The Relevance of the Law Enforcement Code - Case Study Example

CRITICALLY ANALYSING HOW ASPECTS OF THE CASE STUDY MIGHT BE UNDERSTOOD FROM TWO DIFFERENT THEORITICAL FRAMEWORKS (CONSEQUENTALIST AND NON CONSEQUENTALAIST) YOU HAVE CHOOSEN: (Author’s Name} (Institutional affiliation) Abstract: The case study below is to be used in the analysis of the best course of action to be taken by police, either to apply the deontological or a teleological ethical standpoint. Key words: consequentialists and non-consquatialists Case Study: "Would you like some grapes?" I hear her say to the child in the trolley in the supermarket. "That's good - her kid likes fruit," I think, but am then a little surprised to see her take a bunch of grapes from the display bin, and hand it to the toddler. He proceeds to munch on it. I continue choosing the fruit I want; only to hear her say a little later "Do you want a peach?" She picks a nice one, breaks it into manageable chunks, and gives it to the kid. There's no way this stuff is going to be weighed and paid for when she reaches the checkout. Another day, in the same supermarket, an elderly woman pulls bananas from a bunch, leaving behind the stalks attached to the rest of the fruit, presumably so she will not have to pay for the bits she can't use. I think if she could, she would leave the skins there too. In another row the guy removes the green stalks from the hydroponic tomatoes so they look like the ordinary, cheaper ones and he will pay for them as such, and wanders off. In order to understand the difference between consequentialists and non-consquatialists, we can put it simply those consequentalists do believe that whether a given idea is right or wrong depends only on the consequences of the particular deed. Non-consequentialists believe on the other hand that that right or wrong depends on the sole intention, for example if a policeman gives bribe to the poor in order to conceal evidence of malpractice, a consequentialist would insist that this is generally a good deed, no matter that he only carried it out for his own good,a non-consequentialist on the other hand would put it that this cannot be a moral deed at all, because the intention was not ethical. In general consequentiality will always focus more on deeds as to determine whether they are good or bad. Non-consequentialists focus more generally on character. Deontologists do argue the determination of rightness or wrongness of an act does not necessarily depend on the goodness or badness of its ultimate consequences. In contrast, idea of consequentialism holds that the same right act or system of the given rules is the one that maximizes or duly satisfies good consequences as to determine by a very impartial determination of evils and goods. Bernard and Richard, (1967). Deontological ethics is always thought to involve two most important elements: the prerogatives and some constraints. Prerogatives do actually deny that the agents must always tend to seek to perform act with optimum and maximum consequences. Constraints do place some limits on what actions the agents may undertake in an average effort to bring about their ultimate own or the rather impartial good. Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which do state that the morally right action is the one which will always produces the greatest value of happiness for the greatest number of people. Act utilitarianism is normally opposed to rule utilitarianism, which states that the morally right act is the one that is done in accordance with various moral rules whose general observance would create the most happiness. Act utilitarianism makes no appeals for reference to general rules, but instead stresses demand that the agent must evaluate individual circumstances. Kant duty ethics According to Kant the morally important and straight forward thing to do is not consequences but the way choosers think when they decide to make important choices. Kant says that only one thing is inherently important and good, and that is the good will. The will which is only found in humans but not the nonhuman ones, not a material thing but it is always our power of rational moral choices on important deeds whose presence gives the humans their most inherent dignity. The utterance "practical imperative" according to Kant himself is just one of many ways of stating his official Categorical Imperative. This is actually the version of Categorical Imperative which seems designed to exclude exploitation. Utilitarianism has been generally accused of justifying exploitation of a group of people already disadvantaged. If a program tends to increases the misery of the disadvantaged but always promotes the total and ultimate social good, then utilitarianism might have to struggle to support such a program. Kant's three most significant formulations of the categorical imperative are but not limited to the following: Act only according to that maximum threshold by which you can also want that it would eventually become a universal law. Act in such a way will likely always treat humanity, whether in your own personality or in the personal form of any other, never simply as a just a mere means, but always at the same time as what comes at an end. Act as if you were, through your maximum threshold, a law-making member of an era ends. Arguments which hold that there is always some special connection between moral value and moral obligation might take several forms. The obligation concepts are generally fundamental and the concepts of value are definable in their own terms. Thus it might be stressed that the notion of fittingness is rather very fundamental, and that its intrinsic good only means that it is very and always fitting for every rational of being a desire . those are the kind of theories we call deontological. The concepts of value being fundamental and the concepts of obligation are definable in terms of themselves. Such given theories may be called Teleological. It might be said that a given idea is a right action, what this means is that the idea is likely to produce consequences which are at least as good and better as those of any other given action open to the specific agent at agent at the time ends. Non-Aggression Principle The non-aggression principle, which is generally known as the non-aggression axiom and the zero aggression principle, is stance which is very ethical in stating that any initiation of force is illicit and contrary to rule of natural law. It is the basic moral axiom of deontological libertarianism, most famously used. Case study In our case study we will major on the police actions as far as cases related to shopping malpractices in supermarkets and malls etc are concerned. Their actions as to the intentions of the accused persons. Which theory they will apply. The relevance of the ‘Law Enforcement Code of Ethics’ is in its providing essential information on the role of officers in maintaining their duty, useful to determine whether the officers activities are within their mandate as law enforcers. The officers are expected to protect lives and property as well as people from deception, oppression, and intimidation. Further, it is their duty to ensure peace and promote constitutional rights of liberty, equality, and justice. Aristotle, (1984) Application In deciding on the best course of action toward dealing with the issue of shoplifting activity, the Sheriff may select the use a consequential or non-consequential approach to ethics such as rule utilitarianism or deontology respectively. This would determine that the decision was based on the method that the Sheriff determines will achieve the best results in the case. The decision would be toward upholding the rule of duty and its obligations and thus achieving the good for the majority or responding to personal duties regardless of the outcome. Consequential Theory: Rule Utilitarianism A possible approach under consequential theory is rule utilitarianism, a concept derived from the utilitarian theory. The utilitarian theory operates under the premise that an action is right if it produces the highest pleasure. This means an act is right or wrong based on the goodness or badness of the consequences. Rule utilitarianism serves to focus the assumption based on ‘actions’ by interpreting the term or giving it an operational meaning. As such rule utilitarianism denotes that actions are a class of activities under some general rule whose achievement would produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The approach seeks to apply a rule in choosing alternatives of action, where the applied rule will achieve better consequences than the alternative rules. Mitisis, (1989) When applying the rule utilitarianism approach to the options presented of addressing shoplifting or actions which may have not been intentionally done towards shoplifting, the Sheriff is to choose the option that follows a certain rule and at the same time achieves the greater good. An applicable rule is under the duty of an officer to protect people from deception, intimidation and oppression. When applied, the Sheriffs decision should provide the officers a way to work ethically while achieving the greater good. Greater good is achievable through identification of possible surveillance, which would ensure officers can perform their work without the shoppers that they are thieves but first understand the intention of their actions, and at the same time protect innocent people from coercion to doing the same under ignorance of the law and moral ethics. It would also provide the sheriff with the needed case evidence without putting the shoppers at risk. Non-consequential Theory: Deontology Another approach useful to the Sheriff is deontology, a theory that denotes people should adhere to their obligations and duties when seeking to resolve an ethical issue. In this case, the decision maker is expected to follow his or her obligations to the society or other individuals. Upholding one’s obligations and duties is considered under deontological ethics as the correct action. This means that the person should follow the law or promises they have made. Further, their decisions are usually consistent with the requirements of the law because they are based on a set of duties as opposed to considering what would be of benefit to the person and others. Remarkably, deontology can allow decisions toward acts that may result in less good consequences if they are not supported by duty or obligation. A decision based on the deontological approach would confide the Sheriff on acting or deciding on actions supported by his obligations to the society. This means that it does not matter whether the action achieves the highest good or pleasure if it has the potential to resolve the ethical dilemma. For example, the Sheriff may choose to uphold the first option of continuing the present form for attaining information related to shop lifting activities or those shopping malpractices, and accessing evidence that would lead to prosecution and thus resolving prostitution. The sheriff’s first obligation is to the County, and as such his decision must protect the county and its people. This must also put in perspective the needs and feeling of supermarket owners, their losses as well as reputation that their other customers get when they know they are buying second hand magazines. Allan, (1998). Decision Making The ethical issue that Sheriff Ship needs to resolve is his action in relation to supermarket and shoplifting as well as malpractices by shoppers. Possible actions include continuing the status quo, forming a debriefing taskforce to help the officers overcome any emotional stress related to their activities, street and building surveillance, or engaging people from the industry willing to help the force. The best option is to establish surveillance for streets and buildings renowned for prostitution activity, and the evidence gathered in the surveillance being used in prosecution. Jackson,(1999). This is because the option ensures the officers and sheriff are able to do their duty to apprehend those engaging in illegal activities, protect those that may be coerced into the activities, and protect the officers and their partners from physical risks, and rid the county of the vice. Evaluation Agreeably, some may feel surveillance is not the right action. One possible argument is that it violates the right to privacy for those targeted by the surveillance team .This argument acknowledges the constitutional right to privacy. However, law enforcement officers’ duty to protect all citizens provides justification to the means employed. Remarkably, the surveillance would achieve the greater good for the whole community that is not possible by protecting the privacy of a few people. Lobo Gomez, (1994) Another argument is that the option does not guarantee the achievement of positive results. This relates to the failure of knowing whether the consequences will achieve the greater good .In defense, the chosen option provides a way to operate within possible rules instead of trying to appease mankind. Armin, (1903) The third argument is that the option does not recognize the danger exposed to the officers when they set up surveillance. This argument is based on the assumption that the officers primary goal is to achieve maximum good, without regard for the associated danger. Nevertheless, it is arguable that the officers’ obligation to the society offsets their preference to act only on acts that will lead to only their good. Reflection Moving toward finding a solution for the sheriff’s ethical dilemma, required critical thinking in which one considers the merits and demerits of the final decision. Learnt from the experience was the importance of having supporting factors for any ethical decision to ensure that it is the best possible solution. The experienced involved finding supporting ideas and confirming them using literal works related to the issue. The strengths that facilitated the process included knowing the importance of finding literal backup for presented ideas, and acknowledging the possibility of one’s ideas not always representing the better decision. Irwin, (1997). However, the process could have been improved by foregoing the possibility of personal opinion that affects the way one thinks about an issue, thus affecting the outcome. Conclusion The police (sheriff) will use the non.consequentalists theory for the sole reason that most shoppers don not commit the malpractices with the intention that they are committing a crime but rather for their own good. Others are just ignorant that they are breaking the law, some are due to the supermarkets own structures of service that delay the customers, this entirely for the ethical reasons. For reasons of the rule of law some education should be given out to the ignorant to prevent future occurrences as well as only letting of the hook those found not to have had real intention to commit crime. References: 1. Aristotle, The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. 2, Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Princeton University Press, 1984. 2. Bernard Rosen.; Garner, Richard T. (1967). Moral Philosophy: New York 215. LOC card number 67-18887.  3. C.C.W. Taylor and Gosling, J.C.B., 1985, Greeks on Pleasure, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 4. D.N. Sedley, AND Long, A.A., The Hellenistic Philosophers, Volumes 1 Cambridge University Press, 1997. 5. Frank, Jackson "Critical Notice" Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 70, No. 4; December 1999 (pp. 470-489). 6. Gibbard, Allan (1998). "Reply to Railton," in Naturalism and Normativity, (ed.). Atascadero, CA:, pp. 50-59. 7. Joachim Arnim, (ed.), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, Volumes I-IV, Leipzig: Teubner, 1903-24. 8. Laertius, Diogenes Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volumes I (Loeb Classical Library), D. R. Hicks (trans.), Harvard University Press, 1996. 9. Lobo Gomez- 1994, The Foundations of Socratic Ethics. 10. On Moral Ends, R. Woolf (trans.): Cambridge University Press, 2001. 11. Phillip, Mitisis 1989, Epicurus' Ethical Theory: Cornell University press. 12. S,L Hurley,(1989). Natural Reasons: Personality and Polity. Oxford press. 13. Terence, Irwin, 1997, Plato's Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press. Read More