The Blue Wall of Silence - Case Study Example

There were several morally questionable incidents involved in this scenario. The first is that the officers intimi d the occupants of the first residence to let them come in. The officers, while telling the residents that they did not have to let the officers in, used subtle intimidation, in the form of a manacled Brown, to enter the residence. The residents were “obviously disturbed” by Browns presence, although it is unclear exactly what this meant. Therefore, they were not likely to turn down a request by the officers to come in. While, in this case, the entering of the apartment proved to be of no consequence, as the officers searched the apartment, found nothing amiss, then left, it would have arguably been a violation of the tenants rights if something incriminating was found. The officers probably should have either executed a search warrant for the apartment or not brought Brown up to the apartment. Alternatively, upon seeing that the occupants were “obviously disturbed” by Browns presence, they should have offered to take Brown back to the car, and then asked the occupants if they could enter the apartment. On the other hand, in this incident, the officers did tell the residents that they, the officers, did not have the right to search the apartment, and pressed upon the residents their duties as “good citizens.” The officers did this correctly- they told the residents that they did not have to let them in. Therefore, the residents did know that they did not have to let the officers in, so one could view their allowing the officers in as informed consent to the search. In other words, what the officers did could have been worse – they could have gone to the residence and demanded to be let in, without telling the residents of their rights. So, this incident was more harmless than it could have been. Another potential ethics violation is the fact that the officers, at no time, apparently, informed Mr. Brown that he was the target of a murder investigation. It seemed, by the facts, that they were telling Mr. Brown that he was being investigated for a parole violation – using heroin. Although the parole violation was to be the platform for which the officers could arrest Mr. Brown, thus enabling a search of the apartment, they probably should have informed Mr. Brown what was really going on. Granted, this would have made Mr. Brown even less likely to cooperate with the police, and there was some indication that Mr. Brown knew that that something was amiss, due the presence of a “supervisor and an experienced investigator”, therefore Mr. Browns reluctance to cooperate was probably due to the fact that Mr. Brown already knew that something more serious was afoot. Still, the officers probably should have told Mr. Brown the truth. Instead, they sugar-coated it, and gave Mr. Brown a false sense of security when they told Mr. Brown that “he would probably face nothing more serious than assignment to a community drug program” if no drugs were found at his apartment. In other words, they told a bald-faced lie. Next are the three stories that told three different points of view about the attack. Perez stated, at first, that there was a scuffle, then changed his story, stating that there was an “unprovoked attack.” It is interesting to note that, to a judge, Perez stated that there was a scuffle while, when he was questioned by parole officers, it became the unprovoked attack. It was unclear whether Perez was under oath when he stated that there was a scuffle. Although the event was a parole revocation hearing, therefore Perez was probably under oath, it is possible that the statement was made informally to the judge. This makes an enormous difference – if Perez was under oath when he stated that there was merely a scuffle, then the judge will not only be more inclined to believe him, but Perez also opens himself up to a potential perjury charge for making a false statement under oath. From the facts, it is plain that Perez probably was lying to the judge, as Cohen punched Brown in the head, repeatedly, and Brown was handcuffed at the time. Therefore, there could not have been a scuffle, as a scuffle presumes that there is more than one participant in the fight. At any rate, Perez told the truth to the investigating parole officers. Again, it was unclear why Perez told the judge one thing and the investigating parole officers something completely different. Perhaps Perez was intimidated by the officers, or by Cohen, who was his supervisor. This is the most likely scenario – Perez, being inexperienced and wanting to look good for his boss, proceeds to lie for the boss. Then, under heat, he cracks. Perez made an ethical violation when he lied to the judge in the first place. This potentially was the reason why the charges against the officer were dropped. While it is understandable that Perez would lie, in an effort to make things better between himself and his supervisor, it was unethical to do so and damaged the investigation and the case against the Cohen and Leon. He had an ethical duty to tell the truth, and, if he was under oath when he dissembled, he had a legal duty to tell the truth and could go to prison for failure to do so. Perhaps the most inexplicable ethical violation is that of Leon. Leon was right there, and saw everything. Yet he stated that he saw nothing. There could be any number of reasons why Leon would do this, none of them good. One reason why he would lie would be because he did not want Brown to go free. Since Brown was up for a parole violation, and the violations that he was charged with were, in the scheme of things, somewhat minor, there would be the possibility that an attack on Brown while Brown was in handcuffs would make the judge sufficiently sympathize with Brown that the judge would let Brown go free. Leon, being an experienced parole officer, probably did not to see this happen, so he lied. Another reason for lying is political. It is unclear what status Cohen had with the parole administration, as far as whether he was respected and revered or was an outsider. What is clear from the facts is that Leon was not well-liked by the higher-ups. He was not promoted, and was on the verge of losing his job. Ratting out another parole officer would not help this situation, especially if Cohen was well-liked and popular. Telling the truth about Cohen would be tantamount to career suicide, in view of the fact that Leon was already on the precipice. It would only be a matter of time before the administration would find some excuse to fire Leon. Therefore, he lied to cover his own butt. This motivation would make the ethical violation a self-serving one, which is more egregious than the previous motivation of making sure Brown did not go free, which could potentially be viewed as being for the good of society. Yet another motivation would be the informal code of brotherhood that might have been established between the officers of the parole board. There might be some kind of unwritten rule that, when there is trouble brewing, the officers must circle the wagons to protect the officer who is under scrutiny. After all, as parole officers, their jobs are no doubt stressful and thankless. Brown is probably a typical parolee – non-cooperative. The officers probably get frustrated and want to punch their parolees as well. Therefore, they probably sympathized with officers who get frustrated and abuse their parolees, and are more inclined to lie to protect their fellow officers for this reason. The comment about “this is not the neighborhood to be doing this sort of thing” subtly bears this out – in other words, it is okay to beat parolees in certain neighborhoods, just not the one in question. Still another motivation would be that assault charges were filed, which carried the possibility of a prison sentence for Cohen. Although Leon and Cohen were not friends, they respected one another. Leon respected Cohens abilities and probably thought Cohen a good officer. Leon probably would be very reluctant to give testimony that might result in his respected colleague spending time in prison. Whatever the motivation, Leon had an ethical duty to tell the truth, and he did not do so. He definitely should not have covered for Cohen. Cohen had a reputation for being “extremely volatile,” which implies that he has probably abused other parolees. It might even be a pattern for him – the comment in the car that “this was not the neighborhood for doing this kind of thing” implies that Cohen had done it before. The Brown incident was no doubt not isolated. If Cohen does have a habit of abusing parolees, then Leon was doing him no favors in lying to protect him, because Cohen probably needs some kind of intervention. Maybe he needs therapy or anger management. Perhaps he needs to be re-assigned to a less stressful division, at least for a little while. He probably needs a break from what he is doing. Or maybe he is in the wrong vocation altogether. Being a parole officer is probably not a good fit for somebody with a volatile temper, and he has a great deal of intelligence and skills that could be put to good use in another occupation that does not involve looking after felons on parole. Therefore, by lying to protect Cohen, Leon was not doing Cohen any favors. If Leon would have told the truth, then Cohen might have gotten the assistance he needs. Instead, Cohen goes back to his old job, where his volatility will be allowed to continue, unabated. That said, there probably should have been more of an informal reprimand procedure for Cohen before proceeding to assault charges. Perhaps the parole administration could have offered Cohen diversion or any number of lesser degrees of punishment that do not involve prison. Because assault charges were filed, which means that Cohen might go to prison if convicted, this makes everybody more likely to lie to protect Cohen. But, if the only possibility would be an internal method of punishment for Cohen – diversion, reassignment, anger management completion, or some combination thereof – maybe the other officers would tell the truth. Of course, this would mean that Cohen would be given special treatment, because anybody else on the street would have faced assault charges for doing what he did, and this is also unethical, but it would accomplish an important objective – Cohen would be given the intervention that he may need. The assault charges were probably politically expedient themselves. It is unclear if the incident had gotten out to the public, but, it is well-documented that when white officers abuse black suspects, especially if said suspect is manacled and did nothing physical to provoke the attack, there is usually community outrage. The parole administration knows this, and probably figured that the only politically expedient move would be to charge Cohen with assault. The public would demand nothing less. Therefore, lying to protect Cohen did the community a disservice as well – Cohen is free to do this sort of thing again, and the community did not get the justice that they seek. If the incident was well-publicized, then allowing Cohen to go free no doubt contributes to the sense that the black community is powerless to stop dirty officers, which would no doubt reduce the black communitys morale. Read More

Still, the officers probably should have told Mr. Brown the truth. Instead, they sugar-coated it, and gave Mr. Brown a false sense of security when they told Mr. Brown that “he would probably face nothing more serious than assignment to a community drug program” if no drugs were found at his apartment. In other words, they told a bald-faced lie. Next are the three stories that told three different points of view about the attack. Perez stated, at first, that there was a scuffle, then changed his story, stating that there was an “unprovoked attack.

” It is interesting to note that, to a judge, Perez stated that there was a scuffle while, when he was questioned by parole officers, it became the unprovoked attack. It was unclear whether Perez was under oath when he stated that there was a scuffle. Although the event was a parole revocation hearing, therefore Perez was probably under oath, it is possible that the statement was made informally to the judge. This makes an enormous difference – if Perez was under oath when he stated that there was merely a scuffle, then the judge will not only be more inclined to believe him, but Perez also opens himself up to a potential perjury charge for making a false statement under oath.

From the facts, it is plain that Perez probably was lying to the judge, as Cohen punched Brown in the head, repeatedly, and Brown was handcuffed at the time. Therefore, there could not have been a scuffle, as a scuffle presumes that there is more than one participant in the fight. At any rate, Perez told the truth to the investigating parole officers. Again, it was unclear why Perez told the judge one thing and the investigating parole officers something completely different. Perhaps Perez was intimidated by the officers, or by Cohen, who was his supervisor.

This is the most likely scenario – Perez, being inexperienced and wanting to look good for his boss, proceeds to lie for the boss. Then, under heat, he cracks. Perez made an ethical violation when he lied to the judge in the first place. This potentially was the reason why the charges against the officer were dropped. While it is understandable that Perez would lie, in an effort to make things better between himself and his supervisor, it was unethical to do so and damaged the investigation and the case against the Cohen and Leon.

He had an ethical duty to tell the truth, and, if he was under oath when he dissembled, he had a legal duty to tell the truth and could go to prison for failure to do so. Perhaps the most inexplicable ethical violation is that of Leon. Leon was right there, and saw everything. Yet he stated that he saw nothing. There could be any number of reasons why Leon would do this, none of them good. One reason why he would lie would be because he did not want Brown to go free. Since Brown was up for a parole violation, and the violations that he was charged with were, in the scheme of things, somewhat minor, there would be the possibility that an attack on Brown while Brown was in handcuffs would make the judge sufficiently sympathize with Brown that the judge would let Brown go free.

Leon, being an experienced parole officer, probably did not to see this happen, so he lied. Another reason for lying is political. It is unclear what status Cohen had with the parole administration, as far as whether he was respected and revered or was an outsider. What is clear from the facts is that Leon was not well-liked by the higher-ups. He was not promoted, and was on the verge of losing his job. Ratting out another parole officer would not help this situation, especially if Cohen was well-liked and popular.

Telling the truth about Cohen would be tantamount to career suicide, in view of the fact that Leon was already on the precipice. It would only be a matter of time before the administration would find some excuse to fire Leon. Therefore, he lied to cover his own butt. This motivation would make the ethical violation a self-serving one, which is more egregious than the previous motivation of making sure Brown did not go free, which could potentially be viewed as being for the good of society.

Read More