What constitutes coercion - Essay Example

Lecturer’s Coercion Coercion refers to the improper use ity or physical force in a bid to compel one toyield to the wishes of another (Posner and Vermeule 1–2). During interrogations in law enforcement agencies, coercion is aimed at exerting pressure on an individual (suspect) to take a stand or reveal his/her intentions against his will. The basic intentions of coercion are to compel to an act or choice, which may involve the use of force or fraud to achieve desired results. There are concerns towards the legality of coercion during interrogation as a means of obtaining crucial information. These are related to gross violation of the basic human rights, and disregard of moral and ethical concerns. Information obtained through brutal, coercive means during interrogation may not always considered to be useful as the subject is under strain and can say as desired to prevent more harm. Law enforcement agencies provide guidelines on permissible interrogation techniques to their agents in a bid to avoid violation of suspect’s rights, which would in turn compromise the integrity of information gathered (United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 9). Ethics on Coercion Coercion violates the ethics of human behaviour and self will in almost every possible way. This occurs by offering incentives to an individual who is unwilling to conduct so as a given party or authority desires. As a result, coercion becomes an unethical activity following the force employed to make the unwilling party participate. In the offering of incentives to the unwilling parties in order to secure compliance or participation, this translates to corruption of character and morals, which goes against social mores and norms. As a result, the society as a whole is denied its representation on a level that is recognized by law or one that stands with credibility. In addition to credibility, coercion violates social and personal ethics through the alterations that can be done to individual behaviours and information that one gives. This is particularly so in legal cases where information that is retrieved from an individual through coercion may be misleading to the delivery of justice. This makes coercion a violation of the law due to the interference it directs at the due course of justice, and the denial of rights. Constitutionally, coercion in the provision of information crucial for any purpose is a repugnant practice. This is following the earlier mentioned distortion of information due to the use of threats that target the wellbeing of the individual in question. However, the use of force to extract information from other parties may also have a positive side to it despite all the moral red flags raised. This is in relation to forcing information that is crucial for the greater good of the society rather than the wellbeing of the individual in question. In this case, incentives may be offered to the party in question to ensure cooperation as is the case in issues involving tax evasion. In such cases, parties involved are coerced to implicate one another in order to arrive at the truth, making coercion a strategy in attaining justice. Coercion is a term that is used in relation to the application of force in getting unwilling parties to engage in involuntary behaviour. In this regard, the use of excessive force to extract information becomes a legal issue due to the implication of torture, or the likelihood of torture occurring. Torture occurs when the wellbeing of the party in question is ignored, and the individual is subjected to harm. This is seen in cases where police officers threaten uncooperative suspects in order to secure compliance with their duties as police officers. These include the drawing of firearms or even hitting and tasering the suspects in an attempt to apprehend them. In such cases, coercion is deemed to be legal or ethical, although there is a standard to it. In case the above is not done within the confines of the law or violates, in any way, the constitutional requirement, it is tantamount to torture, and thus unethical. Coercion as torture; therefore, it entails subjection of an individual to inhumane treatment, which can be of several types such as physical, psychological, emotional or mental ones. This means that coercion crosses the line to become torture once other individuals other than self in participating in involuntary behaviour violate an individual’s wellbeing in any way (Malinowski 149). In addition, it means that coercion has limits to how much of it is permissible for use in the society and legally. Does the End Justify the Means? Most people have been brought up with the notion that the result justifies the means, and they still apply it as a principle. This is despite the fact that most actions used to produce the desired results contradict basic ethics and violate rights. This brings out the lack of moral rationalization and consequently eliminates the reference to serving the greater good. Although most political and social thinkers are for the notion that the end justifies the means, there exists a moral concern in regard to coercion and the results it yields. Therefore, to some the application of coercive intervention becomes justified depending on the situation at hand. According to Gandhi, people always have control over the means but not over the end. In this regard, one should strive to propose a peaceful and nonviolent course of action as a means to yield desired results (Iyer). In most cases, matters relating to national security often trigger violent coercion, whereby individuals are subjected to different coercive strategies; consequently, the application of coercive strategies as means of getting desired results is never justified. Therefore, it only fuels aggression towards individuals who advocate coercion. For instance, when an institution known for its coercive nature is faced with an eminent threat to its security, the perpetrators may be equally prepared, with members ready for suicide missions. The use of coercion as a means to obtain desired results violates human rights, as one may be oppressed and forced to give up information against his or her will. Coercion is known to highly mock human dignity and moral values as it involves tactics that seek to destroy one’s hard-lined being and reduce them to mere being prone to pain. The techniques used involve procedures that inflict bodily harm in terms of pain as well as psychological trauma, with the aim of obtaining information deemed as crucial to investigations. Police misconduct may be broadly categorized into two: corruption and physical or emotional abuse, which may be at an individual or institutional level (“Police Misconduct” 270). Police misconduct involves a violation of ethical standards by police officers in their line of duty, where physical and emotional abuse by police officers is inflicted upon suspects depending on the offence committed. Stereotyping is at times employed in regard to suspects during interrogation, which places labels over a group of individuals. Police coercion, which involves subjecting a suspect through pain during interrogation in order to obtain information, is regarded as misconduct. In most cases, the misconduct is more subtle than torture, but the means of obtaining the information nullify its use in a court of law as suspects may confess to crimes due to pressure applied. Therefore, police officers involved in coercion engage in police misconduct as they violate the rights of suspects, whom they subject to coercion. There exist alternatives that do not involve the use of brute force as a means of coercion. This mode of persuasion involves the use of a subtle approach to suspects in a bid to compel them to giving up essential information. These strategies do not inflict physical pain to the suspect but provide an option to them through which they can come clean on their involvement. In return, the suspects may be accorded deals that see them serve less time in jail by having their terms reduced for their cooperation. The use of such persuasive means on a suspect may be termed as acceptable levels of coercion. However, the level of acceptable coercion may not apply in most of the crimes committed as the degree of seriousness should be considered. For instance, a suspect should not be granted a deal when faced with murder charges, as opposed to one facing shoplifting charges, since murder is considered a serious offense. Works Cited “Police Misconduct.” N.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . Iyer, Raghawan. Means and Ends in Politics. N.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . Malinowski, Tom. Restoring Moral Authority: Ending Torture, Secret Detention, and the Prison at Guantanamo Bay. 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . Posner, Eric, and Adrian Vermeule. Should Coercive Interrogation Be Legal? 2005. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Coercive Interrogation Techniques: Do they work, are they reliable, and what did the FBI know about them. 2008. Web. 21 Oct. 2012. . Read More