The Problem with Ethics in the Criminal Justice System - Research Paper Example

The Problem with Ethics in the Criminal Justice System Ethical considerations within the criminal justicesystem have remained a critical element of debates and scholarly works which are linked with the discipline. In actuality, the emergence of ethical dilemmas which is triggered by the discretion that is provided to individual actors as a part of the criminal justice model may prompt disagreements regarding decision making processes and negatively impact the achievement of fair outcomes for the parties involved. In this research paper, the role of ethics within the criminal justice system is observed through the incorporation of Weber’s theoretical understanding and the representation of common ethical considerations regarding the acceptance or rejection of forms of authority. Moreover, the ethical considerations of one critical actor of the criminal justice system – the police personnel is also examined by integrating concepts of police profiling and possible justifications for this action in the present global security scenario. Accordingly, the research incorporates the concept of ethical relativism and subjectivism to identify potential problems with ethics. The assessment of ethical relativism is supported by appropriate research findings which have studied the impact of the same on the basis of certain variables including educational qualification, tenure, experience and gender. The notion of ethical issues in criminal justice is associated with the conception of what is linked with the understanding of moral philosophy, perceptions of crediting something as right or regarding something as wrong and outlining the moral qualities which must be possessed and practiced by an individual to achieve a sound state of ethical and moral standing (Banks, 2012). The integration of ethics and subsequent ethical dilemmas in criminal justice is rooted in establishing the link between these comprehensive notions. Criminal justice fundamentally involves the presence of participants who are expected to conduct effective decision making to arrive at conclusions. The possession of discretion by each individual participant who comprises of the criminal justice system triggers the emergence of ethical dilemmas in criminal justice and highlights the problems with ethics in the criminal justice system. In alignment with this perspective, the purpose of this research paper is to outline, examine and analyze the eminent issues surrounding ethics in the criminal justice system. The right to exercise authority is a central concept in the development of criminal justice studies and it reflects upon the stature and characteristics of the mechanism as a means of arriving at equitable, fair and unchallenged conclusions regarding a particular case or scenario. Banks (2012) identifies that the issue of utilizing an authoritative position for the purpose of fulfilling personal favors or promoting personal ideals has been highlighted as a recurring ethical issue in the performance of an effective criminal justice system. The problem of racial profiling amongst the legal authorities has been assessed by criminologists through the incorporation of alternating perspectives. According to Tyler and Wakslak (2004) it is possible to suggest that police profiling is a consequence of racist behaviors and generalizations which lead personnel to judge individuals in accordance with specific characteristics. However, a competing perspective on this scenario suggests that police personnel do not depict unconcealed and obvious tendencies when identifying an individual. Therefore, a possible justification during such instances is provided by subjectively assessing the scenario and legitimizing certain actions by examining the scenario on a comprehensive level and declaring preventative measures (Tyler and Wakslak, 2004). A critical consideration regarding the role of profiling and its assessment in the context of the criminal justice system and ethical issues is linked with the security situation which emerged in the post 9/11 scenario. For example, in an experiment conducted by Tyler and Wakslak (2004) regarding the legitimacy of police profiling in the post 9/11 world, majority respondents declared police profiling tendencies to be justified and legitimate thereby, suggesting that such behaviors can be attributed to be integral to advance the effectiveness of patrolling and policing efforts. However, the ethical issues surrounding profiling are evident because racist behaviors are triggered by the possession of differing personal values which spark misconceptions and mistrust. Thus the ethical issue and dilemma of this particular problem is rooted in supporting stricter and stern patrolling in a potentially risky security environment or discrediting the emergence of patrolling tendencies which may generalize certain groups based on prior arrests and participation in unlawful activities. Accordingly the context of ethical considerations within the realm of the criminal justice system can also be associated with the perspectives involving research etiquettes and guidelines which must be adhered to for the purposes of advancing discussions on the subject. Jones (2012) understands that the prevalence of utilizing human subjects in research scenarios pertaining to criminal justice is highly questionable and risky because of aspects that are related to consequences which have been demonstrated in an experiment conducted by Milgram. The occurrence of the experiment proclaims that when subjected to the imposition of what can be identified as ‘situational forces’ individuals often demonstrate mannerisms that are aligned with biased inclinations as an outcome of authoritative practice. Therefore, when human subjects are expected to participate in studies and analyses which are conducive to forwarding the scope of criminal justice then the validity of specific outcomes and results may come under scrutiny for being valid or objective. Moreover, the argument also sheds light on the notion of how the perceived authority and power of personnel can prompt individuals to act or respond in a manner which may not necessary represent their understandings but only be projected to advance the possibility of complying with the expected demands of the supposed higher figures which are involved in conducting the research (Jones, 2012). The implications of producing biased findings which defy objectivity and comprise the validity of data is detrimental to the decision making process which must be undertaken to assess the situation correctly and determine the correct set of consequences for favoring a particular action over another. For example, the adoption of classification methodologies to serve decision making in the criminal justice system maybe objected because the core elements surrounding the implementation of this process are linked with generalizations and associating similar variables for the aim of comprehending the data and identifying the trends in an appropriate manner. As noted by Gottfredson (1987, p. 1) when conducting classification to aid decision making “…the aim is to develop groups whose members are similar to one another and who differ from members of other groups”. Thus, when practicing classification scenarios are equated on the basis of similarity thereby, reducing the probability of undertaking assessment on individual subjects which do not demonstrate any association with one group or another. The most alarming consideration involving this case is that it may enhance the possibility of jeopardizing the outcomes of decision making within the sphere of the criminal justice system and also challenge them on an ethical and moral standard. An ethical issue which is inherent within the system of criminal justice can be highlighted on the basis of examining the challenges that are faced by social scientists as they embark upon understanding and defining the principles of disciplines which are not rooted in scientific inquiry and elements. Commenting on the dilemmas which emerge as an outcome of these considerations, Bottoms and Tankebe (2012, p. 130) assert that it is important to distinguish “…between obeyed legality and truly normative legitimate authority”. The criticism of these foundations of social science and ultimately, the criminal justice system itself is rooted in the teachings of Weber. Fundamentally, the argument which has been forwarded by the theorist claims that the values for human behavior, interaction and decision making in various areas of life are in fact the creation of multiple mindsets and collaborations hence, it can be stated that these values are merely inventions rather than pre-existing understandings which allow individuals to live their lives and take significant and impactful decisions. The foundations of this claim therefore, describe that norms and values are two significant phenomenons which can only be strictly linked to how individuals as a society choose to put them into place. In this regard the presence of morality can be solely ascribed to the human entity and its existence can be correlated with the emergence of societies as without the existence of mankind as a whole morality possesses a neutral standing and does not out rightly label an action as moral and another as immoral (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012). Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) apply this understanding to the stature of values which are associated with the analysis of ethical models and political frameworks. The primary claim against this contention has been forwarded by Kane (2010) who states that the basis for ethical judgment and analysis cannot possibly be linked with factual understandings and statements. Henceforth, owing to the absence of facts human beings possess the ability to create, shape and mend ethical models and political systems (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012). This identification can be linked with several ethical issues in the assessment of authoritative control and imposition of power specifically to the concepts of discretionary actions and the incorporation of personal perceptions and values in undertaking criminal proceedings. Henceforth, this claim allows the deduction of the notion which states that it is not possible for human beings to determine the correct basis for authority which should be favored or adhered to only because morality itself is neutral and norms and values are social creations (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012). The absence of rationality in determining and eventually accepting the legitimacy of a specific form of authority develops and integrates the criterion of subjectivism or relativism within the realm of criminal justice as one of the most fundamental drivers of ethical problems. This notion postulates that despite of the absolute need to establish rigorous criterions for guiding and ultimately enhancing the functioning of the criminal justice system, relativism reiterates that actors within the criminal justice system possess differing ethical orientations that may be developed as a consequence of social, environmental and ideological factors. For example, a research conducted by Catlin and Maupin (2002) sought to find the extent of variation with regard to the ethical perspectives and orientations of police personnel in a police department which was spread over a considerable scale. The responses of the experiment’s participants were assessed in accordance with their tendencies to favor idealistic and subjectivist ethical orientations through the allotted questionnaires. Moreover, the experimenters also classified data sets on the basis of groupings which were conducted as per the experience level and tenure of personnel. The outcome of the experiment established that in comparison with personnel who were recently hired by the police department, personnel who possessed an on-duty experience of one year were less inclined towards favoring an ethical orientation that is characterized by idealism. On the other hand, new recruits were less focused towards fulfilling their responsibilities by abiding upon the provisions of a subjectivist ethical orientation (Catlin and Maupin, 2002). The implications of this research are rooted in highlighting that because of the nature of ethical standards and their conception within human society, it is not possible to establish a standardized set of norms and values across the entire scope of the system. Thus, aspects involving education, tenure and experience can readily impact perceptions and alter ethical orientations as an individual continues to serve as a part of the criminal justice system. The implications of this understanding can be further explored in the research of Byers and Powers (1997) who examined three critical factors in the behavior and attitudes of actors within the criminal justice system while, specifically highlighting the problem of ethics. The first question which the research aimed to address by examining the sample size was partially focused upon assessing whether an actor’s ethical orientation plays a role in determining the behavior, attitude and subsequent actions of the actor when faced with establishing whether an act is just or a product of unlawful motivations. Moreover, the research also set to establish if ethical orientation plays any part in suggesting whether the individual who is responsible for perpetrating the act commands any degree of social attractiveness and task attractiveness (Byers and Powers, 1997). The results of the research established that when faced with the act of an individual, an actor relies upon his/her ethical orientation to develop notions regarding the standing of the act, the subsequent actions and the plan of decision making. Thus, decisions regarding the particular act are closely associated with the ethical standing of the person which is in turn shaped primarily via the channel of education (Byers and Powers, 1997; Catling and Maupin, 2002). While, educational attainment was deemed as primary factor in assigning individuals with a specific ethical orientation the study of Bjerregaard and Lord (2004) revealed that gender as a variable of significance in this matter also possesses the ability to shape individuals’ selection of a particular ethical dimension and the rejection of another with regard their viewing of the criminal justice system. The study findings postulated that in comparison with men, women demonstrate less likelihood of engaging or participating in activities of ethical violation and also label participation in ethical violations to be an act of grave misjudgment (Bjerregaard and Lord, 2004). In terms of educational commitments, a study conducted on a sample size of 82 university level students of which 51 belonged to the criminal justice major found that perspectives on the functioning of criminal justice are largely comparable amongst qualified individuals (Wolfer and Friedrichs, 2001). The evaluations of experiments, researches and analysis which have been cited in this examination suggest that ethical relativism is indeed present and applicable with respect to the criminal justice system. However, despite of the realization that moral standards and values are often accepted by societies to be binding across all spectrums of life, the diversity of social makeup indicates that ethical considerations for citizens of a country may come under scrutiny for being in conflict with the understandings of the others. For example, Banks (2012) notes that while, it would be possible to define the moral standards of a small tribal community the diversity of nations such as the United States of America makes assessment of cultural relativism a problematic area. Thus, as a result definitions of criminal justice and stances on critical matters of concern such as that of death penalty may appear varied across the nation. Moreover, the problem with this factor is that eventually under such circumstances citizens may take it upon themselves to participate in individual relativism and impose their favored moral standards as being binding across society (Banks, 2012). The outcomes of such a campaign are bound to be unfair and disadvantageous for a particular society because of conflicting perspectives and views on the matter. Eventually, this primary problem with ethics in the criminal justice system invites disagreements on critical matters surrounding policy studies, political debate, policy implementation and law making. References Banks, C. C. L. (2012). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Sage Publications. Bjerregaard, B., & Lord, V. B. (2004). An examination of the ethical and value orientation of criminal justice students. Police Quarterly, 7(2), 262-284. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 102, 119. Byers, B., & Powers, W. G. (1997). Criminal justice and ethical ideology:: an exploration of a loyalty-truthfulness dilemma. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(6), 527-540. Catlin, D. W., & Maupin, J. R. (2002). Ethical orientations of state police recruits and one-year experienced officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(6), 491-498. Gottfredson, D. M. (1987). Prediction and classification in criminal justice decision making. Crime and Justice, 1-20.1 Jones, J. A. (2012). Ethical Considerations in Criminal Justice Research: Informed Consent and Confidentiality. Student Pulse, 4(08). Kane, R. (2010). Ethics and the Quest for Wisdom. Cambridge University Press. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice, Attributions of Motive, and Acceptance of Police Authority*.Criminology, 42(2), 253-282. Wolfer, L., & Friedrichs, D. O. (2001). A commitment to justice at a Jesuit university: A comparison of criminal justice majors to non-majors. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12(2), 319-336. Read More