Minor Fracture of the Law in Marine Corps - Term Paper Example

? Whether an Officer should turn in one of his/her Marines for a minor fracture of the law or should they take matters into their own hands? Whether an Officer should turn in one of his/her Marines for a minor fracture of the law or should they take matters into their own hands? 1. Introduction The ability of people to understand right and wrong is often affected by a series of factors. When having to face the pressure of the social environment, an individual may proceed to false estimations in regard to the measures that need to be developed for handling a complex situation. One of the most critical issues when evaluating the conditions of a particular case is to check whether a solution is more appropriate compared to another one, meaning that there are two options available. Such dilemma is common in the case of public services, where the following problem often appears: when an illegal activity takes place, the supervisor has the power to check the issue himself, without starting a formal procedure, which can often take a long time to be completed; in the meantime, this procedure can negatively affects the person under consideration. In the marine Corps the specific problem can be usual. Current paper focuses on the examination of the following issue: in case of a minor offence, should the supervisory officer send the issue to further examination using the command chain or he should examine it without delay taking all the necessary decisions by his own? The review of the literature published in this field leads to the assumption that the officer is obliged to follow the command chain. Even if the specific process leaves the specific issue to the discretion of the officer, still the resolution of the problem would be more effective through following the command chain. In this way, the following two targets are achieved: it is made clear across the service that fairness and equality, meaning to offences, are secured. Moreover, others are preventing from developing similar activities, a target which may not achieved if the problem is resolved informally, i.e. without using the command chain. 2. Minor fracture of the law in Marine Corps In the context of the specific case, two different options seem to be available; it is possible for the officer to take matters into his own hands, without using the chain of command. He could also choose to notify his supervisors so that the rules related to the chain of command are applied. These two options are discussed below. Emphasis is given on the appropriateness and the validity of each option, but also its alignment with the existing laws and ethics. 2.1 Development of initiatives avoiding the chain of command. As part of the public services of USA, the Marine Corps force ‘is organized under the Armed Forces Reserve Act of 1952, which superseded the 1938 Naval Reserve Act’ (Estes and Heini 1996, p.143). At a first level, ‘the members of the Marine Corps are subject to Federal and state laws’ (Estes and Heini 1996, p.158), applied for the country’s citizens. In addition, due to their condition, i.e. their membership in the Armed Forces, the members of the Marine Corps are subject to the laws applied specifically for all those who are members of USA Armed Forces. In accordance with the above, if a member of the Marine Corps is found to be involved in a civil offense, he must be judged in accordance with the relevant civil authorities (Estes and Heini 1996, p.158). In the case under examination also, such issue would exist in case that the offense, even if it is minor, is related to the country’s civil laws. The above fact increases the obligation of the officer to use the command chain. It would be necessary for the events that are related to the case to be clearly reviewed in order to check whether a violation of the country’s existing civil laws exists; such violation could exist even if an offense is characterized, primarily, as minor. In the context of the military law, the case should be also reviewed by using the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which gives the right to the accused person to defend himself, explaining the terms under which the offense was committed or analyzing the terms for which no offense has been committed (Estes and Heiti 1996, p.159). The Uniform Code of Military Justice defines, in the article 15, that an officer has the right to impose a non-judicial punishment in the case of minor offenses (United States Marine Corps 2007). The process, also known as ‘office hours’, ensures that offences of all grades, even the minor ones will be punished. Using the above article, the officer in the case under examination would have the right to impose a non-judicial punishment. The law does not oblige the officer to follow the specific practice. In this context and for ensuring that no case of major offense exists, i.e. for evaluating the grade and the effects of the offense the officer can ask for the issue to be investigated through the command chain so any possible doubts to be eliminated. 2.2 Handling the case through the chain of command – philosophy views and ethics The decision whether to intervene in the above case directly, ignoring the chain of command, or not, should be critically evaluated by referring to relevant literature. Different philosophy views can be used for evaluating the particular issue. Most of these philosophy views promote the idea that ethics in regard to social, political and economic activities cannot be violated. In this context, the case under examination should be handled through the chain of command; another approach would be opposed to moral laws but also to the law applied in the particular service. The most common approach for evaluating the potential obligation of individuals to proceed or not to a particular activity is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, as a concept, is based on the idea that right and wrong in regard to a particular action should be judged by referring to involvement of the action in ‘the production of happiness’ (West 2004, p.1) and not to its alignment with ‘morality, laws or public policies’ (West 2004, p.1). From a similar point of view, Wikens (2011) notes that the right to happiness cannot be rejected or ignored. However, it would be quite unfair to state that the right to happiness would define the right or wrong. Utilitarianism is a theoretical concept that has tried to achieve such target. The specific concept, which was based on the efforts of the 18th and 19th centuries to develop democracy, has been rather faulty, leading to the notion of democracy, which does not refer to right or wrong in their appropriate form. Indeed, trying to justify as legal an activity, which is against the moral or the legal laws, it cannot be accepted. Such view is aligned with the philosophy views on right and wrong, especially that of Aristotle. Moreover, as noted in the study of Hayry (2002) the application of utilitarianism in practice can be quite difficult, meaning that the use of happiness as a criterion for securing justice can lead to severe problems, especially unfairness but also the sense that justice is not effectively promoted. The views of utitlitarianism, as presented above, are opposed by relativism. The specific philosophical approach is based on the view that ethical differences, as observed among societies worldwide, although they are characterized as expected, even they are not justified. Relativists promote the idea that societies around the world cannot promote similar views on ethics and justice; in this context, the potential differences as of the nature of right and wrong, as these differences may exist across societies, should be significantly increased (Mizzoni 2009). The above philosophical theory is verified in practice. Indeed, each society has its own cultural and historical background. This means that the notion of justice within each society can be different, since different ethics would exist. In the above context, there are no standard criteria for deciding whether an action is morally justified or not (Pojman and Fieser 2011). This fact should be judged using the laws that apply locally. However, at this point, reference should be made to the following issue: relativism seems to promote two different theses in regard to the similarities of the notions of right and wrong across societies: in accordance with the diversity thesis, ethics and moral rules are fully differentiated across societies, meaning that no similarities exist in regard to right and wrong in countries worldwide. The opposite view, the dependency thesis, promote the idea that the above similarities exist; however, differences can appear in regard to the notions of right and wrong across societies on the basis that each society has its own culture. In the case under examination, the use of relativism for handling the case would lead to the following result: the officer should be obliged to following the command chain when having to handle an offence of all grades, even a minor one. In this way, the purpose of local legislation, to promote the local law and ensure fairness should be served. At this point, the following issue appears: on which criteria the review of a case, which is in opposition with law, should be judged? Accepting the Hobbesian theory on nature, life can be characterized as ‘solitary, poor and short’ (Pojman and Fieser 2011, p.18). In such life, the evaluation of right and wrong would be of no particular importance. In accordance with the above theory, wrong is expected to govern societies. For this reason, trying to change existing social conditions or the rules on which justice and ethics are based would be of no value. If the specific theory is accepted, then evaluating the alignment of actions with law has no importance, as a social process. In the case under examination, the above view could not offer any help for evaluating the right or wrong. Probably, leading to the assumption that wrong tends to govern, the Hobbesian theory would justify the lack of any potential action against illegal activities. However, such approach would not be accepted, since in this way severe social conflicts would be resulted. The most critical philosophical theory for explaining the difference between right and wrong is that of Aristotle. Aristotle has emphasized on the idea that virtues are related to the character. This means that each person is expected to act within the context of the existing law under the influence of his own perceptions on right and wrong. At this point, Aristotle is slightly differentiated from Plato who perceived that forms, along with the character, are also likely to affect the views of people on right and wrong (Wilkens 2011, p.132). The important characteristic of the views on Aristotle on virtues is the following one: in accordance with Aristotle each individual is expected to develop his virtues by ‘observing and comparing actual events’ (Wilkens 2011, p.132). This means that the social environment can affect the views of individuals on right and wrong. The specific finding is of critical importance for evaluating the role of officer in the case under examination. In the specific case, the officer needs to ensure that corps perceive fairness and justice as of critical importance for the specific service. This means that discriminatory practices would not be allowed, since in this way, the perception of corps on justice would be negatively affected (Wilkens 2011, p.133). If such strategy is followed, then another part of Aristotle’s view on virtues is verified: in accordance with Aristotle the gap between virtues and vices is rather limited; it is meant that when trying to develop his virtues, an individual should be aware of the fact that vices cannot be eliminated. However, it is at this point that the qualities of a person are revealed. As an example, Aristotle refers to courage (Wilkens 2011, p.133); a person can be differentiated from others at the level that he has the courage to face a particular event or to respond effectively under pressure. This person may also have concerns or worries, in regard to the consequences of his decisions or activities. In the case under examination, the officer should have the courage to take initiatives so that justice is secured. Using the command chain would be the most appropriate decision so that the issue involved is resolved fairly, with no doubts either in regard to the nature of the actions involved or in regard to the ability of the officer to secure fairness for all people within the service. Another philosophy view for evaluating the role of officer and his decisions in regard to the specific activity would be the pragmatism. The specific theory is based on the perception that ‘judgments on good and evil are based on absolute foundations which may be religious, philosophical or scientific in origin’ (Kibert et al. 2011, p.53). In accordance with the above theory, actions should be evaluated by reviewing their consequences in practice, and not the intentions of the actors (Kibert et al. 2011, p.53). In the case of the Marine Corps, pragmatism would lead to the following result: the officer would be obliged to use the command chain. He could not state that there are various reasons, potentially religious or others that can justify the actions under evaluation. In fact, reference should be made only to the development of the actions and not to their reasons/ causes. In this context, the existence of the offence would be a term for justifying the use of the command chain. No additional term would be required. The effects of the action on the social environment involved would be of no importance. The action should be punished since it is against the existing law no matter whether it had cause no damage, either directly or indirectly to third persons. It is implied that the damage has been caused to the service, as a unit. Murray and Rea (2008) noted that the use of objectivism, as opposed to subjectivism, would be decided in accordance with certain criteria. Under certain terms, it is not possible to verify directly whether a particular event is true or not, meaning that objectivism is often not feasible (Murray and Rea 2008). In the case of the event evaluated in this paper, if being asked to evaluate the above event one can only state his own view; in the case under examination, if the officer or any other individual within the corps is asked for the event, he could only state his personal perception, i.e. what he thinks it has happened, and not what actually happened. However, such case would threaten the status and the quality of justice in corps. In other words, the development of objective arguments in regard to the particular case would not be feasible unless the case is carefully reviewed through the command chain. 3. Conclusion When having to evaluate whether a specific process need to be supported or not, public officers need to follow specific rules. When the case is involved in military corps, then the importance of the relevant decision is significantly increased. However, often the elements of a particular case prevent the use of specific standards or rules. For example, when dealing with a minor offence, as in the case under examination, an officer has the power to check the conditions of the specific action. The discretion of the officer to use the command chain or to handle this issue his own, un-officially, has been often questioned. Existing philosophy theories have been employed for identifying the moral obligations of the officer in such cases. At this point, the following problem seems to exist: the officer needs to set the hierarchy of interests related to the particular case. Moreover, subjectivism in interpreting the facts cannot be allowed. As already noted above, the development of objective assumptions in regard to the specific case would not be feasible unless an official investigation would be developed in regard to the events involved. The philosophy views presented in the paper, as commonly used when moral issues appear, lead to the assumption that the officer is obliged, initially in the terms of morals, to use the command chain so that the notion of justice in the corps is secured. At the next level, the code of Marine corps, as applied on the specific case, clearly defines the use of command chain for identifying the conditions of any offence committed in the specific service; the level of importance of the offence is not a reason for avoiding the command chain since the interest protected in this case is that of the corps and not of a specific individual, who would have the right to choose whether he wishes the continuation of the process or the termination of the case. References Estes, Kenneth, Heinl, Robert, Handbook for Marine NCOs. Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1996. Hayry, Matti, Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics. London: Routledge, 2002. Kibert, Charles, Peterson, Anna, Thiele, Leslie, Monroe, Martha, Working Toward Sustainability: Ethical Decision-Making in a Technological World. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Mizzoni, John, Ethics: The Basics. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Murray, Michael, Rea, Michael, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pojman, Louis, Fieser, James, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Belmont: Cengage Learning, 2011. United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Operations. New Yrok: Cosimo, Inc., 2007. West, Henry, An Introduction to Mill's Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Wilkens, Steve, Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics: An Introduction to Theories of Right and Wrong. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011. Read More