Line of Difference between Law and Duty with That of Humanity - Assignment Example

Ethics in Criminal Justice Table of Contents Ethical Dilemma Gun Rally 3 Ethical Dilemma 2: Chief’s Order 4 Ethical Dilemma 3: Accepting Favours 5Ethical Dilemma 4: Reporting a Deal 6 Ethical Dilemma 5: Breaking Prison Rules 7 Bibliography 8 Ethical Dilemma 1: Gun Rally There is always a thin line of difference between law and duty with that of humanity. The priority of law and duty over humanity or vice versa is the main question under dilemma here. Gun rally have been executed by the gun advocacy group peacefully but the safety and security of the citizens always lies in the hands of the administrator. Here, both the concerns are important as one must not forget that the members of the anonymous gun advocacy group are also the citizens of the same town as the officer in charge is. It might be always difficult for a law administrator or an officer to handle this kind of situation. Executing rally without permission is completely against law but looking at their past record, the group should be allowed to execute their programme as long as it is peaceful and does not harm the peace and harmony of the township. As regards to the safety is concerned, under such situation the officer always have that discretion to determine how much force one is entitled to carry for protecting a particular area. In this special case, the officer might take extra force and include a few specially trained police who are acquainted in handling the mob and its pressure. In this way, with a bit of extra care the officer would be able to balance both the regimes. He would be able to allow the gun advocacy group to execute their rally and at the same time the security issues could also be taken due care. Ethical Dilemma 2: Chief’s Order Law and order in the society is to safeguard the rights of its citizens and not to usurp them. The officer who is in charge of the situation is the best person to give the justification of the actions taking place over there and that person only has the best scope to render the full justification to its people. The Chief Officer in this regard is imposing some of the most unconstitutional means and using her rights in the most illegitimate way possible. The police officer under no means or circumstance should follow the instruction given by the Chief. Here the dilemma is comparatively lesser than the first scenario. Under no circumstance, the safeguard or protection of the citizens is in contention here. The officer is placing the orders quite illegitimately while ethics and law places the proper instruction not to take any punitive steps on the rally gatherers as long as they are executing it peacefully without disturbing or bringing any harm to the life and property of the area. Throwing tear gas, bullying clubs and to arrest every gatherer for holding unlawful rally is not only much degraded act in terms of human rights but is also unlawful. Taking steps like not following the Chief’s order and declaring it unlawful is not an easy job. But the constitution provides the right to execute rally and meetings peacefully for the rights of its citizen and as a protector of law, no one should forget it. If required then it has to be reminded to the Chief Law Officer who is completely deviating from the path of justice. This also very much essential under such circumstance to remind the lady that platform of law and civic rights cannot be a means to execute personal beliefs or thoughts. Justice should be always rendered from a neutral eye and the officers who are privileged to safeguard them must be free of any pre-occupation or inhibition. Ethical Dilemma 3: Accepting Favours This case is a straight forward instance of favouritism. The seasoned officer from the next county is taking open favours from the local trader which is a clear indication of illegitimate behaviour which also raises suspicion in terms of the transparency regarding his judgement and investigation. The senior officer entitled for the field investigation of the Gun Advocacy Group cannot be relied in the first place completely as he is proved to take some favours and does not even mind to ask the new officer with him for the same. Under these circumstances as an investigating officer accompanying him, it’s very much essential to keep a serious eye over his activities. It is also important for an officer entitled to safeguard law to wipe such corruptions or any activity that can become hindrance in the way for protecting and safeguarding the civic rights of its citizens. As an eye-witness, it is also mandatory in this regard to inform the higher authorities of the county about the seasoned officer and his tendencies of using his rights beyond the scope of legitimacy. Ethical Dilemma 4: Reporting a Deal The case is precisely troublesome as the rights and powers of an investigating officer are too much limited when compared with a judge or a prosecutor. The case is devoid of the benefit of jury and is a requested bench trial upon the request of all the parties. But the situation is more serious as there is no evidence to prove the feelings of the judge or the prosecutor for the Gun Advocacy Group as the derogatory comments are all overheard in the first place. Secondly, the comments were being passed before the commencement of the trial so no one can be sure that what exactly is going to be the position of the judge and he is quite famous for passing neutral judgement and perfect sentences ever. Still there ought to be an ethical dilemma regarding the stand point of the justice and the prosecutor as they are surely inhibited by some of their beliefs against the Gun Advocacy Group. However, after the commencement of the trial as an investigating officer, it is important to report the exact deal and if it is evident that after passing positive comments on the situation still the judgement is being passed with a negative perspective, then as an investigating officer it is possible to appeal to other benches or involve a team of jury in this regard. Ethical Dilemma 5: Breaking Prison Rules This act is completely unlawful and cannot be supported under any circumstances whatever might be personal belief or faith about the group is. Moreover, such tendency of the solitaire should be reported to the jail authority. The prisoner is under trail and during the time in custody, he is not entitled to send any kind of information by the means that the prisoner is undertaking. As a guardian of law and order, it is not at all desired for an officer to act against the law for any human or social cause. At the same time, if the prisoner is suffering from any illegitimacy then as an investigating officer of the case, it is always desirable to fight and plead for the right of that prisoner. But in this case, the prisoner himself is taking unlawful means to pass the information which should not be supported at all. Also it calls for a few more questions at the moment itself and with a proper intellect and presence of mind, he should be asked that why is he trying to pass some information this way and what is the real cause for doing so. While finding these answers, if the jail authority or the officers in charge are found to inflict some inhuman and illegitimate rules on the prisoner then due steps can be taken to safeguard his right. But if he is found at guilt then due steps against him should be reported. However, under both the circumstances his activity should be reported to the jail authority as law is always impersonal and equal for all and due care about his tendencies and actual reasons for such unconventional behaviours should be monitored and taken into consideration. Bibliography Dreisbach, Christopher. Ethics in Criminal Justice. McGraw-Hill, 2008. Read More