Philosophical and Practical Approach for Balancing Issues - Assignment Example

Philosophical and Practical Approach for Balancing Issues al Affiliation Philosophical and Practical Approach for Balancing Issues In every professional endeavor, there is a set of ethical standards that must be adhered to in order to ensure that the interests and rights of the proponents and those of the stakeholders they serve are effectively addressed; more so in the field of criminal justice. The current discourse hereby aims to present findings based on one’s research in the areas relevant to individual rights, morality, ethics, individual rights, duty, and codes of conduct for criminal justice professionals; and to address the following concerns: 1. Explanation of one’s philosophy and approach for balancing of these two (2) issues: individual rights and the publics protection. Atkins (2011) differentiated the need to balance individual rights with the need to protect public order through defining what the advocates of each group proposes. Accordingly, citing Schmallenger (2012), the advocates for individual rights are described as “those who seek to protect the personal freedoms within the process of criminal justice” (p. 6; cited in Atkins, 2011, par. 1). In contrast, the supporters for public order were clearly described as “those who believe that under certain circumstances involving criminal threat to public safety, the interests of society should take precedence over individual rights” (Schmallenger, 2012, p. 6; cited in Atkins, 2011, par. 1). Clearly, there would be some situations where balancing these two issues could be challenging. For instance individual rights have been duly recognized and protected through the Bill of Rights (Fagin, 2007). However, when expression of such rights cause harm, prejudice, or injury to others, the government was noted to have the power to take precedence through a Supreme Court ruling. As emphasized, “the government must have the power of physical force to protect people and their property from the physical violations of others. However, this power was to be balanced against the need to preserve individual liberty” (Fagin, 2007, p. 11). Therefore, one’s philosophy in balancing these two issues, individual rights and public’s protection is to comply and adhere to the Bill of Rights with due recognition that in conflicting situations, one must decide in serving the interests of the greatest number of people for the greatest good. 2. Explanation of one’s philosophy and approach for balancing of these two (2) issues: use of reward and punishment in criminal justice. The concept of reward and punishment has been part of professional organization’s thrust within the maintenance function of human resources management. Like other issues that govern conduct and behavior, designing an effective rewards and punishment program or policies within the criminal justice profession should take into consideration relevant factors, to wit: (1) criteria for rewarding people; and the (2) theories of how to reward and punish. One is convinced that the concept of reward, more than being perceived as being offered monetary considerations for exemplary performance could also include non-monetary benefits. According to Kanduc (2010), “the designation “reward” includes also gratifications related to drives (or emotional dispositions), which can be classified in the semantic space of the Greek notion thymos (meaning in particular the need of the human animal to be noticed, recognized, accepted, appreciated, or to be worthy of attention, kindness, and love in a successful relationship with “important others”)” (Kanduc, 2010, p. 164; cited in NCJRS, 2010). On the other hand, penalties are sanctions for violating explicitly defined policies or regulations. However, unlike business organizations, penalities in criminal justice were perceived to pose greater challenges in terms of apparent decline in authority, individualism, power struggles, to name a few. Thus, where rewards have been identified to be premised using theories of retributivism (“people deserve rewards (or punishments) for what they have done not for what the consequences of what they have done may be. What they have done is primarily assessed in terms of effort” (Chapter 6 - Reward and Punishment, n.d., p. 23); and utilitarianism (thinking of the outcome that provides the greatest good to the greatest number of people); imposition of penalties were noted to be premised on theories of retributive or deserts theory: “punishment only when it is deserved not in order to accomplish anything, such as deter. Imposed because of a crime committed not a social good to be achieved” (Chapter 6 - Reward and Punishment, n.d., p. 24). Thus, one’s philosophy in using rewards and punishment in criminal justice is to take into consideration "a synthetic approach (which) appears best for both reward and punishment without losing sight of need and the egalitarian approach” (Chapter 6 - Reward and Punishment, n.d., p. 25). This means that situations, persons, and ethical standards need to be incorporated in decision regarding provision of rewards or sanctions which benefit society and provides opportunities to rehabilitate errant behavior. 3. Explanation of one’s philosophy and approach for balancing the use of immoral means (e.g., lying in interrogation) to accomplish desirable ends. One’s philosophy is never to use anything immoral, unethical, or illegal as a means to accomplish desired ends. There have been some studies which indicate that law enforcement officers sometimes tend to apply deceptive techniques to coerce suspects into revealing needed information (Honesty Is the Best Policy: A Case for the Limitation of Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices in the United States, n.d.). However, it was also disclosed that information sought from suspects using these immoral means could be questionable in court and could therefore be rendered unreliable and useless. As emphasized, “the deceptive tactics employed by the police potentially cloud the value of confession evidence and raise serious concerns about reliability (Honesty Is the Best Policy: A Case for the Limitation of Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices in the United States, n.d., p. 1030). 4. Recommendation of at least three (3) ways to use ethics in decision making about these issues in criminal justice. Using ethics in decision making about these issues would assist practitioners in the criminal justice field through the provision of clear guidelines and standards that direct them into the most effective course of action. Thus, ethics could be used in situations where public interests versus individual rights should be balanced through weighing potential consequences of one’s action and determining whose interests should be prioritized and which would serve the greatest good. Secondly, ethics would illuminate law enforcement officers with the assistance of ethical theories and assist them to integrate the factors that need to be taken into consideration prior to decision making. Finally, ethical standards provide the theoretical framework for staying at the right direction when touted with opportunities to use immoral means to seek the truth. In sum, as emphasized, “society demands honesty not just in personal and business dealings, but also in the practices of its guardians. In an effort to maintain the integrity and purpose of the criminal justice system, the legislatures must seek to drive the policies of law enforcement towards the direction of reliability” (Honesty Is the Best Policy: A Case for the Limitation of Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices in the United States, n.d., p. 1060). Ethical standards provide the needed guidelines that leaders and practitioners in the criminal justice field to adhere to universal laws pertaining to morality and conformity to legal requirements. References Atkins, K. (2011, October 28). Individual Rights versus Public Order in America. Retrieved from The American Beacon: http://theamericanbeacon.com/2011/10/28/individual-rights-versus-public-order-in-america/ Chapter 6 - Reward and Punishment. (n.d.). Retrieved from prenhall.com: http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/855/875571/IM_PDF/im_ch06_1.pdf Fagin, J. A. (2007). Criminal Justice. Retrieved from pearsonhighered.com: http://www.pearsonhighered.com/samplechapter/020547893X.pdf Honesty Is the Best Policy: A Case for the Limitation of Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved from vanderbilt.edu: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/Khasin-cr_final_final.pdf Kanduc, Z. (2010). Reward and Punishment in (Post)Modern Society-Criminological Contribution to the Theory of Sanctioning. Revija za Kriminalistiko in Kriminologijo, Vol. 2, Issue 61, 164-167. NCJRS. (2010, April). Reward and Punishment in (Post)Modern Society-Criminological Contribution to the Theory of Sanctioning. Retrieved from ncjrs.gov: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=253606 Schmallenger, F. (2012). Criminal Justice, A Brief Introduction Ninth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Read More