Unethical Issues on the Law Enforcement System - Coursework Example

Unethical Issues on the Law Enforcement System Unethical Issues in the Law Enforcement System Law enforcement profession seems to be very unique. It has officers who experience the host of freedoms that are unavailable to the public in general and this as Roberson and Mire (2009) says, can lead to ethical situations that must be addressed with seriousness. For instance, driving at high speed, applying deadly force, and seizure of personal property, are some of the benefits they enjoy (Braswell, Mccarthy & McCarthy, 2014). According to Banks (2004), although these freedoms and privileges are necessary for law enforcement officers to be able to go about their business, they also are prone to abuse by the same law enforcement officers, particularly if the behavior is probably to be undetected due to lack of adequate supervision. The embarrassment that is caused by the misconduct may lead to loss of public trust, damage officer morale, hence exposing the agencies to unwanted litigation that is costly in many cases. Therefore, attainment of a clear understanding of the psychology that underlie unethical behavior is very important to all managers and supervisors that are concerned with law enforcement at all levels of an organization, without paying much attention to the mission or agency of a person (Heather & George, 2009). Factors leading to unethical behavior in the law enforcement In the consideration made to the nature of law enforcement and criminal justice, and specifically the policing done in the contemporary society, the behavior that is depicted by the officers of law enforcement is being targeted continually for ethical evaluation (Hess &Wrobleski, 2006). As Roberson and Mire (2009) argue, the law enforcement field has been under careful scrutiny during the various historical eras for behavior that has been questioned on ethical grounds. The cognitive processes together with the socialization that supports unethical and unprofessional conduct influence the proliferation and onset of behavior that is undesirable (Roberson & Mire, 2009). Therefore, while a person must be concerned with the sociological and psychological forces that assist in producing the unprofessionalism in police and also the unethical behavior in them, the sight of the choice of role in the police misconduct should not be lost (Bennett, 2007). One would be forced to avail credible evidence that gives the suggestion that policing has not evolved to be more professional over the previous number of decades. According to Bersoff (2003), it appears to be equally reasonable to offer the suggestion that all the field of policing is filled with corruption and has loopholes for graft. As Bennett (2007) argues, the rotten barrel theory of corruption in the police force offers a suggestion of such loopholes in the police department. As noted by Banks (2004), the rotten barrel theory of corruption within the police force gives the suggestion that the illegal and unethical behavior does not occur at the individual level only but it is rampant enough in the police department that traces of the unethical conduct may be found in the top administrative officials. There is yet another interpretation of the corruption in the police force known as the rotten apple theory. Figure 1.1 showing the development of law enforcement ethics, retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/180230/drop-among-nonwhites-drives-police-honesty-ratings-down.aspx The rotten apple theory As Thomas (2010) explains, the approach does not support the suggestion that unethical conduct and corruption is very pervasive to the extent that it spreads throughout the organization and the highest ranks. Rather, this approach tries to suggest that there are some immoral individuals in the police department referred to as rotten apples and, therefore, isolates the inappropriate behavior to some individuals (Ayouty, Ford, & J.K. Davies, 2000). The administrators of police have been careful about this kind of explanation in the period of police corruption since it avoids the suggestion of corruption in the whole department, and it enable a tidy response, for instance, firing the officer involved. This explanation too does not result in unnecessary tarnishing of the image of the whole department (Bersof, 2003). There has been yet another identification of an extra form of misconduct in the police department. Adding to the rotten barrel and the rotten apple theories, there is also the rotten group theory of corruption in the police department (Kleinig, 1993). As Fitch (2013) says, the pattern that is identified most commonly is the police corruption that is related to drugs where small groups of police officers assisted and protected each other in illegal activities. This is very different from the traditional patterns of the police corruption that was not related to drugs but just involved a few individuals that are isolated or the systemic corruption that pervades the whole police department. It is impossible to deny the necessity that is placed on the cognitive process that allows unethical conduct to take place, regardless of whether the unethical conduct is individual, systemic or small group. Figure 1.2 showing police ethics numbers, comparing of races and ethnic groups. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/180230/drop-among-nonwhites-drives-police-honesty-ratings-down.aspx Literature review The agencies of law enforcement go far most in the recruitment, hire, and training the applicants that are deemed to be most qualified (Matthew, 2007). These are the candidates who already have demonstrated a continuous record of good ethical conduct and moral values. According to MacVean and Neyroud (2012), correspondingly, most of the officers that support the law enforcement agency, its mission, and its values, and its values, perform the duties that are bestowed upon them in an et6hical manner while attempting to avoid any abuse of authority or misconduct. Yet, in spite of the best attempts of all organizations to avoid the unethical issues, it appears that nowadays one should not look far to find the instances of police misconduct, specifically in the general press (New York, 1996). The fact that is even more disturbing is that most of the officers that are involved in the unethical or immoral behavior had previously exhibited service records that were good, absent of the typical evil that is linked with abuse or corruption (Banks, 2004).While it is possibly a fact that at least several of the officers who are involved in the illegal activities somehow managed to slip through the flaws in the process of hiring and just continue their immoral ways. This background fails to give an explanation of how good officers engage in misconduct (Greene, 2007). The major goal of this paper is to make the law enforcement supervisors and managers familiar with the intellectual rationalizations that lead to immoral and unethical behavior. It also avails the suggestions and strategies that are meant for mitigating the misconduct, prior to its actual happening, through the development of a culture of ethics. Figure 1.3 comparing he number of police homicides black versus white; retrieved from http://lisaschweitzer.com/2014/12/04/the-concept-of-disproportionality-justice-and-police-shootings/ First is the moral disengagement and responsibility. As Perez and Moore (2012) says, many of the professionals in the law enforcement are, at their innermost caring, good, and ethical people. Despite the much use of the popular cliché, many of the police officers enter the law enforcement purely out of their desire of making a positive difference in the communities they are in. Frequently, the officers exhibit positive, strong moral values as they carry on their duties diligently, in most of the instances, at a high personal risk, in bringing criminals who are dangerous to justice (Kelly, 2002). In doing so, the officer gets a strong sense of self-worth and personal satisfaction. Therefore, most officers do not, and in many instances cannot be involved in the unethical conduct lest they are somehow able to avail personal justification of the morality of their deeds (Roberson, 2009). According to Pollock (2011), empirical research done in a decade have offered support to the idea that when the behaviors of a person are not consistent with their beliefs or attitudes, the individual will undergo a state of mental tension, a phenomenon that is known as cognitive dissonance (Turvey, 2013). Since this tension is usually uncomfortable, people will make great attempts to modify any behaviors and beliefs that are contradictory in ways that are aimed at elimination or reduction of the discomfort (Kleinig, 1993). The officers can minimize the mental tension by altering one or more the cognitions, that is, through modification of how they perceive their actions and the outcomes of the behaviors, or through adjustment of their beliefs, activities, or attitudes in ways that constant with their self-image and values (Perez & Moore, 2012). According to MacVean and Neyroud (2012), the officer will try to modify their cognitions that are least resistant to the change, where in many instances, tend to be the attitude of the officers and not their behaviors. In the attempts to minimizing the psychological discomfort that is brought about by misconduct, one of the simplest methods is restructuring the unethical behaviors cognitively in a way that make the officers seem socially and personally acceptable, thereby giving the officers the chance to behave immorally or unethically while preserving the self-image that portrays them as ethically good people (Matthew, 2007). The law enforcement officers may use the available loopholes to behave unethically and then justify it accordingly.Police officers use several scapegoats when involved in unethical conduct (Braswel & McCarthy, 2014). As Cockcroft (2012) says, denial of the victim is one of the ways. The officers who use this tactic give the argument that there exists no real victim, and, therefore, there is no real harm done. It is possibly safe to give the suggestion that generally, the officers do not consider thieves, sexual predators, and drug dealers as bona fide victims, even without considering the nature of the conduct of an officer. For example, as Biegelman and Bartow (2012) argues, an officer who receives money from a person who is suspected to be a drug dealer during the period they are conducting the service of search warrant may air the argument that the currency was acquired by the dealer illegally and, therefore, the dealer was actually never entitled to the proceeds. This implies that the money is the property of whoever is in its possession. But as Reisch (2014) found out, other officers use the victim of circumstance method. The officers who use this method justify their actions by making the assertions that they conducted themselves the way they did out of lack of any other choice (Matthew, 2007). The officers may argue that they were victims of unethical supervision, peer pressure, or of an environment in which everyone does what they did. Without much debate of the context, the officers justify their unethical conduct by making allegations that they lacked an alternative but to act the way they did (Banks & Walker, 2012). Several police officers use the denial of injury method (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). This form of rationalization is used when the officers convince themselves that since nobody was hurt by their conduct; their behavior can’t be really considered as immoral. This kind of explanation is particularly common in cases that involve stolen property, large amount of cash that is untraceable, or drugs, where it can be actually hard, if not impossible, to make an identification of the party that is injured (Greene, 2007). The officers who make use of this method may neutralize further their deviant conduct by making comparisons to the harm that is caused by the drug dealer whose money was stolen. There is also the use of advantageous comparisons in attempts to justify immoral and unethical conduct by the police (Hess, 2006). The officers who rely on this explanation depend on social comparisons that are selective in attempts of attaining defense for their conduct. For instance, officers who make a false report to be able to convict an individual who is suspected to be a drug dealer might defend their conduct by reduction of their participation or regularity of the unethical behavior they are involved in while simultaneously the vilify a coworker as a person who prepares false reports every time. In comparison to the officer who always makes false reports, the conduct of the first officer may appear less egregious (Cockcroft, 2012). According to Kelly (2002), there exist a cognitive restructuring known as higher cause. The officers who put this into practice have the argument that in some instances, it may be helpful to break some rules in order to serve a calling that is higher or to achieve a goal that is more important. An officer who carries out a search that is unlawful for the purpose of uncovering evidence against a pedophile that is suspected may argue that the breaking of the rules was justified by the nature of the crime (Kleinig, 1993). The officer may make the assertion that the end justifies the means while trying to suggest that what they did was necessary, without much consideration of the morality or legality of their conduct, to assist the arrest of dangerous criminals. As Ayouty, Ford and Davies (2000) identify, this method of rationalization may be especially disturbing since it exceeds the mere excuse or justification for the deviant behavior to the level of glorifying some types of wrongdoing in the disguise of the greater good or justice.The police officers may also use the method of blaming the victim in the justifications of their unethical conduct (Whitman, 2014). The officers who normally use this type justification place all the blame on the victim for any abuse or misconduct. For instance, if police officers use force that is unreasonable on an individual who is suspected to be a drug dealer, they may argue simply that the victim underwent this suffering because he violated the law. The officer might reason that the drug dealer should keep the law if at all he does not want to be beaten up. He may also add that he only uses force on drug dealers because when they fail to obey the law they give up on their rights, but not on citizens that are law abiding (Biegelman & Bartow, 2012). By the way of placing blame on the victim, the police officer gets a scapegoat to excuse his wrongdoing and also feel self-satisfied about doing so. The other method or loophole that the officers who are involved in law enforcement may use is the dehumanization. The amount of shame or guilt felt by the officers for exhibiting unethical behavior depends, at least partially, on how they refer to the person they abuse. In order to avoid the guilt or self-censorship feeling that mostly accompanies their misconduct, the officers may use inoffensive language so that they may strip the humanity of the victims. The use of names like ‘dirtbag’ when describing law violators has the impact of dehumanizing the targets who are intended, making it generally easier for the officers to ignore, minimize, or justify the harmful impacts of their actions, while simultaneously minimizing their individual responsibility for behaving in ways they are aware are wrong (California, 1980). The availability of these loopholes makes the law enforcement to be unreliable and hence they should be corrected so that they may serve well. References: Ayouty, Y., Ford, & J.K. Davies, M. (2000). Government Ethics and Law Enforcement: Toward Global Guidelines. New York, NY.: Greenwood Publishing Group. Braswell, M., Mccarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. (2014). Justice, Crime, and Ethics. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Banks, C. (2004). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Banks, T. L., Walker, R., &Practising Law Institute. (2012). Corporate compliance and ethics institute, 2012. New York, NY: Practising Law Institute. California. (1980). Professional orientation. Sacramento, Calif: California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Biegelman, M., & Bartow, J. (2012). Executive Roadmap to Fraud Prevention and Internal Control: Creating a Culture of Compliance. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bersoff, D. N. (2003). Ethical conflicts in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bennett, W. W., Hess, K. M., &Orthmann, C. M. H. (2007).Management and supervision in law enforcement. Cockcroft, T. (2012). Police Culture: Themes and Concepts. London, UK: Routledge. Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (1998). The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life: Chicago Series in Law and Society. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press. Fitch, B. (2013). Law Enforcement Ethics: Classic and Contemporary Issues. New York, NY: SAGE Publications. Greene, J. (2007). The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Volume 1 The Encyclopedia of Police Science, Jack R. Greene. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Kelly, J. (2002). Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Kleinig, J. &. (1993). Professional Law Enforcement Codes: A Documentary Collection. New York, NY: Greenwood Publishing Group. MacVean, A., & Neyroud, P. (2012). Police Ethics and Values. New York, NY: SAGE. Matthew, J. (2007). Police Ethics Training: Preferred Modes of Teaching in Higher Education Law Enforcement. New York, NY: ProQuest. New York, N. (1996). The Ethics of Policing: Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. Perez, D., & Moore, J. (2012). Police Ethics. LOndon, UK: Cengage Learning. Pollock, J. (2011). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. London,UK: Cengage Learning. Reisch, M. (2014). The Routledge International Handbook of Social Justice. London, UK: Routledge. Thomas, D. (2010). Professionalism in Policing: An Introduction. London, UK: Cengage Learning. Turvey, T. (2013). Forensic Fraud: Evaluating Law Enforcement and Forensic Science Cultures in the Context of Examiner Misconduct. New York, NY: Academic Press. Heather, W.-N., & George, F. (2009). Ethics Training in Law Enforcement Agencies.Public Integrity, 12, 1, 39-50. Whitman, M. E., &Mattord, H. J. (2014).Management of information security. Hess, K. M., &Wrobleski, H. M. (2006).Police operations: Theory and practice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Roberson, C., & Mire, S. (2009). Ethics for Criminal Justice Professionals. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Read More