Crime and Ethical Standards - Term Paper Example

The individual is only suspected to be under influence of drugs. Therefore, this crime can be argued to be misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Braswell et al., 2005).  An individual who illicitly obtains or uses items coded controlled substances is charged with a crime. It is a criminal offense to possess a controlled substance. In my state, the quantity, the nature of the drugs and the circumstances that one is assumed to possess a controlled substance influence the nature of conviction that one receives.

The penalty for this crime depends also on the classification of the drug. An individual is charged with misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance in the event that the very individual is found to be in possession of coded substances below a specific limit (Leighton & Riemann, 2001).  Societal factors influence individual’s behaviors. Societies where social values and norms are adhered to the letter experience less social problems because individuals are discipline. In the paradigm case, Jones’ negative behavior that has put him into troubles can be associated with various societal factors.

It can be suggested that Jones is brought up in a society where people commonly engage in drug abuse. The first duty of any government is to ensure safety of its citizens. Social contract theory states that government sets rules governing individuals’ behavior that is wholly accepted by rational citizens. The state exists to enforce these rules and laws for positive social living. It is in Jones’ interests that the law enforcing agencies, police in this case, do not take advantage of their powers and abuse him.

This implies that they must adhere to the rules that protect the suspect. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the criminal justice system in place is effective to prosecute suspects of crimes while protecting their rights by providing fair trials and rational punishment. Government’s duty to offer security and safety is in Jones’ interest. The government would require law enforcing agencies and the criminal justice system to pursue critical analysis of the condition of the suspect before making any conclusion (Leighton & Riemann, 2001).

  Marconi is a police officer hence has a role to ensure that there is law and order in the society. The law requires law enforcing agencies such as police to pursue their duties diligently for the benefit of the citizens. In this event, Marconi has a number of roles to play. He ought to question the suspect before arresting as a matter of procedure. However, this did not happen. The officer has a duty to proof the nature of the crime committed by Jones in order to guarantee far trial and punishment.

Police officers are expected to be subjective in their undertakings to avoid prejudicial mistreatment of the suspect as it happened to Jones (Leighton & Riemann, 2001).  The clearest miscalculation by Officer Marconi is his failure to read the suspect (Ms. Jones) her Miranda Rights. Ms. Jones’ custodial interrogation satisfies her Miranda needs, “…the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be informed that he [she] has the right to remain silent…” (Miranda v Arizona (1966), 384 US 436) and further, anything she says can and will be suppressed by applying “…the product of a rational intellect and free will”