Dual Agency and Ethics Conflicts in Correctional Practice - Essay Example

Dual Agency and Ethics Conflicts in Correctional Practice Samantha Rae Loughlin Southern New Hampshire JUS 604: Legal and Justice ResearchThis article is in reference to “Dual Agency and Ethics Conflicts in Correctional Practice” in simulation to a role as a manager with an aim to develop a six-step policy for the challenging ethical dilemma (Wilson, 2010). The resultant policy encompasses the specifics about ethics highlighting the particular challenged ethics and is the policy is conjured to be definable according to the dilemma, ethics concern.

The working environment for correctional practitioners is within contexts that are heavily constrained and influenced by punishment practices and policies. An overlap in the normative framework of offender rehabilitation and punishment develops a unique collection of ethical dilemmas for the practicing persons (Cervantes and Hanson, 2013). The roles of corrections professionals in prisons have changed to reflect a prevailing ideology within the correctional administration which is taken to deemphasize on treatment while emphasizing on custodial concerns and security.

Consequently, these professionals experience unique professional and ethical conflicts, dilemmas. Among these conflicts are integrity, inmate custody, security, objectivity, honesty, documentation and decision making. As a manager I developed a six-step policy that controlled the identified dilemmas among others to provide guidelines and address the possible conflicts for the practitioners under my supervision. This was aimed to eliminate vague standards and possible misinformation by the practitioners.

The approach below solves the dilemmas and improves the service delivery to incarcerated individuals (Wilson, 2010).The six identified steps were, identify, analyze, report, discuss, action, follow-up. Under the identification step, the practitioners are entitled to point out the challenges that will build the chances of a conflict within themselves, peers, or with their clients, inmates. There are situation where interests may collide within cases handled by different practitioners in a correction facility, they are supposed to document it in detail to avoid delay in service delivery or injustices that may compromise integrity.

The situation is analyzed to check whether it can be solved at this level before escalating it to the next level in management. If it is not possible to clear it here, it is moved to the next phase within the policy, reporting, where it is tabled to the management. From here, the involved corrections professionals delve into the matter in an attempt to eliminate the issue in dilemma. When a consensus is reached, which is a must, the solution is directed to the relevant officials and a trace-back route documented to devise a way to avoid such future occurrences and if they must occur, a way around them is also communicated.

The action phase follows where the resolution is implemented, be it to the practicing peers or the incarcerated individuals. Take a case where an inmate returns to a facility for a second or more violations, there are those corrections practitioners who would wish to be assigned to the same inmate yet others differ. This policy when analyzed would favor the first proposal to ensure continuity where possible, therefore the prior professional must avail the files of the preceding case to the successor without question if they are indisposed to handle the case (Wilson, 2010).

The final and concluding phase includes a follow-up action that ensures that the resolution was implemented and successful, that the dilemma or the challenged ethics were corrected, and that they were definable according to prior concerns.ReferencesCervantes, A. N and Hanson, A. (2013). Dual Agency and Ethics Conflicts in Correctional Practice: Sources and Solutions. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 41:72–8.Wilson, S. (2010). Psychiatry in prisons a comprehensive handbook. London: Jessica Kingsley.