Ethical Dilemmas Permeate the Criminal Justice System - Research Paper Example

The Parole Board In this question, Robert faces the question of priority – which is more important, decongestion of overcrowded prisons or safetyof the community from ex-convicts. As chair of the parole board, one of the functions and objectives of Robert is to see to it that the prison cells are well-kept, and the prisoners are taken care of in the most humane way as possible. Thus, Robert should endeavour to maintain the high standards set for a state prison. In the same way, Robert’s jurisdiction is not only limited to the physical welfare of the prisoners. He must also see to it that the objective of incarceration of the prisoners, that is, not just to punish them for their malfeasance and/or misfeasance, but more so, to reform them so as to make them more productive individuals after their release. The issue on overcrowded prison cells already exists. The potential risk of being sued for violation of human rights, among others, cannot be denied. The families of the concerned inmates or even the concerned citizens may sue the state anytime, and the grounds therefore are glaring. This may only be one issue; however, the possibility of using it against the present administration is a big possibility. It may therefore ripen into a national or international issue. On the other hand, premature release of prisoners will surely expose the public from danger. If the inmates will be released sooner than they should be, the process of reformation may not be complete. Hence, the inclination to do evil is not yet totally cleansed from the prisoners. The period within which the each prisoner would undergo in order to realize his mistakes and its consequences is not yet attained. Therefore, there will be no assurance that upon release of these prisoners, they could easily live normally with other people, without the public being exposed to possible risks of becoming victims, once again, by the former lawless elements. I believe that Robert should not suggest the release of inmates to community-based supervision. Rather, Robert should suggest that additional prison cells be constructed so as to solve the problem on overcrowding. If he will do the former, Robert will be relieved of some of his duties but ultimately, he shall be morally responsible for its consequences. Robert should apply the “act utilitarian ethical theory”. This means that his decision must be based on the greatest benefit to the most number of people, without regard to the personal feelings or societal pressures. According to this theory, “an individual’s rights may be infringed in order to benefit a greater population.” (Rainbow, Catherine. “Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles “. Davidson College. n.d. Web. 05 May 2012. http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories.htm) This act utilitarian ethical theory takes into account the total value of the effects of a particular act, the one which is more important. The act that yields to the common good or benefit is considered the perfect ethical choice. If the overall benefits from an act is greater than the total damage, if any, the decision made is definitely morally acceptable. In this scenario, premature release of prisoners to community-based supervision is favourable to the inmates only. They will be freed from living in highly-congested prison cells where they are exposed to acquired illnesses, uncomfortable manner of sleep, etc. Yes, there is the possibility of them becoming “normal” persons in the civil society if given the chance. However, since their term of imprisonment is not yet through, the former being based on the kind of crime committed, the likelihood that they have not yet fully realized the consequences of their acts and its effects to the community might expose the public to a possible repetition of the criminal acts previously committed. These possibilities, no matter how remote, cannot totally be ignored. Robert should instill in his mind that prisoners were being imprisoned because of commission of a crime. They need to be punished…and reformed. And the period of doing this cannot be done overnight; the very reason why their terms vary. Hence, if these periods of punishment and reformation will be shortened by somebody like him, who is not professionally-capacitated to determine its psychological and social effects, the danger sought to be corrected and prevented will be increased. As between the prisoners being doubly punished for staying in overcrowded prison cells and the public being exposed to ex-convicts whose potential of repeating the crimes previously committed is obviously high, the latter involves more number of people involved. Thus, applying the act utilitarian ethical theory, Robert should seek to protect the public rather than the prisoners. 2. The Warden The problem in this case revolves on how to handle the demand of subordinates amidst the economic problems surrounding the correctional facility. As the warden, William’s role is to see to it that inmates are secured. In the same way, the public shall likewise be protected if the inmates are kept in their prison cells. Alongside, William’s role as head of the correction’s employees, is to see to it that their rights as employees are protected. If William will avail of the off-site release program in order to lessen the number of inmates under his group’s custody, the present problem on possibility that corrections officers will make excuses so as to avoid the performance of their duties will be automatically solved. The population of inmates that need to be guarded will greatly decrease, and the burden and stress being felt by William’s subordinates will also decrease, if not totally disappear. However, said abrupt solution does not guarantee the safety of the public from the would be ex-convicts since their release is considerably premature. It would have been different if there is a system through which the inmates who would be released are to be selected on individual basis, depending on the crimes they have committed and the individual behaviour shown during their stay in the prison cells. However, this is not the case here. Admittedly, choices are made randomly. Thus, William cannot in any way, ensure that the inmates to be released in the community deserve to be given the chance as early as now. On the other hand, if William will not take advantage of the program, the corrections officers may no longer tolerate the hardships that they have been encountering in guarding and supervising the overpopulated prison cells. They might feel threatened and saturated by the pressures involved in their jobs. They might feel neglected by William as their superior. Thus, the possibility of gradual non-performance of their jobs is glaring. I believe that William must prefer to protect the inmates and the public in general, over and above the corrections officers. He should apply the “casuist ethical theory” which states that decisions should be made based on decisions previously made by others in similar ethical dilemmas. William’s problem is akin to that of the President of a country who is being pressed by the labour sector to increase the minimum wage amidst the economic problems of the country. Generally, the President would choose not to grant relevant increases for fear that the capitalists would withdraw their investments and totally collapse the economy. The technique in handling the labourers’ complaints depends on the manner of explanation. Alongside with the casuist ethical theory, William may also use the “least harm theory” which deals with scenarios in which neither of the choices is beneficial; hence, the decision maker should choose the side which would bring the least harm to the fewest number of people. In this case, William should emphasize to the corrections officers that their position is not just a job that is being performed in exchange of compensation but a public office imbued with public interest. Hence, their primary concern as corrections officers is to protect the public from unwanted criminals by ensuring the safety of the latter. This public concern, as the utmost priority, must prevail over their own safety and convenience. He should exert every effort to remind these officers that the public’s security depends on them. An extra mile of sacrifice which is but a mere temporary situation will not hurt them. Pragmatically, William should directly explain this thing to the union officers. He should neither be tempted to make unfounded promises nor give in to their possible demand of taking advantage of the community-based work release. William must explain the practical and direct consequences if he would take advantage of the program. In any way, inmates will remain in prison cells, whether they like it or not. Hostility might arise, but they are not empowered to do anything against the corrections officers, as long as the prison cells’ physical facilities are secured. 3. The District Attorney As a District Attorney, Martha’s obligation is to handle criminal cases in behalf of the state. Short of saying that Martha should win each and every criminal case within her jurisdiction. Further, as part of the government, Martha should strive hard to act and decide in accordance with the government…or the other government officers’ line of actions. On the other hand, Martha is foremost a lawyer and a prosecutor whose functions are primarily not just to win cases against alleged criminals but to see to it that justice is done. And to deliver justice does not axiomatically means that defendants should be found guilty in every case. Martha’s principle not to encourage plea bargaining and reduced prison terms is valid, for convicted criminals. Indeed, if the evidence glaringly supports the state’s case against the defendant, there must be no room for settlements, otherwise, the rationale behind the law and the penalties provided therefore would be rendered futile. Plea bargaining is generally allowed only in cases wherein the evidence at hand by the prosecution appears to be inadequate or on the verge between winning and losing the case totally. This may also be availed of by the prosecution so as to ensure that the defendant would at least be held responsible for some acts committed, eventhough not at par with the penalties for the crime allegedly committed. This might be brought about by the lack of adequate evidence, unwillingness of important witnesses, when time is of the essence, or lack of monetary support to carry on the case to its conclusion if complete trial would be conducted. On the other hand, nothing would replace a full-blown trial for cases wherein the evidence of the prosecution is enough or adequate, at least to the mind of the prosecutors. It is then and only then that true justice would be attained. For why would one settle for less when he has everything to support his case? As a District Attorney however, Martha has the ethical obligation to act in accordance with the campaign or stand of other government officials. She has the duty to support them through the performance of her duties as District Attorney. Nevertheless, this obligation to support the co-government officials need not limit Martha’s capacity to comprehend and analyse the cases under her jurisdiction. The campaign of the mayor and the chief of police may be proper but it cannot in any way neglect the existence of the rule of law and due process. To this, Martha should make a definite stand. Martha’s dilemma is a choice between her obligation as part of the government and her obligation as a lawyer. To address this, Martha may use the “justice ethical principle” and “deontological theory”. Justice ethical principle means that the decision maker should act based on fairness and justice and that any act beyond the normal must be justified by valid extenuating circumstances. Further, it requires the actor do adhere to his duties and responsibilities when making decisions involving ethical dilemmas such as this one. This also means that Martha should perform her obligations because upholding of her duty is considered ethically or morally right. On the other hand, deontological theory explains that the decision maker must adhere to his duties and obligations to analyse the situation because following one’s obligation towards another is regarded as ethically correct. I believe that Martha should advise her prosecutors to analyse the evidence at hand and classify the cases according to the probability of winning and losing. Those classified as “weak cases” may be directed towards possible plea bargaining while those which are considerably “strong cases” must be carried on to full-blown trials. Justice dictates that Martha should act according to solid evidence and not on mere belief or view. This is very basic in the law profession. Thus, no matter how popular these criminals are, if the evidence for the present case is not enough to support a conviction, they should be released. Here, as the District Attorney, the most that Martha could do is to direct her prosecutors to work for a plea bargaining, with the hope that the defendants might take advantage of the opportunity to serve a lesser penalty, than to let them go scot-free after giving them full-blown trials with nothing or very little evidence to support them. This does not mean that Martha totally disregards her original stand against plea bargaining and reduced prison terms. However, as justice ethical principle states, exceptions should be made if there are extenuating circumstances such as in this case. Martha is aware that if they will not take advantage of plea bargaining, their cases might end up with the defendants not being convicted and totally released. Further, in accordance with deontological principle, it is Martha’s duty to act based on the standards of a prosecutor or District Attorney, to see to it that justice is done, and not just to convict criminals without sufficient evidence. 4. The Officer Linda’s dilemma points to the question of priority. She had to choose between continuance of arrest of a possible small-time drug dealer and assisting fellow police officers in a burglary case. Both cases involve a course of action required of her as a police officer. As explained by Holmstrom (1999), setting of priority is a complex interaction of different decisions at various levels and there is no hard and fast rule to determine which is right or wrong, or what should be done – to do what one likes to or to do what the situation calls for. Indeed, there is no definite answer. If Linda will choose to continue the arrest of the young man, the negative effects are: (i) She will not be able to assist her fellow police officers in the burglary case presently happening. She will surely fit in what her colleagues previously described as those who cannot help because they are preoccupied by petty drug crimes. Linda definitely does not want to be identified as such. (ii) She might be classified as small-time police officer who prefers small cases rather than assist in urgent big-time criminal cases. (iii) Her colleagues might accuse her of non-cooperation as every police work is supposed to be team effort and not individually-handled. On the other hand, Linda cannot just allow the young man to go scot-free, knowing that the evidence to indict him for a crime is manifestly present. As a police officer, she must be aware that a crime is a crime, no matter how petty it might be. To depend her decision on the seriousness of the crime appears to be inappropriate for her. As a police officer, she should see to it that every law violator must be arrested and brought to the court for indictment. Besides, there are other police officers available to assist in the burglary case. Her presence is merely for assistance purposes only. The alleged burglary may not even be happening at all. It was merely a presumption at that time. Whereas, the drug dealership case is clearly present. The basic evidence are already in front of her – the money, and the crack cocaine. To let go of the young man just because of peer pressure cannot be justified. Linda may use the deontological ethical principle, that is, to adhere to her obligations and duties in arriving at a decision. I believe that Linda should proceed with the arrest of the young man for possible drug dealership case. It is her duty, not just as a police officer but also as an ordinary responsible member of the civil society, to bring to court a glaring drug suspect. Her skill of sensing potential criminals should not be rendered useless. She has the moral and legal obligation to proceed with the arrest of the young man. This is not to say that she has to leave behind her obligation to assist her colleagues in other cases. However, the situation calls for her to set her priorities. If no one is available and/or willing to bring the young man to court or to the police station for further investigation, then, as the initial investigator of the case, Linda must continue the case until she feels that her part was duly accomplished by her. Thereafter, Linda may proceed to help her colleagues with the other case. Through this, she will be able to maximize her position by fulfilling her obligations by tending first to the most urgent matter then to the rest. Linda should always bear in mind that all law violators must be apprehended, no matter how small or big the crimes to which they are involved are. To this end, Linda will surely comply with her obligations. Any comment from her colleagues or otherwise should not deter Linda from doing what she knows ought to be done. Hence, she must inform the dispatcher that she will first bring the young man to the police station before going back to the area to assist her colleagues. No matter how the dispatcher or her colleagues would react, she can always explain her side later on. The important thing is, she is able to perform her duties in good faith. If she will do otherwise, most probably, Linda will always blame herself for failing to handle the “small” drug case in a manner that she should do. In the end, Linda will be able to perform not just one but areas of her duties and responsibilities as a police officer. Obviously, the burglary case can be handled temporarily by her colleagues without her as her part is manifestly for assistance only. On the other hand, the “small” drug case needs her personal attention. If she will not handle it at that time, no other person or police officer would do it for her. As the theory of beneficence always emphasizes, the prime factor is to do what is good for the benefit of everybody. Giving of priority to do good makes this ethical perspective acceptable to the humankind. It justifies whatever sacrifices being done by the decision maker. In the case at hand, Linda’s intention is always to do good. Only that, the order of priority must be perfectly considered. Works cited: Holmstrom, S, (1997). “Sweden and priority setting”. Swedish American Health Care Foundation. N.d. Web. 06 May 2012. http://www.swahc.org/priority.htm. Penslar, Robin L. (1995). “Research Ethics: Cases and Materials”. Bloomington. Indiana University Press. Pollock, J. (2004). “Ethics in Crime and Justice, 43.” Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Rainbow, Catherine. “Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principles “. Davidson College. n.d. Web. 05 May 2012. http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/kabernd/indep/carainbow/Theories.htm. Read More