Ethical Decisions and Dilemmas - Case Study Example

? Ethical Decisions (Add (Add (Add According to Pollock p.16), the different stages in clarifying a dilemma identify the facts, relevant values and concepts, all possible moral dilemmas, decide the most immediate ethical issues and resolve the ethical dilemma using an ethical system. I Admittedly, Robert has a dilemma as the chair of the parole board. Either he has to relax the parole eligibility criteria to let more inmates to be released to community-based supervision or should keep the criteria intact and let the Federal government find a solution to the overcrowding. Evidently, Robert is convinced that a further relaxation in the parole eligibility criteria will jeopardize public safety as felonry are highly likely to commit offences again. Being the person responsible to decide whether the eligibility criteria should be relaxed, he can be held ethically responsible for jeopardizing public safety if he decides to relax the parole eligibility criteria. Firstly, one can see that the main stakeholders in this issue are the general public. If the prisoners are let lose ignoring the risk assessment report, it will negatively affect the safety of common citizens. However, if the prisoners come out through the law suits, it will negatively affect the society as well. The next category consists of prison inmates. Admittedly, not allowing release based on community work will have a negative impact on the felonry’s rights to live in a facility that is not overcrowded. However, the fact is that according to the risk assessment reports it is not safe to release any more of the felons. Though the government expects some relaxation in the eligibility criteria from Robert’s side, he is convinced that it will jeopardize public safety. The third category to be considered is the government and the legal justice system. It should be stated that Robert has the responsibility to see that the system works well. So he has the responsibility to work in accordance with expectations of his superiors. However, the problem is that he has to deviate from his ethical standards and the prescribed rules and regulations in order to meet the demands of those who commit a crime and get imprisoned. At this juncture the best way to deal with the problem is to look into the tenets of ethical formalism. As Crank (2003, pp. 329-331) points out, the first point of ethical formalism is that one should act in such a way that the behavior could be considered as universal. Now it becomes evident that it is not possible for Robert to further relax the parole criteria as he is convinced that further relaxation will result in the release of potentially dangerous criminals. So a further relaxation is not the right way because releasing dangerous criminals in order to empty correctional facilities is not a universally acceptable principle. The second principle is that one should not treat others as a means to an end. In this particular case it becomes evident that Robert and his parole board are being utilized by the government as a means to an end, thus, the act is unethical; the government tries to reduce overcrowding in prisons by forcing Robert to take unethical steps. If Robert decides to relax parole criteria trying to empty prisons, he will use the general public as a means to meet his own end. It is obviously so because in the case of further relaxation of the parole criteria the safety of public is compromised. The third principle is that one is free to choose how to behave and his autonomous behavior is to be independently judged on basis of Ethics and Moral Codes. In this case one can see that Robert will not decide to relax parole criteria if he takes a decision independently as he is sure that such a step will negatively affect public safety. So an autonomous action in this case would result in a decision not to relax the criteria. Admittedly, the responsibility of the parole board is to make judgments about the suitability of prisoners for their coming back to society. If this is the duty and if Robert is convinced that further relaxation of the parole criteria would not be safe, he does not have to resort to relaxing parole criteria. If the same issue is analyzed in the light of utilitarianism, one again reaches the same solution of suggesting a new prison. According to utilitarianism, one is supposed to adopt the option that offers the maximum satisfaction to the maximum number of people. In this particular case, the stakeholders are the government, the prisoners, the parole board and the general public. If prisoners are released, the only group that gets satisfaction is the prisoners. The release of prisoners who are not eligible will jeopardize public safety and the justice system. This will dissatisfy the public. Secondly, releasing prisoners for emptying correctional facilities will adversely affect the quality of criminal justice system. Thirdly, the parole board will not be satisfied with the decision to relax parole eligibility. Now, if the decision is not to relax parole eligibility, all these people will again be aggrieved. Firstly, the criminal justice will suffer because potentially harmful criminals will come out from jails through law suits, and the general public too will suffer because of the presence of harmful criminals. Thus, it becomes evident that the only option out is to suggest the opening of a new prison. This will solve the problem in the most effective way because all the stakeholders except the prisoners will be satisfied. Thus, Robert can tell the governor that the best solution would be to fund a new prison. In order to prevent federal law suits from being successful it is possible to raise the results of the ‘risk assessment’. Thus, the best action at this juncture will be not to relax the parole criteria and raise the ‘risk assessment’, which, in turn, is likely to result in debarring federal law suits by courts. Then an opening of a new prison might be suggested so that overcrowding can be reduced. II In this case William is the warden of an old correctional facility. His facility is understaffed, overcrowded and it does not have sufficient funds to manage the system. As there is deficiency of funds, it is not possible to recruit new staff to manage the overpopulated facility. In addition, there is no ‘risk assessment’ or ‘community-based work release’. As the situation threatens the security of the existing officers, the officers’ union has approached William to ask what he would do to ensure the safety of the officers. Admittedly, there is a dilemma involved. Not protecting the officers means they all will take leave off leading to the total collapse of the correctional facility. However, protecting the interests of the officers means reducing the inmate population through parole or community-based work release, thus, it means a reducing of public safety. In fact, William has the duty to protect the interests of society, security officers and jail inmates, but is provided with a very limited funding to manage the facility. One way of responding to the union representatives is to tell them that William is not able to help the security officers as he is provided with insufficient funds and cannot resort to releasing the inmates on community-based work. The second option is to tell the officers that he will take steps to protect their safety by reducing the prison inmate population and releasing some of the prisoners through community-based work, though it might risk a public safety. The very first category of stakeholders in this case is the security officers at the facility. Admittedly, William has the responsibility to respect the dignity of his fellow officers. Evidently, not informing them about the real situation and not giving them a chance to look for their own safety would be the same as disclaiming all responsibility for them. If the inmate population is not reduced, the officers will have their safety threatened, which may force them to quit their jobs. The second category is the jail inmates. William has the responsibility to see that his duty towards the inmates is fulfilled. Admittedly, he has the duty to see that the inmates are kept free from overcrowding, and for that purpose it is highly necessary to reduce inmate population. Thirdly, he has the duty to see that the society is protected from harm by keeping the convicted people away. As there is no proper risk assessment program in place, William will have to depend on guess work to decide whether inmates are eligible to be released on community-based work. This will threaten the public safety as there is a chance of his guess going wrong. However, if he is not releasing some inmates, the remaining security officers will leave, and this will further weaken the correctional facility. As a result, potentially dangerous criminals may break out causing even greater harm to the society. Now, at this juncture, the best possible way would be to adopt the concept of utilitarianism. According to the tenets of utilitarianism, when there are dilemmas, such options should be selected that can ensure the maximum degree of satisfaction to the maximum number of people (as cited in Banks, 2004, pp. 223-224). In William’s case, if the first step is chosen, namely, letting the officers know that no steps would be taken due to insufficient funds, there will be grave consequences. First of all, the security officers will quit their jobs or will take leave off because of the threat to their own safety. Secondly, without adequate number of officers the inmates themselves are likely to be in trouble. Thirdly, without adequate number of security officers the correctional facility safety system becomes weak and there is the possibility of potentially dangerous inmates escaping their cells and breaking free, thus, causing serious threat to society. So simply informing the officers that no steps can be taken due to lack of funds is harmful to all the people involved. The second option is to take steps to release the inmates to community-based work. Admittedly, as there is no ‘risk assessment’ in place, this step has to rely on mere guess work regarding the suitability of various prisoners who are to be released. However, it is much better than the former option. Though, the inmates who are to be released based on guess work are likely to be of little harm to the society. On the other hand, if there is lack of security personnel at the correction facility, the inmates who manage to flee are likely to be the most dangerous ones. Thus, the benefits of taking a decision to release inmates for community-based work on the ground of security guess work are plenty. First of all, it satisfies the existing security officers as they feel that William can protect their security and dignity. That means they will not take unnecessary leaves because of the perceived threat for their lives; firstly, due to the reduced inmate population and, secondly, due to their increased commitment to work. The second benefit of this step let inmates get some relief from overcrowding. Admittedly, this gives William a chance to protect the rights of the inmate population as well. The third benefit is that at this point this is the best action for the security of the society. This step ensures effective functioning of the correctional facility as there is adequate space and personnel to keep the most dangerous ones away from the society. Thus, it is better to release inmates for community-based work even on the basis of mere guess work without a ‘risk assessment system’ than to let overcrowding at the facility go on. Thus, it becomes evident that in William’s case suitable application of the tenets of utilitarianism will help reach a solution of the dilemma. III The benefit in Martha’s case is that there is no conflict of interests involved. First of all, she has promised in her campaign that she would fight against the gun-toting drug dealers in the city. So, though many cases are evidently weak because of lack of evidentiary support, it is beneficial for her image that the cases are set for trial. This is so because a dismissal or plea bargain in these cases will give the impression that she has gone back from her campaign pledge. Secondly, the chief of police has started aggressive arrest campaign with the full support of the mayor. Thus, it is evident that both of them want to see that maximum number of criminals is punished. Obviously, if an aggressive prosecution is not held, they will feel that Martha doesn’t support their efforts. Thirdly, Martha is aware of the fact that though some of these cases presently lack evidentiary support, most of the arrestees have considerable role in drug culture and crimes related to drugs. Thus, trying to give them the maximum possible punishment is in the best interest of the society. However, the only problem involved is the fact that time, effort and money are wasted on certain cases that are highly likely to be lost. Another problem is that many of the cases are weak, without evidence and are likely to fail. In order to get a solution for this situation, the best way is to look into the concept of teleology. As Reamer (2003, p. 15) points out, according to teleology, the end justifies the means. Admittedly, the whole society, the mayor, the city police chief and the people want to see that the gun-toting drug dealers are dealt in the best possible way. So any movement from Martha’s side, which gives the indication that she is not interested in the matter, will have a negative impact on others, including the police officers who make the arrests. So as the aim is to eliminate the drug dealers, wasting some time on the trial of cases which are likely to be lost is justifiable as far as it keeps the enthusiasm of others high. That is to say, the means can be justified by the end of eliminating drug dealers. If this is so, the only way out for Martha is to ensure that aggressive prosecution is conducted in the cases, though it might be relatively less beneficial. This will show others that she is in harmony with the sentiments of the society she lives in. So Martha is supposed to tell her prosecutors that there should be trial in all the cases. IV Obviously, there are two options available for Linda. Either she can avoid arresting the person and go to back up the burglary call or she can arrest the person and fail to back up. If Linda goes to adopt the first option without arresting the suspect, she will be able to gain the satisfaction of her sergeant and colleagues as she will back up the burglary call and won’t add to the increasing number of petty drug cases. However, considering the police department as a whole makes it evident that not reporting the issue may seriously affect the quality of policing. Though the sergeant wants to avoid petty drug cases, evidently, it is the duty of the police department to handle drug cases. Being a police officer she bears responsibility for the arrest the drug dealer. However, she also has the duty to see that the interests of her colleagues are protected. If this is the case, she is supposed to avoid arresting the drug dealer. Thus, it is quite evident that Linda has the duty to arrest a drug dealer but at the same time she has the duty to support her colleagues in performing their duties within the limit set by ethical standards, departmental rules and regulations. Thus, the two duties in the case of Linda come into the conflict with each other. In order to get a better insight of the situation, it becomes necessary to use the concept of ethical formalism. The first point in ethical formalism is that one should act in such a way that the behavior could be termed as universal. If this is the principle, one can say that Linda is supposed to arrest the drug dealer because one cannot take it as a universal concept to avoid arresting drug dealers to save police time. In other words, it is not good to routinely avoid arresting drug dealers. Prenzler (2009, p. 6) states that according to the second principle one should not use others as a means to an end. Evidently, Linda’s superior is trying to use her as an end by forcing her not to arrest drug dealers. That means the superior is trying to use Linda as a means to further his own interest. Now, if Linda is not arresting the drug-dealer, she is using him as a means to meet her own end of satisfying her superiors’ and colleagues interests by deviating from ethics, rules and regulations. The third important principle is that one’s behavior should be autonomous and freely chosen to be judged as moral. Evidently, Linda is aware about the fact that it is not good to leave the drug dealer free, especially when she has found cocaine in his pocket. If she fails to arrest him due to fear of being fired by her superior, the action will not be considered ethical or moral. Thus, it becomes evident that what Linda has to do is to report to the dispatcher that she is in the process of arresting a drug dealer, and that she will be able to provide back-up only after that. References Crank, J. P. (2003). Imagining Justice. Netherlands: Elsevier. Banks, C. (2004). Considering the consequences. In Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. USA: SAGE Publications. Reamer, F. G. (2003). Criminal Lessons: Case Studies and Commentary on Crime and Justice. USA: Columbia University Press. Prenzler, T. (2009). Ethics and Accountability in Criminal Justice: Towards a Universal Standard. Australia: Australian Academic Press. Pollock, J. M. (2011). Ethical Dilemmas & Decisions in Criminal Justice. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Read More