Police Ethics and Police Corruption - Term Paper Example

Running Head: ETHICAL TREATMENT OF PRISONERS Police Ethics and Police Corruption and number] submitted] Introduction The low social status of prisoners and those placed in correctional facilities has made their handling a rather complicated issue for police/correctional officers. Consequently, quite complex ethical issues arise in the care for prisoners and people in correctional facilities. The stigma and discrimination that are the characteristic experiences of prisoners, coupled with the feelings of being unworthy in the eye of their families and the public make prisoners rather vulnerable to unethical practices (Goodman, 2007). It is thus imperative that police officers and correctional officers uphold both professional and personal ethical standards while dealing with and caring for convicted offenders in prisons and other correctional facilities. Studies have shown that prisoners do not only feel discriminated or unworthy due to the mere fact that they have been incarcerated; rather, the unethical treatment that they may face while serving their times is also a major contributor to these negative feelings. The importance and challenges of the jobs of police officers in maintaining ethical handling of prisoners cannot therefore be overemphasized. Despite the tremendous animosity that prisoners may have towards them, police officers are expected to and must always portray and practice professional and ethical conduct in all dealings with prisoners (Goodman, 2007). Among the hallmarks of police officers’ interactions with prisoners should be respect, humanness, and impartiality. Through their ethically and morally upright actions towards prisoners, police officers should be role models to prisoners placed under their care and watch, their personal attitudes and perceptions towards the prisoners notwithstanding. This paper explores the ethical issue of the treatment of prisoners by police officers and the resultant problems of the ethical and unethical treatment of prisoners by officers. In addition, the paper discusses the implications of the ethical utilitarian and the ethical relativism on ethical practices by correctional officers. Ethical Treatment of Prisoners To uphold ethical practices towards prisoners, the concept of the powers that police/correctional officers have over prisoners must not be abused. If maltreated, prisoners may develop feelings of dependency and powerlessness. There are several ways in which the unethical use of such police powers over prisoners may affect prisoners. The first type of effect is psychological harm to prisoners. Second, unethical practices and abuses on prisoners may make them feel incapable of achieving anything, especially in situations where police officers unethically exploit their powers over prisoners for personal gains (Goodman, 2007). One of the most common unethical practices by police officers that should be avoided at all costs is reciprocity. Reciprocity refers to a scenario in which a police officer entirely depends on prisoners for the execution of the duties he/she is supposed to complete. In return, these prisoners are always favored or have their infarctions overlooked by the officer in question. This close involvement with prisoners may have its long-term negative consequences. In other words, it is important that officers do not become so close and friendly with prisoners as this may result in unethical conducts. Many codes of ethics for police officers state that officers who are quite close or friendly with prisoners may not be trusted with prisoners (Goodman, 2007). In fact, such closeness may be as unethical as those that make prisoners’ lives hectic and unbearable. A fine line that should never be crossed by either practice must therefore be established and keenly observed. Despite the fact that officers have an upper hand in correctional facilities, the prisoners are human beings and should therefore be treated as such. Although being friendly to prisoners is not considered all that unethical, it becomes quite a complicated subject whenever trust issues crop in. Although excessive friendship, closeness, and trust may be unethical between prisoners and correctional officers, mistreatment of prisoners is more unethical than the excessive closeness and friendliness. It is therefore unethical for officers to exploit the powers they have over prisoners to humiliate, discriminate, and degrade prisoners. These unethical abuses or humiliations may take the form of psychological, physical, or verbal abuses (Goodman, 2007). For instance, exercising powers over prisoners to destroy their physical property could cause both psychological and physical abuses to them (Singer, 1973). In summary, prisoners should be treated ethically and given a deserved chance to repent their mistakes and change. In addition, while they try to repent and re-shape their lives, it is necessary that they are allowed to do so in a respected and humane manner and environment. Since prisoners would be a product of what they have encountered within the confines of prison walls when they are released, considerations must be taken into the numerous positive and ethical experiences and influences that officers may have on prisoners (Goodman, 2007). With the millions people of diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds incarcerated in prisons, it is imperative that the ethical theories applicable in their different situations are analyzed and understood. Throughout history, a lot of explanations and modifications have been made to the applicability of various theories on ethical practices. Utilitarianism The ever-increasing population of prisoners has made the subject of ethical prison practices a rather hotly debated one. The diverse needs, backgrounds, and characters of prisoners have consequently led to the development and modification of prison practices to allow for the ethical handling of and caring for prisoners by police officers. The only question is whether police officers have done enough to promote the ethical practices towards prisoners. On the other hand, debates have also tackled the issues of prison life having been made so easy and comfortable that prisoners no longer take prison life as a punishment. In these debates, people have taken both sides of the above questions. Therefore certain theoretical approaches have been adopted to support each side of the argument. For example, the utilitarian view, which postulates that the society chooses the moral rules to promote peace and happiness of its members, asserts that these prisoners could be treated either too good or not too good enough. The utilitarian view thus offers a good and understandable theoretical basis for moral decision making. In other words, according to utilitarianism, police officers must take into consideration all the positive and negative effects of a course of action on the lives and the well-being of prisoners. Even so, most people disagree with the utilitarian assertion that happiness should be the basis, on which moral standards should be set, more so on prisoners who have been incarcerated for immoral acts or omissions (Andre & Velasquez, 2010). The ethical values of the society have since changed and earlier versions of justice or treatment such as “an eye for an eye” have since changed, resulting in prison officers treating prisoners not as cruelly as they treated their victims. Utilitarianism, applied in ethical situations would imply the application of ethical practices that are considered upright since they produce the greatest balance of benefits for all the stakeholders (police officers and prisoners in this case) (Andre & Velasquez, 2010). On the contrary, the harms resulting from such a course of action should be as limited as possible for all the concerned parties. Utilitarianism thus gives a rather clear-cut technique for police officers to apply when deciding on a moral and ethical course of action. It is however necessary that police officers first identify all the options of courses of action. The second vital step is the determination of all the foreseeable benefits and harms of all the options. Finally, the course of action with the most benefits and least the harm to all should be picked. Generally, there are two major approaches or questions asked by utilitarians before picking a course of action. The first question targets the effect of an action on the general balance of good over evil. The second question emphasizes the need to act in accordance with the general rules that have the best consequences. Ethical Relativism Contrary to the utilitarian theory that emphasizes the absoluteness of happiness in setting moral or ethical standards, the theory of relativism postulates that moral and ethical standards are relative to an individual’s culture. In other words, whether an act or omission is ethical or unethical would depend on the moral/ethical standards of the society in which the prison, prisoners, and police officers exist. That is, an action may be morally and ethically upright in a given society but quite unacceptable in another. Therefore, ethical relativism asserts that there are no universal ethical or moral norms/standards for every culture or society at all times. A community or society is thus judged on its own ethical and moral norms. Between the theories, the utilitarian perspective on ethical practices on prisoners is more effective in the correctional facilities. Were ethical relativism to be applied in the correctional facilities, it would be impossible to establish a common framework for ethical conduct and resolution of ethical disputes in prisons (Harwood, 1996). In addition, it would be difficult to reach consensus on the many ethical matters arising in correctional facilities between prisoners and correctional officers. The theory of ethical relativism therefore jeopardizes the fundamental ethical and moral principles that underlie the practices in correctional facilities. It should thus be noted that while ethical and moral practices may vary from one culture or society to another, the principles underlying these practices are quite similar, making the utilitarian approach more applicable to the case of prisons. It is thus common that societies are encouraged to act in certain ways by principles such as care for others and happiness, actions that may be unethical or immoral to a different society (Harwood, 1996). The utilitarian’s emphasis on the principle of happiness for all thus has more weight in the ethical handling of prisoners than would be the setting of different ethical standards for different prisoners depending on their societal norms. The other strength the utilitarian approach has over ethical relativism is that universal moral and ethical standards have been established even among societies with differences in practices and beliefs provided the underlying principles are similar (Harwood, 1996). That is, while the correctional facilities may recognize that cultural and societal differences exist in ethical standards, universally accepted practices have been established in correctional facilities. Ethical relativism thus fails as a theory seeking to explain and justify ethical and moral practices and beliefs since it does not acknowledge the fact that some cultures or societies have better reasons for upholding their views than others have (Miller & Williams, 1982). Nevertheless, the ethical relativism concept is an important reminder for police officers that different societies hold various ethical and moral beliefs, which are shaped by their cultures. It is therefore imperative that police officers explore the numerous reasons underlying these ethical norms. Conclusion Prisoners, being humans, are entitled to be handled and taken care of in ethically and morally upright manner. Nonetheless, the treatment must also ensure that the rehabilitative or correctional perspectives and intentions of the justice system are not jeopardized in the process. Moreover, excessive closeness and friendliness with prisoners could be counterproductive since officer should never place a lot of trust on prisoners. The utilitarian and relativism theories are some of the theoretical frameworks on which police officers may base their ethical actions. While utilitarianism emphasizes the central role played by the benefits of ethical actions over the harms, ethical relativism stresses the cultural differences in ethical and moral beliefs and standards across societies. The weakness of relativism over utilitarianism is that it does not promote the establishment of universal ethical and moral standards. By applying the utilitarian perspective in their ethical actions towards prisoners, police officers may not only make prisoners feel humane and worthy but may also become their role models, helping in their rehabilitation. References Andre, C., and Velasquez, M. (2010). Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics. Retrieved on December 7, 2011 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1/calculating.html. Goodman, D. J. (2007). Enforcing ethics: a scenario-based workbook for police and corrections recruits and officers, third edition. Prentice Hall. Harwood, S. (1996). Taking ethics seriously -- moral relativism versus moral realism” in sterling Harwood, ed., business as ethical and business as usual. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Miller, H. B., and Williams, W. H. (1982). The limits of utilitarianism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Singer, P. (1973). Practical ethics. London: Cambridge University Press. Read More