Define And Discuss The Term Ethics From Your Own Perspective - Coursework Example

?Criminal Justice and Ethics Define and discuss the term "ethics" from your own perspective. Generally speaking ethics involves distinguishing between that which is right and that which is wrong or that which is good and that which is evil (Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy, 2012). What is right and wrong and what is good and evil are typically informed by individual “beliefs and values” which are in turn informed by “our parents and friends” and by the “communities we are a part of” and “by our own perceptions” (Braswell, et. al., 2012, p. 3). Acceptable behaviour is usually dictated by laws and religious norms. General perceptions are that persons who are ethical will usually conduct themselves according to norms dictating what is good and what is right and persons who are not ethical will act in ways that are not good and inherently evil. However, ethics is not merely concerned with acting in appropriate ways, but also concerned with omitting to act in ways that enable wrongdoing or is complicit in wrongdoing (Braswell, et. al., 2012). It would therefore appear that ethics not only demand that ethical individuals act in ethical or good ways, but that they also police unethical behavior. Whether or not this is realistic or fair, does not appear to be a concern. It does appear to be lofty goal for individuals to follow. However, when looked at within the parameters and operations of the criminal justice system the definition of ethics as a tool for moral responsibility and accountability makes sense. As Pollock (1993) informs, ethics in criminal justice studies ensures that those involved in the criminal justice system are able to identify “ethical issues”, gain empathy with others regardless of where they stand on an issue, and to “evaluate alternatives to dilemmas using ethical rather than legal or egotistic criteria” (Pollock, 1993, p. 377). Ethics permits all parts of the criminal justice system to be understood and supported as key components of the necessary machinery for engendering social order and social control in a free and open society. Ethics helps criminal justice actors to understand how all parts of the criminal justice system fit together in ordering of society (Pollock, 1993). Ethics in this regard is also important for individuals who make up parts of the social order and the social system. The individual’s ethics education begins at home and is branched out into the community in which we come into contact with others. Thus what we learn at home is inevitably taken into the larger community. Thus when both family and community values are ethical, crime and justice is not only understood but minimized via a collective sense of right and wrong and fairness and justice (Braswell, et. al, 2012). In this regard, ethics is directly connected to criminal behaviour and appropriate responses to criminal behavior. 2. Explain and Discuss Kant's categorical imperative. How appropriate are his views in today's criminal justice field? Kant was of the opinion that consequential theories in evaluating and explaining ethics did not pay enough attention to the issue of duty. Kant also took the position that these theories did not pay sufficient attention to the question of “basic morality” or “good will” or the intention to do good” (Braswell, et. al., 2012, p. 16). Thus Kant developed what is referred to as the categorical imperative which is contrasted with the “hypothetical imperative” (Braswell, et. al., 2012, p. 17). Hypothetical imperatives make allowances for a “command that begin with ‘if’” (Braswell, 2012, p. 17). For instance, a hypothetical imperative might function in the sense that an individual may decide that if he wanted to obtain a satisfactory academic outcome, the individual should be more academically prepared. Categorical imperatives are not hypothetical and therefore not prefaced by ‘ifs” (Braswell, 2012, p. 17). Kant formulated a number of aspects of categorical imperative. Two of those formulations are the universalizability and the idea that mankind “have intrinsic value” (Braswell, 2012, p. 17). Kant’s universalizability takes the position that if conduct is to be justified on moral grounds, it must be such that others in the same scenario would also act similarly. For instance, a compulsion to cheat cannot be a compulsion that others in the same scenario would emulate (Braswell, 2012). Thus in Kant’s universalizability, ethics would involve the decision to act in a way that is compatible with the moral values of everyone else. This may also be unrealistic and it is quite possible that Kant may not have meant to indicate that morals and ethics are identified by reference to everyone, but rather to the shared values of the dominant norms. After all, Gomberg (1997) in his discussion of Kant and other legal philosopher’s concept of morality and ethics argued that these thinkers’ contribution to legal thought was the supposition that the state functioned to identify and enforce dominant norms. Those who do not conform are punished by the state and thus the moral code mandated by dominant norms is reinforced (Gomberg, 1997). Kant’s formulation of categorical imperative in the sense that all human beings have some level of intrinsic value takes the position that human beings should not be treated as “mere objects” (Braswell, et. al., 2012, p. 18). When human beings are treated as objects, they are exploited for self-serving gains. For example in marrying an individual for financial gain, the intended spouse is being used for a self-serving gain. Thus Kant in formulating his categorical imperative advises that mankind should: ...act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end (Braswell, et. al., 2012, p. 18). When both Kant’s universalizability and the notion that mankind have intrinsic value are put together, his categorical imperative produces a golden rule relative to ethics. The golden rule informs that we should only act toward others as we would have them act toward us. Guided accordingly, mankind should be able to co-exist harmoniously. 3. Differentiate between the various typologies of interrogatory deception. Which type do you think would be problematic for an officer to engage in morally? Legally? Sholnick and Leo (1992) identified a number of interrogative deception techniques used by police in interrogating suspects. The first of these techniques include an interview setting in which the police will use the setting to escape the need to provide the suspect with the mandatory Miranda warning. The Miranda warning informs the suspect that he or she need not answer questions and may exercise the constitutional right to remain silent. The second deceptive interrogative technique used by police is the manner in which they do deliver the Miranda warning. In this technique the warning is delivered in a “flat, perfunctory tone” so as to give the suspect the impression that it is no more than red tape and will likely obtain the suspect’s cooperation (Sholnick & Leo, 1992, p. 5). Another deceptive technique used by police is the misrepresentation of the seriousness of the crime. For instance the police may lie about the amount of money involved in a crime of embezzlement as a means of encouraging the suspect to confess to a less serious crime. Another technique used by the police in deceiving suspects so that they confess is role playing in which the police officer conducting the interview pretends to have an emotional connection to the suspect. Police may also misrepresent the moral severity of the crime by providing the suspect with what might amount to a “moral justification” for the commission of the offense (Sholnick & Leo, 1992, p. 6). The police may also trick the suspect into confession by holding out promises. Most of the time these promises involve some degree of “leniency” (Sholnick & Leo, 1992, p. 6). Police also deceive suspects in the course of interrogations by pretending to be someone other than a police officer. For example, a police psychiatrist treating a suspect for a sinus infection pretended to be a doctor and told the suspect that he had not committed an offense and would be freed. As a result the suspect confessed to the crime. Finally, the police have been known to present the suspect with false evidence of his culpability which prompts a confession (Sholnick & Leo, 1992). The presentation of false evidence is inappropriate and perhaps more reprehensible morally than any other technique for two reasons. To begin with, if the suspect was truly guilty of a crime, the police would not need to fabricate evidence of his guilt. Secondly, a suspect feeling that there is evidence against him will feel the need to admit to guilt to avoid a harsher penalty should he or she go to trial and have a tribunal of fact find him/her guilty. It is therefore surprising that courts have a tendency to find this technique to be constitutional (Braswell, et. al., 2012). It can only be assumed that courts are of the opinion that an innocent suspect will not confess regardless of what they believe the outcome will be. 3. Thoroughly explain the difference between the ethical obligations of a defense attorney and the ethical obligations of a prosecutor. Explain how these different roles may affect their responsibilities in a criminal trial. The primary difference between the ethical obligations of defense attorneys and prosecutors emanate from their different roles. Defense attorneys are sworn to be moral agents for their clients and prosecutors are moral agents for “justice” (Pollock, 2012, p. 141). Attorneys for both sides are officers of the court and as such often confront conflicts in terms of meeting their obligations as moral agents for the state (prosecutors) and their clients (defense attorneys) (Seigel, 2010). For the defense attorney there may be three main ways in which his or her role as a moral agent for his or her client may impact his or her responsibilities in a criminal trial. First the criminal defense attorney may be confronted with the issue of effectively cross-examining a witness with a view to shaking the witness’ credibility although the defense attorney is aware that the witness is telling the truth. Secondly, the defense attorney may be torn about putting a witness forward that the attorney knows will lie under oath. Thirdly, the defense attorney may confront the issue of giving his or her client legal advise when the attorney is aware that the advice may result in the client lying under oath (Siegel, 2010). A major ethical dilemma for prosecutors that has been observed in practice is the dangers of losing focus and instead of pursuing justice, they tend to purse “convictions” (Pollock, 2010, p. 141). Some prosecutors may lie as they find themselves driven by a desire to win at all costs (Pollock, 2012). The desire to win and to obtain convictions can jeopardize prosecutors’ ethical obligations as officers of the courts. There have been instances in which prosecutors have made false promises, used fraud, threats and other unethical methods for securing a guilty plea. Prosecutors have also been known to withhold or simply “ignore” evidence that could exonerate a defendant (Pollock, 2012, p. 142). In the final analysis, the prosecutor is less constrained by codes of ethics than the defense attorney who must observe ethical mandates such as attorney-client privilege and confidentiality. Prosecutors are not as constrained by these ethical dilemmas and therefore have fewer excuses in terms of crossing ethical lines (Seigel, 2010). The different ethical delimmas experienced by defense attorneys and prosecutors arise out of their different roles. Defense attorneys are committed to their client’s interests and are guided by codes of professional conduct that necessarily require that they provide their clients with the best possible representation and advice, keep their confidence and defend them based on their instructions. Prosecutors have a duty to represent the people of the state in which they are prosecuting and the defendant is among the people of the state. Ideally, a prosecutor should merely present the evidence impartially. However, in practice, prosecutors are often more concerned with obtaining a conviction as opposed to simply presenting the evidence and letting the chips fall where they may. Bibliography Braswell, M. C., McCarthy, B. R. and McCarthy, B. J. (2012). Justice, crime, and ethics (7th ed.). Newark, NJ: Andersen Publishing. Gomberg, P. (December 1997). “How Morality Works and Why it Fails: On Political Philosophy and Moral Consensus.” Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 28(3): 43-70. Pollock, J. M. (1993). “Ethics and the Criminal Justice Curriculum.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol. 4(2): 377-390. Pollock, J. M. (2012). “Whatever Happened to Atticus Finch? Lawyers as Legal Advocates and Moral Agents.” In Braswell, M. C., McCarthy, B. R. and McCarthy, B. J. (Eds.). Justice, crime, and ethics (7th ed.). Newark, NJ: Andersen Publishing, Ch. 8. Siegel, L, J. (2010). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Sholnick, J. H. and Leo, R. A. (1992). “The Ethics of Deceptive Interrogation.” Criminal Justice Ethics, Winter/Spring, 1-10. Read More