trafficker would mean that the officer would have to face a violent confrontation with the protesters (Hammond, 2016). The arrest would make a majority of the protesters unhappy. Despite the fact that arresting the trafficker is the officer’s duty, the results of the arrest would be negative. Hence, in such a situation where the officer uses the utilitarian approach, an arrest would not be the right choice.
However, utilitarianism cannot solve all the problems faced by law enforcement officers. In some situations, using the utilitarian approach may have negative consequences for an individual or a group of people (Velasquez & Rostankowski, 2005). One of the problems associated with utilitarianism is the fact that happiness is challenging. The feeling is subject to an individual and is open to different interpretations. For instance, would a person be happier after receiving a clean bill of health from a doctor or winning a million dollars? Also, if a person won a million dollars, would they be happier than a person whose profits have increased to more than a million? Furthermore, a person who has received a clean bill of health may forget the news after a few days. Hence, measuring the level of happiness may be quite challenging.
Also, utilitarian ethics focuses on the results of the action rather than the action itself. However, it may be challenging to realize the consequences of the choices due to the factors that the individual cannot influence. For instance, an officer may insist that writing tickets may create a safer environment for every person, but it is difficult to determine whether the action will attain the desired effect. Some unintended results may occur. For instance, a fatal accident may occur because the officer has disrupted the traffic. In such a situation, the officer could not have predicted such an outcome. Since the outcome is negative, the actions of the officer will be considered negative according to the utilitarian approach (Crisp, 2015). However, some consequentialist would consider that the accident could not have been predicted and the action would have been considered moral. Also, according to the deontological approach, the action would have been ethical because it was the officer’s duty.
Another weakness of the utilitarian approach is that the required ethical consequences of the actions of the law enforcement officers do not occur immediately. When the consequences of the action are not immediate, how long will the analysts wait to conclude that the action was ethical? How long would it take to decide whether the actions were negative or positive? For instance, a warden who works in a certain correctional institute may decide to cancel an inmate program because he believes that they may be making weapons. The warden may have made the decision in good faith because the staff could have been unable to ensure that weapons are not made. His decision would have been made ethically to ensure the safety of the staff and inmates. Nevertheless, the inmates may insist that the decision was harsh because only a few inmates were making the weapons. In such a situation, how long would it take to judge the consequences of the decision?
Over and above, happiness should not be the main objective of the ideology. The approach should also consider human right when making ethical decisions. For instance, an investigator who was investigating a group of sexual assault occurring in a certain area collects evidence that may not be admissible in court but proves that the suspect is guilty. The investigator may also realize that the suspect may continue committing the crime. Therefore, the detective, therefore, plants false evidence that can implicate the suspect (Velasquez & Rostankowski, 2005). Despite the fact that the action may have positive consequences, such as making people happy, the actions are incorrect and should not be accepted. Despite the fact that the utilitarian approach focuses on the results, it should not ignore justice. Also, the utilitarian approach focuses on consequences that will make the majority happy at the expense of the minority. The suspect may be guilty but have the right to receive justice.
Summary
The paper has explained the deontological and utilitarian ideologies regarding human behavior and the unethical or ethical decisions associated with them. The deontological ideology insists that the moral intent of the choice that has been made by an individual such as an officer is more important than the consequences of the action. The deontological ideology is quite imperative to law enforcement officers who have been bound by legislation as they perform their duties. The responsibility, duty or obligation is an action that the individual is expected to implement despite their personal inclinations. Law enforcement officers are required to fulfill their obligations despite the personal implications (Pollock-Byrne & Pollock, 2009). If the officer is faced with a responsibility that they are unwilling to perform, they should recall that they had made a choice to carry out their required responsibilities when they took their oath.
Utilitarian ethics refers to a normative ethical ideology that is mainly associated with the results of the ethical decisions. However, utilitarianism cannot solve all the problems faced by law enforcement officers. In some situations, using the utilitarian approach may have negative consequences for an individual or a group of people. It focuses on the results of the action rather than the action itself. Another weakness of the utilitarian approach is that the required ethical consequences of the actions of the law enforcement officers do not occur immediately. Over and above, happiness should not be the main objective of the ideology. The approach should also consider human right when making ethical decisions. Despite the fact that the action may have positive consequences, such as making people happy, the actions are incorrect and should not be accepted (Pollock-Byrne & Pollock, 2009). Despite the fact that the utilitarian approach focuses on the results, it should not ignore justice.
References
Harsanyi, J. C. (2008). Bayesian decision theory and utilitarian ethics. The American Economic Review , 68 (2), 223-228.
Velasquez, M. G., & Rostankowski, C. (2005). Ethics, theory, and practice . Prentice Hall.
Hammond, P. J. (2016). Consequentialist decision theory and utilitarian ethics. Ethics, Rationality, and Economic Behaviour , 92-118.
Crisp, R. (2015). Deontological ethics. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New York , 187-188.
Gaus, G. F. (2011). What is deontology? Part two: Reasons to act. The Journal of Value Inquiry , 35 (2), 179-193.
Pollock, J. M., & Becker, R. F. (2015). Law enforcement ethics: Using officers' dilemmas as a teaching tool. Journal of Criminal Justice Education , 6 (1), 1-20.
Pollock-Byrne, J. M., & Pollock, J. M. (2009). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions (p. 140). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
