Ethics and Criminal Justice: A Case Analysis - Essay Example

? Ethics and Criminal Justice: A Case Analysis Ethics and Criminal Justice: A Case Analysis In this case there are in place facts concerning the case and any attempt to incline the facts would jeopardize the overall handling of the situation. The first aspect is that there have been series of crimes executed by a single individual, the criminal. There seems to be a link between the six cases that have been experienced. This is probably due to the crime signature experienced by the investigators in the crime scene or possibly on the victims. The signature depicts a sense of similarity and with the training obtained by the investigators; they are fast at telling that the crime originates from a single perpetrator. The members of public are desperate for help. The public members have indisputable confidence in the investigator and view the investigator as their savior. By extension, the members of the public have a feeling that in case they motivate the investigator then they would have facilitated the process of investigation and the apprehension of criminal. A cup of coffee or a couple of cups would not act as any form of bribery since they are considered quite cheap and this would not have any merit in such assumptions. I am simply steadfast at explaining this in the first place to quell any sense of thought on bribery to the investigating officer to the public (Breton, 2012). Remember, no one can engage with the investigating officer to the extent of buying a cup of coffee without sharing any form if information. In any investigation, information especially from the public is considered critical in any nature since if used well, can provide leads to the origin of crime and possibly to the perpetrator. However, no fact should be assumed and further more with the fact that this is a criminal situation and anything can happen to the investigator. In case the investigator is the target of the criminal then there should be restriction in the interaction with the public (Stevens, 2010). It is rational to think that the perpetrator of crimes would lure the investigator through any means and possibly through the public to understand the motives and movements. In such a situation, the investigation process would become more complicated. In as much as retrieving the information from the public being vital, extreme care is fundamental because criminals are fond of performing extremely outrageous and least expected acts and would not care of the social status of the investigating officer. This implies that any act can result to impede the investigation process. Accepting the cups coffee from the public as a police investigator is not a bad idea neither does it tint reputation in any significant manner. The act incorporates a series of advantages in the investigation process. It shows unity in the society and tends to close any societal gaps based on the social status and professionalism. One can understand the society considerably fast and get to know the course to take with the investigation process. Nonetheless, there must be an understanding that it has a disadvantage that waters down all the benefits it might associate. Interacting with the public to the extent of accepting gifts would amount intensified pressure on the officer and interfere with the sequence of investigations since a greater part of the community is impatient and would like to know the criminal irrespective of whether the information is right or wrong. This would prompt the investigator to arrest people without enough proof to satisfy the public. The investigating officer is in an immense danger and this would impede the whole investigation process in a disastrous manner. Therefore, accepting coffee from the public is NOT a good idea and the officer should not involve in such an act. Investigations require proper mental status. Any instability in the intellectual capacity would lead to compromise in the process. One has to be collected and sober in the mind for perfect execution of the investigative activity. Therefore, counseling is appropriate. The case dealing with the criminal killing the members of the public yet you are an investigating officer becomes challenging in various perspectives mainly due to the uncertainties involved. The officer is under extreme pressure from various directions. First, the public expect you to work super fast despite the obstacles. In this instance the officer will begin to develop a feeling that the public have began to doubt his confidence. This intensifies depression in every activity one performs. Imagine a situation where you are working very hard to your level to unravel the menacing puzzle of deaths in the community then people are continuing to doubt you as the days go by. The officer might not know how the situation will end but only hopes that the suspect will be brought to book yet does not know high. The condition is depressing in such a situation of lack of appreciation. The next of depression in such a case emanates from the pressure mounted by the criminal. You never know when the criminal might target you. The officer would be compelled to act beyond the normal operations of an individual or officer in the normal duties performed. The officer though trained to withstand the situations of constant alert, it might only be practical in the situation of normal operations and might be contrary to such situations of compromised esteem. The pressure might also mount from the security bosses and government as well. This pressure is prone to displacement from the various levels (Souryal, 2010). The public would continue to air their grievances to the government for ‘failing’ to protect them. The government then feels challenged especially failing in their security apparatus. The government then begins to assess the performance of the entire security personnel in the region. People are not perfect in their operations and perceptions hence, there would be blames on various activities and mostly on the officers due to their mistakes. Most of the blames would be directed to the investigating officer. Therefore the situation is depressing in a broader sense. As the investigating officer, there is also need for counseling due to the evident anxiety arising due to the security situation. The anxiety has disastrous effects on individuals especially those under tension of any nature. In the event that you are the one to mitigate crimes in a region yet there is a continuation of such criminal activities, you begin to develop a feeling of inferiority. You would get traumatized from the devastating events ranging from the crime scene experiences to the victimization from all directions. There is immense stress at work because there is compulsion of abiding by the situation and causing more relevance by arresting the criminal who is at large. The condition is also worsened by the difficulty to regulate the worrying situation in life. In order to evade all the stress in this case one would require the services of a counseling unit. Yes, the due process can be jeopardized by the lack of warrant incorporation. The search warrant is a document duly signed by the judge and permits the security personnel to search for particular materials at a distinct location within a stated duration. The warrant is specific in its stipulations regarding purpose, location and the time. The admissibility of the warrant and the associated protocols needed for a search warrant are greatly dependent on the case situation. Remember criminal cases are very crucial since most of them determine the lives of people especially the suspects. Even though the dangerous criminal has been apprehended, he remains a suspect since the matter must be pursued through the legal protocols. The fact that he has been arrested does not override all the procedures and render him guilty at one instance. Te initial role of the police is to stop the criminal from continuing with his malicious act that affects the community greatly. It is not their duty to satisfy the justice demands of the society since it might be erroneous. Therefore, comprehensive analysis of the evidence is necessary. The legal proceedings demand the use of evidence. However, the evidence assumes different forms as per their definitions by the court of law. The court can only assimilate and utilize only one form of evidence, which is the admissible evidence. The admissibility of evidence is determined by several aspects and one of them being the manner in which the evidence was retrieved from the source. The question on whether the right protocol was incorporated in the process of evidence collection remains a vital aspect in embracing ethics of work (Refuge, 2011). Beginning by the way through which the police officers get the warrant from the magistrate, the police have to prove to the judge that there is a possible cause to have faith that criminal act occurs at the location to be searched and that evidence of essence can be obtained from the place. More often than not, the police avails written statements, affidavits to the judge informing on the situation and the confidence they have in the act they intend to pursue. This report is backed up by the information the police have obtained from various sources such as the undercover informants, volunteers as well as their own observations. All these procedures are maintained to avoid intrusion and to embrace professional ethics. The suspect has the right of challenging the authentication but later because he might not be present in the place where the judge validates the warrant. Moreover, the suspect can do this before the time of trial (Kleinig, 1996). The incorporation of warrant in the quest for evidence in the investigation is a complex issue since the policy caters for both the criminal side and le law enforcement sides fairly. There is a stipulation that compels the police only to search the mentioned places in the warrant without deviation. Only the mentioned objects should be searched for instance, if the search mentions firearms then the search should be strict to that. However, the police are permitted by the law to impound any illegal materials found in the process. The warrant is strict and even restricts the people to be searched and if it means one person then the accomplices are not searched. Nonetheless, many situations have arisen where the warrant is not needed and this has posed the main challenge in investigation process. The warrant might not be necessary in the case the warrant is by itself not required or if the intended search is not considered intrusive. Therefore, even though the criminal activities might consist of a dire extent of impunity and lack of respect to human life, emotions and anxiety cannot be involved in the process and the right course of protocols have to be abided by and full degree of ethics have to be embraced. No, the opinion of co-workers and the superiors are not correct. Even though this situation falls within the categories of exemplary cases that do not require the need for warrant, it should not take such an informal direction. I feel bound by the accepted cords of conduct in my work. Different situations have the most appropriate means of getting to their solutions. I believe in this case it is the justice that we seek to either of the parties that is, to the victims that are also supported by the prosecution side and the suspect too who is the defendant. The justice the suspect requires in this case might also mean obtaining the most appropriate correction with respect to his offence in case proven guilty (Crank, & Caldero, 2010). I believe that the pieces of evidence I collected in the formal way are sufficient in proving the involvement of the suspect in the criminal cases. In case the of any inadmissibility of evidence in the court of law then there may arise no need for seeking justice. In the cases of investigation, there should be prevalent diversity of the mind without limitations of interest to particular individuals. This means that the evidence should communicate the most vital information necessary to prove the innocence or guilt in the case. I will be basing my operations on a premise that embraces the ethics and the fact that my work is to ensure justice to all. In as much as I might have pressures directed towards me and the ambition of fulfilling the desires of the public, I understand that I should not deviate from the accepted cords of conduct that determine my ethics. Yes, the desire to appease the interests of the interests of the community greatly interferes with ethical police work because of a number of reasons that are partial to the interests of side. The community mainly consists of diverse groups of people who might have a little glimpse of the ethics in police work as well as the individuals who have no idea of the ethical stipulations of the profession. The first problem with the community is the anxiety and impatience they tend to show in the event of a situation occurrence (Braswell, McCarthy,& McCarthy, 2011). When a crime happens especially such serious ones such as murders, the community is infuriated to a greater extent. They then opt to know the perpetrator immediately so as to fulfil their desires and to determine the reason for that as well. When an immediate arrest is not made maybe in the scene of crime, the public turns to the police who they then pile pressure on so that they can get their desire implemented immediately. In case the police fail to do that immediately, the public would then shift to the media and other arms of the government (McCarthy, 2011). The media would then do their own investigation and expose more details about the crime but not on the criminal who performed the heinous act. The entire country then receives the information including the government then all efforts are geared to the police force of the region in which the crime occurred. The outcome to the officers in charge of the investigation is then pressure and haste in the completion of the evidence recovery and possibly making of arrests. As demonstrated in the previous paragraphs of this piece, that is how the public desire influences the investigations. The remaining option is then to appease the interest of the public and the community in general. Since the police are also human beings and affected by emotions as well, they fail to consider the ethics of their profession and try all means of retrieving the evidence irrespective of the presence or absence of the warrant that officially validates their processes and the chain of custody. Eventually, the police might come across the suspect and make arrest effectively. The problem of ethics now arise in the court of law and particularly in the presentation of the evidence in support of the prosecution side (Pollock, 2012). The proceedings would then follow the formal course and with the endeavors of the defendant’s attoney, the case may end up into a conclusion that the protocol followed in the collection of the evidence was invalid and therefore the evidence becomes inadmissible in the court. Therefore, is the disqualified evidence had a greater magnitude in the case then the prosecution side lose vital points of negotiation. The case may end up being dropped basing on the fact that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations about the suspect. The suspect would then be declared innocent by the court and released. This means injustice to the victim. Alternatively, the quest to appease the public interest can also lead to the injustice to the suspect. Whenever the community mounts pressure on the police, the police become hypersensitive to certain acts that pose individuals as being suspects or having ill motives. The police may opt to pursue such people and even cause harm to them. In case the injured or killed person was innocent then this becomes a gross injustice. Therefore, the desire to appease the public by the significantly interfere with their ethical demands at work. The police as well as the public are overridden by the emotions and pressure from the community prompting them to execute acts to please the community. This is a clear demonstration that justice is double faceted and the ethics plays a critical role in the enforcement of justice in the community. A good police force should not be moved by the pressure from the public even though public opinions are important (Alexander, 2013). Yes, I think some officers lie in court. There are several instances where officers have been proven to be practicing perjury. According to Peter Keane’s article on police officer perjury in court, he proves the fact on the police lies in court. The situation is even incredible as the police lie in court even after taking an oath to tell the truth and nothing less than the actual truth. The impact of perjury was manifested in the year, 2011 where there were many serious cases dropped by the court especially the cases on illegal drugs after a realization that there were mistakes in the manner in which the evidence was mishandled probably in the chain of custody. In another case where Michael Patino was convicted of assaulting and killing his girlfriend’s child, the prosecution side was barred from applying most of the evidence they had collected concerning the case against Michael Patino. The premise on which such judgments were made outlined that the chain of custody was compromised and the evidence rendered being illegal. The defendant’s challenge was considered by the court that stipulated that the evidences such as text messages, videotapes and more were obtained disregarding the formal procedures and there were possibilities of evidence manipulations to favor malice. In such a case, there was also a detection of numerous lies in the sworn in statements by the police. Therefore the chain of custody is a crucial process in every case and the officers ought to follow all the recommended procedures that are legally acceptable when handling cases of all legal magnitudes. In a jury procedure, a criminal can go unpunished and an innocent individual can also be punished harshly due to mishandling of evidence and failure of proper chain of custody prompting lies in court. This act is inappropriate and unacceptable. References Alexander, M. (February 2, 2013). Why police lie under oath. The New York Times Braswell, M. C., McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (2011). Justice, Crime and Ethics. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Breton, T. (September 4, 2012). Judge slams Cranston police, tosses evidence in murder of 6- year-old. The Providence Journal http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking- news/2012/09/judge-slams-cra.html Crank, J. P., & Caldero, M. A. (2010). Police Ethics (Revised Printing): The Corruption of Noble Cause. Burlington: Elsevier Science. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html Kleinig, J. (1996). The ethics of policing. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. McCarthy, B. J. (2011). Tucson crime-lab worker resigns; had mishandled evidence in 6 cases. (2008, April 13). Phoenix Breaking News - azcentral.com. Retrieved June 3, 2011, from http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0413b10fill0413.html Refuge, J. (June 24, 2011). Ethics and training in forensic science. Crime Scene Investigator Network http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/ethicsinforensicscience-print.htm Pollock, J. M. (2012). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Souryal, S. S. (2010). Ethics in Criminal Justice: In Search of the Truth. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Stevens, D. J. (2010). Media and criminal justice: The CSI effect. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett. Read More