Analysis of Cases Concerning Ethical and Moral Questions - Case Study Example

Case Studies al Affiliation Case Studies Robert, the chair of the parole board understands that the prisons are critically overcrowded to the extent that advocates are threatening to sue the corrections system because it is clear that the conditions in the prisons are not safe for inmates, in terms of the various dangers it poses to the health and security of the inmates. Overcrowding can lead to health problems, such as breakout of communicable diseases. It can also lead to dangerous zones for inmate where issues such as sodomy and harassment can go on unnoticed. It would also be difficult for the correction systems to rehabilitate the prisoners, yet this is the most important aspect of the corrections system. For Robert, the options that he has present ethical and moral questions. First, Robert could decide to broaden then parole eligibility criteria to allow more inmates to be released to community-based supervision. This option has a moral question to it. Will Robert be acting ethically or morally by releasing more prisoners to community-based supervision when he understands that any further relaxation of standards may result in the release of inmates more likely to re-offend than he considers safe? The second option that Robert has is to let the advocates sue the corrections system in a court of law. This option means that the federal courts might rule in favor or against the advocates. If ruled against, Robert will have enough time to think of other measures because he will not have the pressure to release the inmates. On the other hand, if the case is ruled in favor of the advocates, which is more likely to happen, it will result to the release of the inmates back to society. This presents another ethical/ moral question. Is it ethical for Robert to do nothing and wait for the ruling of the case if the advocates decide to sue? Knowing that the case might lead to an undesirable outcome for Robert, is it ethical for him to take no immediate action to avert the possible undesirable outcome? (Phillips & McConnell, 2012). In light of the above options and their ethical and or moral questions, it is essential to look at Robert’s motivation and the consequences of the options. For the first option that involves broadening the parole eligibility, Robert wants to ensure that the inmates do not re-offend. However, he might be forced to release them to decongest the correction facilities and prevent the dangers that overcrowding might cause. This will also help him counter the harsh consequences that could come from the suit. For the second option, the motivation of Roberts will be to leave the decision to the courts hoping that the courts will make a better judgment that will not involve releasing the inmates back to society to prevent them from re-offending and to protect citizens. His motivation would be to ensure that the corrections system does not bow to the pressure from outside (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2014). Nevertheless, the decision that Robert should make is to broaden the eligibility criteria to allow more inmates to be released to community-based supervision. This is option has an ethical basis in the sense that it is the best decision that Robert has and presents a chance for Robert to ensure that the inmates are re-integrated to the community without major issues of re-offending. Despite the fact that current risk assessment results show that there are high chances of inmates re-offending if they are released to community-based supervision, Robert can ensure that this does not happen if he takes the required steps before releasing the prisoners back to society. This can be done by streamlining the community-based supervision in line with the assessment results to address the reasons that make the inmates re-offend. This will ensure that he reduces overcrowding in correctional facilities and ensure that by doing so, he does not create problems to society (Hanser, 2010). William, the warden of a century-old correctional facility has a staffing problem that was caused by a severe cutting of the operating budget for the fiscal year that has just begun. Despite the fact that he had put up a fight to prevent the cut, he was not successful. In addition to the current problem, the numbers of inmates keep increasing in the facility and it has come to a situation where the officers responsible for the facility are not enough to manage the number of inmates that keeps increasing. The problem with this is that it presents a dangerous scenario for the security of the officers as well as the inmates and makes the correctional facility highly ineffective and inefficient in handling the prisoners. William has two options to deal with this issue. First, he can leave the situation as it is and operate with the available budget and officers or secondly, he can use the offsite work release program to handle the additional inmates (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2014). The two options have moral and or ethical questions. First, William can choose to operate with the available budget and the officers. The problem with this is that it presents a dangerous situation for the officers who are already overburdened and overpowered by the inmates and the prisoners, whose health is and security is at risk because of the overcrowding. The available options are to ensure that the security officers and the inmates are safe. Therefore, the ethical question here is does this option present a secure or option for the security guards or the prisoners? (Hanser, 2010). With respect to the second option, William could decide to use the off-site work release program that can handle more inmates. However, this program does not have a risks assessment or screening process that can inform William of the safety of them. Therefore, the ethical question that comes up in this option regards the fact of whether William will be acting ethically by sending inmates to the program when there are no safety reports for it. The consequences of taking the first option will be the fact that William will be exposing both the security officers and the prisoners to safety and health problems. When the numbers of the inmates outweighs the number of security officers, it is clear that the correctional facility will be unsafe for anyone to occupy. The consequence of the second option is that by sending inmates to the program, William will have solved the problem of overcrowding in the correctional facility but will pose a threat to the security of the prisoners and the security officers. Therefore, this presents an option that can be considered (Hanser, 2010). The best option for William to take would be to designate the inmates to community-based work release. The ethical basis of this decision is the fact that it is the better decision to take. By comparing the two options, this option provides certain advantages that the first option does not provide. For instance, it will ensure that William decongests the correctional facility and averts the current security concerns. Despite the fact that there is no risk assessment or screening process in place, it provides an opportunity that can be considered. Leaving the situation as it is will definitely lead to dire consequences. Therefore, the advantages of this option are that it ensures that William can decongest the prison and prevent insecurity from occurring at least for the time being (Souryal, 2010). Martha, the current district attorney has a decision to make with respect to how the current cases on gun-toting drug dealers. The city’s police launched an aggressive arrest campaign that resulted in an increase in criminal cases. However, a review on sample cases showed that the arrests that were made did not have supportive probable cause and had weak evidentiary support. Martha knows that most of the arrestees are heavily involved in the city’s drug culture, even if the current case is weak. Nevertheless, Martha has a role to play in this and this case presents several options for her to take (Phillips & McConnell, 2012). The first option that Martha has to do is not to prosecute the arrestees and demand for their release because their case is weak because they do not have evidentiary support. Moreover, the arrests were made without supportive probable cause. This means that even if she continues with the prosecution, it is likely that the cases will fail. The consequence of this option is that if Martha decides to take it, it will be seen as if she does not want to support the mayor in fighting against drug use and abuse in the city. In light of this, it may make the police be reluctant to do their work (Pollock, 2011). Another option that Martha can take is to support the action by giving a directive to her prosecutors to offer a plea bargain to the arrestees. This option would ensure that she supports the mayor and the city police in the fight against drug trade and use in the city. This option gives Martha an opportunity to release the arrestees but also to get something valuable from them that can lead to a successful arrest and prosecution of the people who should be held responsible for gun-toting drug dealing (Souryal, 2010). The two options present ethical questions. The first option presents an ethical question with respect to the fact that if she decides to let them go, will she be doing the right thing based on the fact that the arrestees were arrested with little supportive probable cause or evidentiary support. The option is a valid one but has an ethical issue. The first option presents an ethical question in the sense that one would ask whether it is ethical for Martha to hold the arrestees knowing that they were arrested with no supportive probable cause or evidentiary support. Generally, the law provides that police officers should not arrest any person without probable cause or evidentiary support. As the district attorney, Martha is supposed to consider this aspect. Therefore, this is where the ethical question arises (Reviews, 2013). The consequence of taking the first action is the fact that Martha will have done the right thing according to the provisions of the law. However, it will paint a bad picture on Martha especially because her campaign was based on forming a strong justice and corrections system. It may make her appear as if she does not support the mayor and the police in the fight against drug dealing. However, it may also show that she is strict with respect to the application of the law. The consequence of taking the second option is that it will give Martha and her team a good chance of finding the people who are responsible for drug dealing because by offering a plea bargain, some arrestees might give important information. Secondly, another consequence of this option is that it may paint a bad picture on the district attorney when the public knows that people were arrested without probable cause or evidentiary support to get information from them. Martha should take the first option because it is ethical. It is wrong to hold a person when there is no evidence or probable cause of arrest. Therefore, because Martha knows that the police arrested the people without probable cause or evidentiary support, she should release them because the arrests were done illegally. Despite the fact that it may seem she does not support the mayor and the police she should stand firm that the law must be observed even when there is an urgent need to bring to an end the gun-toting drug dealing in the city. At about 3.30 am, Linda who is a police officer confronts a man that acts in a manner consistent with the mannerisms of a drug-deal lookout. Upon checking his pockets, Linda found out that the man had vials of crack, $400 and had no identification. Linda does not know what to do because her Sergeant at roll call chastised officers for bringing in petty drug cases that takes time from patrol and clogs the system. If she takes him in, it might be considered a petty drug deal case and a waste of time for the precinct. However, she wants to take him in for identification purposes. The problem is the department has overloaded dockets and there is no more room in the local jail. Linda has two options from this case. First, she can tell the dispatcher that she is not available because she is dealing with another case. If she takes this option, it would mean that she would have to take the man in for identification despite the backlash that she might get. The second option is for Linda to leave the man alone and tell the dispatcher that she is available for back up. This means that she may have to leave without identifying the man. Both these options have ethical questions. For the first option, the ethical question is, would Linda be acting ethically by taking the man in for identification, yet she knows the state of the department’s docket and jail and also the complains against the arrest of petty offenders? For the second option, the ethical question regards whether Linda would be acting ethically by not arresting the man, yet she knows very well that the man is an offender and should be arrested. The consequence of taking the first option is that despite the fact that Linda will be doing the right thing, she will be contributing to the overcrowding situation that is already a problem for the department in the city. Secondly, she might be criticized by her sergeant because of wasting the department’s time that should have been used for other important tasks because this issue had already been discussed. The consequence of taking the second option is that it will help in terms of reducing congestion in the department’s dockets and jail and save on the time that the officers should be using for patrol. Secondly, it could encourage petty offenders to continue offending because they know that they will not be punished because of such offences. This might prove problematic especially to the fact that the department wants to focus on major drug dealers. Therefore, Linda has to consider these consequences before she makes a decision. Martha should take the second option that involves letting the man go. The ethical basis of this is that Linda should not try to solve a problem by creating another problem. Despite the fact that her mandate as a police officer involves arresting those who break the law, she should also consider whether the arrest contributes to the ultimate goal in the city. It is clear that the offences that the man has done are petty. Arresting him because of the petty offences would not go down well at the department that is under pressure to reduce overcrowding in the dockets and jail. At the moment, the police dispatcher has called her for back up for a burglary in progress call and this seems an important call that she should attend to more than the issue at hand. Therefore, she should let the man go and respond to the call. This will help in police work and not contribute to the problems that the city is currently experience (Souryal, 2010). In conclusion, all the above cases have ethical issues that must be considered before a decision is made. Therefore, the decision-makers should consider the ethical aspects in their cases and also look at the consequences of their actions or decisions before they make them. This will ensure that they make the right decision that is both ethical and required at that moment. References Braswell, M., McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (2014). Justice, crime, and ethics. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Pub. Co. Hanser, R. D. (2010). Community corrections. Los Angeles: Sage. Phillips, R. L., & McConnell, C. R. (2012). The effective corrections manager: Correctional supervision for the future. Boston, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Pollock, J. M. (2011). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Reviews, C. T. (2013). Study guide for ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice by. S.l.: Cram101 Incorporated. Souryal, S. S. (2010). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Pub. Co. Read More