Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice - Coursework Example

Criminal Justice) Ethical Issues in Criminal Justice Introduction Ethics, also acknowledged as moral policy, is regarded as one of the prominent aspects, which prevail in almost every sector. It can be comprehended that ethics is a particular notion, which denotes the understanding about the conduct of right and/or wrong actions in any particular situation. Ethics is regarded as an important tool, which is being used to resolve disputes of moral arguments. The notion cannot be seen as a literary concept; rather, it is primarily related with the behavior of individuals (Spinoza, 2001). It is worth mentioning in this similar concern that the aspect of ethics is quite vital in the domain of criminal justice wherein scenarios arise for the judges or lawyers to deal with varied ethical dilemmas. Notably, police or other legal authorities usually try to serve the best interests of the people for which they often need to take harsh or strict decisions that further raise moral or ethical concerns at large. In this regard, there exist certain code of ethics based on which the entire criminal justice system needs to adhere while executing the job roles along with responsibilities of the legal authorities (Police Link, 2014). Contextually, this particular assignment will mainly deal with analyzing the importance of addressing and mitigating the ethical issues that are involved in the process of executing criminal justice based activities. Discussion Prompt 2 Deception is one of the approaches, which is often used by police during the process of interrogation. The general definition of deception can be presented in the form of believing or convincing others about considering a particular set of information to be true or false depending on varied scenarios. The aspect of deception is deemed to be quite effective and thus widely used in the criminal justice system of the US (US Legal, 2014). Contextually, it will be crucial to depict the benefits and the limitations of this particular approach within the criminal justice system of the US that have been provided hereunder. Advantage of deception during interrogation. In usual scenario, deception is regarded as a negative approach. However, at the same time, its effectiveness in legal domains could not be ignored. The approach involves dishonesty and lies but certainly ensures the compilation of positive information during the process of police integration in most of the scenarios. It is strongly believed that while dealing with criminals or anti-socials, deception could not be seen as a negative approach. In order to obtain proper information and confession from the end of the criminals, deception is deemed to be a highly effective approach. It has been apparently noted that in several criminal cases, for ensuring proper prosecution of the criminals, confession need to be acquired from the same with the use of deception. In this context, the use of deception during interrogation can be seen as quite advantageous. It has also been learnt that simulation research or any other observational study contributes little towards determining confession from guilty people. However, on the other hand, deceptive questioning approach during the interrogation process has higher chances of acquiring appropriate information or confession from the end of the criminals. This can also be seen as an advantage of using deception approach in the context of criminal justice system. Again, during the process of police interrogation, police often intends to build a false interpersonal relationship with the criminals and intends to assure that they confess their crime. This might also be duly considered as an important aspect of deception and thus positive results are often attained with this particular approach in most of the situations. Deception also at-times involve the depiction of sympathy and compassion with the criminals based on which their trust can be gained. This can further generate positive results in the form of confession by the criminals (Slobogin, 2007). Hence, the advantages of using deception during police interrogation are quite apparent. Disadvantages of deception during interrogation. Often, the use of deception can be seen as an unethical approach. It has been argued in this regard that the information, which is usually acquired from the use of deception during police interrogation, is not found to be quite accurate and reliable in most of the occasions. Thus, it can be ascertained that the use of deception during interrogation can be regarded as an art, which hardly involves any sort of technical process. Hence, the accuracy of the information gathered could not be tested on grounds of its accuracy and relevancy with a particular case. This aspect can further be seen as a disadvantage of making the use of deceptive approach during interrogation. Though lying is not considered as an issue by several experts at least from the end of the integrators, it must be considered that the criminals can also become deceptive and provide irrelevant information at certain times. This can be seen as a disadvantageous factor of deception during interrogation procedure. Again, it is often found that during police interrogation, deception approach is used with the intention of attaining confession from the end of the criminals (Temple University, 2011). Specially mentioning, deception, during interrogation, raises questions relevant to the legality and ethicality of the work of the police within the criminal justice system. For example, as a part of deception approach, police uses False-Evidence Ploys to get evidence in relation to any case directly through the confession of the criminals. However, in accordance with the cases of Marty Tankleff and John Kogut, false confession can be seen from the end of the criminals. This further ensured misleading of the entire cases (The Jury Expert, 2014). This can be regarded as a disadvantageous factor of e deception approach prevailing during police investigation. The costs of deception also include deliverance of false evidence by the suspects, over reliance of the case on the evidences and information gained from the suspects that often results in misleading the cases in certain scenarios among others (Khasin, 2009). Confessions gained through deception. It has been noted that deception, during police interrogation, primarily depicts the approach to get confession of criminals with the use of dishonest means or lying. However, it is important to depict the manner in which courts consider such confessions through dishonest and unethical means. It can be apparently observed in this similar concern that most of the approaches or techniques adopt by police during interrogation exert pressure or force criminals to provide accurate and appropriate answers to the questions asked. In this regard, the policies of the Fifth Amendment suggest that criminals or the suspects have the right to remain silent during the process of interrogation until and unless he/she is provided with an attorney. The pressure, which is usually created by police during interrogation, can be regarded as violating the norms of the Fifth Amendment of the US, wherein the criminals are compelled to provide involuntary statements. The use of deception during the interrogation process can also be reviewed under similar legal dimension, as it involves exerting mental pressure to the suspects or criminals to make confession. Contextually, it can be stated that the information or the confession acquired from the criminals or suspects is involuntary and coercive. In this regard, based upon legal and ethical grounds, judges and juries must take into concern the non-voluntary aspect of the information and confession gained. In reverse scenario, the approach of the courts will be considered as unjust as well as unethical and working against the policies of the Fifth Amendment (Wakefield, 1998). However, with regards to the ethical principles or systems, the confession of the criminals gained from the pressures of deceptive interrogation techniques exerted to them can be regarded as voluntary by a certain extent. As per “Deontological” ethical system prevailing within the criminal justice mechanism, any act, which is being conducted for a good cause, could not be regarded as bad (Law Teacher, 2014). Therefore, on this particular ground, it can be strongly believed that confessions obtained through the use of deception must not be seen as voluntary. Using five-step process for analyzing ethical dilemmas for a hypothetical situation. In this particular section, I need to act as a suspect’s attorney with the use of the deceptive approach to ensure the completion of the interrogation effectively and gain vital information relevant to the case provided. Since the suspect is a serial killer, I need to handle the investigation more shrewdly. In the first step, I will intend to identify the facts that can be found from the past and present records of the case. I will certainly take into concern the aspect of ethics that I must need to adhere both legally and ethically. In the next step, I will begin the interrogation procedure based on the values and concepts that needs to be paid with utmost attention. This will certainly ensure that the investigation can be carried out successfully in terms of acquiring suitable information from the culprit. In the subsequent step, ethical dilemmas of both the parties involved will be identified. However, I will make myself clear in this context that the use of deceptive approach is legal in such interrogation process and same will not cause any ethical dilemma in my decision-making procedure (Prenzler, 2009). In the next step, I will identify the immediate moral or ethical consequences of my interrogation approach in relation to the case provided. In this regard, my prominent focus will be to acquire more important and suitable information that can be executed for solving the case effectively. In the final stage of my interrogation process, I will try to mitigate all the factors of ethical dilemma that can impact my decision making while interrogating the case. In this regard, I will take into concern the deontological ethical system with which I can convince myself that all the dishonest approaches, which I have used to analyze and interrogate the suspect, are taken for serving best interests of the case and thus cannot be regarded as unethical at any point (Prenzler, 2009). Prompt 3 It has been mentioned in the earlier discussion that ethics is an important part in the context of criminal justice system and it is directly associated with the approaches of the courts and juries practiced. Notably, lawyers are among the most integral parts of the day to day legal system of any nation or legal system. The work of the lawyers often involves making decisions through making thorough analysis amid right and wrong. The advantages and disadvantages of lawyers considering personal ethics with that of occupational ethics have been detailed hereunder. Advantages of using personal ethics vs. occupational ethics: lawyers. Lawyers are regarded as the legal professionals who are bestowed with the responsibility of ensuring quality of the justice done. Apart from the various legal obligations that lawyers need to adhere, there also exist certain other ethical obligations that are deemed to be considered vital for people under such profession. Ethical dilemmas usually arise in such profession at the time when relevant and suitable decisions are made based on the well-being of the clients and the quality of the legal justice. In this regard, the advantages of selecting personal ethics and determining the wellbeing of the clients will certainly ensure attainment of personal benefits in the form of building better reputation amid the clients and subsequently gaining success in their respective professional career. On the other hand, using occupational ethics in this regard can provide benefit to lawyers in the form of maintaining better quality of justice, better adherence to legal policies and a better citizen with regards to the prevailing legal system (American Bar Association, 2014). Advantages of using personal ethics for lawyers can also be measured in the form of pursuing legitimate interests of the clients within legal boundaries that can further develop his/her personal career within the profession. In this similar regard, considering the factor of occupational ethics will certainly result in the elimination of ethical dilemmas within the lawyers while making significant decisions (American Bar Association, 2014). It has been comprehended that there are numerous situations wherein lawyers need to make decisions based upon their personal ethics rather than adhering to their respective legal ethical systems. In this regard, it can be stated that personal ethics allow lawyers to make more sensible and just decisions based on which they would be able to conduct activities by adhering their occupational ethical boundaries. However, an advantage for following occupational ethics for lawyers in this regard can be determined as that this will make their decisions in alignment with law and hence their positioning within the profession would not be harmed or affected (Heafy, 2014). Disadvantages of using personal ethics vs. occupational ethics: lawyers. There are certain disadvantageous factors of using personal ethics against organizational or occupational ethics and vice versa. Justifiably, with the use of the personal ethical system regarding decision making, lawyers will find themselves to be against the legal ethical policies frame by the respective nations wherein they operates. On the other hand, implementing or considering the aspect of occupational ethics during decision making, the approach of the lawyers might not prove to be satisfactory for their respective clients, which will further hinder their professional growth beyond the legal boundaries. Again, while making decisions relevant to the cases based on the grounds of personal ethical system, the lawyers might not be able to maintain justice with regards to the quality and precision of the legal proceedings. This aspect might act as a disadvantageous factor for considering personal ethics over that of occupational ethics. Furthermore, it can also be apparently noted from the preamble of the US that lawyers must need to frame their respective decisions towards serving the best interests of the legal policies of the nation both in terms of providing direct service to the clients or working for the state or the country. In this context, following personal ethical structure would be regarded as unethical and against the law. On the contrary, by using the professional code of ethics against the personal ethical norms by lawyers in their decision making, they would not be able to ensure positive development in the legal loopholes of the nation. This aspect can also be seen as a disadvantageous factor of using professional ethics at the time of dealing with ethical dilemmas (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). Considering the above analysis, it can be seen that both personal and professional ethical norms possess advantages as well as disadvantages for the lawyers that impose adverse impact in their respective decision-making procedure. It has been learnt in this similar context that legal policies in the domain of ethical system are mainly proposed with the intention of ensuring that lawyers are able to take decisions as per the interests of the people and the law altogether. However, the influence of personal ethics on lawyers will certainly impact their decision making beyond the interests of the law. Hence, in this context, the approach of considering occupational code of ethics would be considered more beneficial and appropriate for the lawyers. This aspect can better determine from the Teleological ethical system. As per this particular ethical system, any act which is done for the right purpose will be considered appropriate, despite of the fact that it is wrong or bad act. Similarly, with due consideration to the occupational ethical approach, though at certain times, the policies of the ethics act against the basic interest of the lawyers or the people, these can be certainly practiced with the intention to ensure overall well being of the people (Truscott & Crook, 2004). Using five-step process for analyzing ethical dilemmas for a hypothetical situation. It is evident that the work process of lawyers usually involves situations that experience extreme ethical dilemmas. To have a better understanding in this context, a hypothetical situation of a lawyer within his/her profession would be vital to consider. For example, as a lawyer I need to consider certain situations, wherein I have to make decision only for one particular case from a set of three or four cases. This aspect further raises the situation of an ethical dilemma. Contextually, I as a lawyer, in this situation, will first need to comprehend the facts and importance of each of the provided cases and likewise move further towards the subsequent stages. Then, I will choose the case of a low-level gang member owing to the aspect that it is important to eradicate such crime right from the early stage, which will ensure proper maintenance of well being of the overall society. In the next stage of analyzing and encountering with my ethical dilemma, I will identify the relevant values and concepts that need to be taken into concern while dealing with the chosen case. In the subsequent stages of the process, I will consider all the moral and ethical dilemmas that might be involved in this particular case and reach to a particular conclusion. This decision must be taken as per the interests of the law and the people of diverse communities altogether. In the next stage of analyzing the ethical dilemma of the chosen case, the consequences of my decision to various stakeholders of society must be considered. In this regard, it must be stated that as a lawyer, I have selected the case of a low-level gang member by considering the fact that it can be resolved form the basic level, resulting in ensuring better well-being for the community members. In the last stage of the process, efforts must be made to mitigate the dilemmas and likewise ensure developing the decision-making procedure for the chosen case (Prenzler, 2009). Conclusion From the above analysis and discussion, it can be comprehended that ethics is one of the most prominent elements in the domain of criminal justice in numerous nations of the world. Ethical codes and practices ensure that the people employed in the domain of law are influenced or forced to work in alignment with the legal structure and ethical policies so that overall welfare of the people within the society could be ensured. The assignment dealt with determining the situations of ethical dilemmas for lawyers and police officers in the process of executing their professional responsibilities. Contextually, efforts have been levied on depicting the importance of mitigating ethical dilemmas through using the five stage process with the use of certain hypothetical examples. Hence, it can be concluded that ethics is indeed a considerable element for ensuring quality of justice. References American Bar Association. (2014). Model rules of professional conduct: preamble & scope. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_preamble_scope.html Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). End-Of-Life notice: American legal ethics library. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM Heafy, R. J. (2014). Law students reflect on the principles they intend to follow in their professional lives. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v8n3/moralattorneys.html Khasin, I. (2009). Honesty is the best policy: A case for the limitation of deceptive police interrogation practices in the United States. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42: 1029-1061. Law Teacher. (2014). Ethics in criminal justice. Retrieved from http://www.lawteacher.net/criminology/essays/ethics-in-criminal-justice.php Prenzler, T. (2009). Ethics and accountability in criminal justice: towards a universal standard. Australia: Australian Academic Press. Police Link. (2014). Criminal justice ethics for everyone. Retrieved from http://policelink.monster.com/education/articles/103583-criminal-justice-ethics-for-everyone Spinoza, B. D. (2001). Ethics. UK: Wordsworth Editions. Slobogin, C. (2007). Lying and confessing. Texas Tech Law Review, 39: 1-18. Truscott, D. & Crook, K. H. (2004). Ethics for the Practice of Psychology in Canada. US: University of Alberta. The Jury Expert. (2014). Police deception during interrogation and its surprising influence on jurors’ perceptions of confession evidence. Retrieved from http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/11/police-deception-during-interrogation-and-its-surprising-influence-on-jurors-perceptions-of-confession-evidence/ Temple University. (2011). The use of deception and other ethical implications in interrogation methods. Retrieved from http://sites.temple.edu/lawreview/2012/11/14/the-use-of-deception-and-other-ethical-implications-in-interrogation-methods/ US Legal. (2014). Deception law and legal Definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/deception/ Wakefield, H. (1998). Coerced or non-voluntary confessions. Retrieved from http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/coerced.htm Read More