Introduction
Over the years, several families have been experiencing an increasing rate of domestic (DV) violence that affects the well-being of the people. Several efforts, including the use of law enforcement measures, are being used to facilitate the reduction of fights and aggressive actions amongst relatives, couples, and other close friends. However, the criminal justice system relies on morals to guide its conduct toward managing and overcoming DV. Despite the commitments, most police officers encounter ethical dilemmas that make it difficult for them to apply the law to tame the acts. Various ethical issues such as the code of silence, the mental status of the offender, and limited evidence play a vital role in challenging the discretion of police officers in arresting the DV perpetrators.
Understanding DV
Generally, DV is committed by an individual within the domestic circle of the victim. For instance, ex-partners, aggressive husbands or wives, and any member of the family. In most cases, victims of DV and the offender have a mutual relationship between them. Several factors contribute to the prevalence of DV in the community. They include effects of childhood trauma, aspects of dominancy, mental illness, limited respect, experiencing violence, and ease of access to weapons (Olszowy et al.). The above elements fuel the DV, making it common amongst family members within the communities.
Criminal Justice Ethical Dilemmas in DV
The fight against DV is complicated, which makes it challenging for the law enforcement unit to overcome it. Generally, police officers are expected to follow moral conduct to guide their discretion when dealing with cases of DV in society. However, sometimes they encounter situations that force them to opt for a different choice which might fail to deliver justice to the victims of the DV. For instance, assuming the offender is a member of the criminal justice system or law enforcement officer, the likelihood of taking serious measures is limited when the victim reports the issue to the authority. This aspect makes the target feel vulnerable to further assaults that might damage their lives.
Code of Silence
The ethical dilemma in the above situation revolves around taking action against fellow police and serving justice to the offended person. In most cases, law enforcement officers would restrain from exposing their staff behavior, fearing the possibility of discrediting and expulsion from duties (Moriconi and De Cima 60). This aspect makes them reduce the approach and intensity of handling DV associated with the professional. Instead, most of the detectives might opt to apply the code of silence, whereby they ignore the issue completely. On the other hand, the practice will violate the moral ethics that require them to provide justice to the victimized individuals. The conflicting conditions make it challenging for the criminal justice system to effect strong policies to curb the menace of DV within the communities.
Another dilemma associated with solving DV is the aspect of limited evidence. In most cases, the state laws fail to provide clear ground under which the officers on duty may press charges against the unlawful act of the accused individual. However, due to improper clarification, it is challenging for the police to arrest offenders, especially in situations where there is no recognizable felony. Despite DV, police may fail to execute the laws, hence making the victim lack justice. Even though the officers must serve the law and protect the public, without tangible proof, they might restrain from convicting the offender. In other words, the police assume that DV cases should be noninterference unless serious injuries are reported that indicate assaults.
Encountering Mentally III Offenders
The dilemma of arresting mentally ill offenders and serving justice to the victims becomes a challenging issue. In most cases, DV offenders are linked with mental problems, which make it difficult for law enforcement officers to exert their discretion. Being in an unstable state of mind affects the overall judgment of the accused, and their actions toward the victims might not be justified by the law. Sometimes arresting such individuals might prove futile and pose a danger to the lives of police officers and the perpetrator. For instance, the police are expected to use commanding language to dispossess criminals the weapons suppose they had in possession (Pollock 80). However, applying such orders to mentally challenged people is not straightforward since they might perceive the acts as a threat to their well-being, prompting them to act aggressively. In such a situation, law enforcement officers are faced with a technical condition that requires them to apply possible moral ethics. However, the use of force is justified in scenarios where the criminal refuses to surrender the weapon; the actions of officers and the approach given to the threat have a significant impact on the outcome of the condition.
Protecting Victims and Respecting Autonomy
Furthermore, the critical dilemma is protecting vulnerable victims and respecting autonomy. Moral ethics requires law enforcement officers to provide the necessary support and protection to vulnerable individuals. However, the need to offer effective autonomy makes it challenging for the police to deal with DV situations accordingly. Detectives, especially when investigating the scenarios, should not use terminologies that might cause discomfort to the victims (Holland et al. 256). Moreover, the details given by the offended person must be voluntary to facilitate the respect of their privacy and avoidance of feelings that might affect their psychological state of mind. To offer practical protection, sometimes the officers might be forced to acquire private information related to the issue, which reduces the aspect of the victim’s autonomy. In such conditions, police officers are faced with conflicting approaches that influence their level of discretion during the management of DV.
Grafts against Justice
The growing culture of gratitude in the criminal justice system, which influences the ability of prosecutors and police officers to receive gifts, is impacting the nature of discretion in law enforcement units. The significant dilemma is a result of bribery and protecting the victims from DV acts. In most DV, especially in families that fight over wealth issues, the offenders tend to have the power to use resources to manipulate the outcome of the cases. Sometimes police detectives are given massive gifts by the accused, thus making them withdraw charges against the offenders. The greed and the need to benefit from the situation forced the officers to tangle with grafts making their decisions to be irrational. Upon receiving the tokens, the police will be less responsive toward the aggressors, therefore, making the criminals continue with their illegal acts. Even though the code of ethics demands that law enforcement take appropriate measures to curb and protect DV victims, once the officials have accepted the gifts, their ability to manage the situation diminishes. This is due to limited command over the accused person.
Intimate Partners and Children
In DV cases where the victim and offender have children involved, the criminal justice faces a significant challenge in solving the difference. The associated ethical dilemma is to protect the assaulted individual and maintain the family. When there is disagreement, couples might engage in aggressive actions that can result in breaking the family. Any decision taken by the officers has the potential of either building or destroying the union. Therefore, the presence of young ones might force the law enforcement unit to be less responsive to allow the parties to resolve the matter in a manner that cares for the interest of children (McPhee et al.). However, failing to apply strong measures can promote the bad behavior of the perpetrator leading to a series of assaults. The situation presents a challenging position for the officers to ensure justice is served to the vulnerable partner.
Conclusion
In summary, many communities and families experience DV cases that break the relationships between the victims and offenders. Several factors such as mental health status, witnessing child abuse, access to weapons, and constant violence contributes to and facilitate the occurrence of DV in societies. The criminal justice system has dedicated efforts to minimize DV and promote peaceful coexistence among relatives, ex-partners, and couples. Despite the determination, several ethical dilemmas limit the ability of the law enforcement team to enact strict laws and measures against the perpetrators. Moral issues such as code of silence, grafts, and victim autonomy influence DV cases. The decision conflicts, therefore, make it challenging to effectively address and curb the menace of DV in the community.
Works Cited
Holland, Kathryn J., Lilia M. Cortina, and Jennifer J. Freyd. “Compelled Disclosure of College Sexual Assault.”American Psychologist, vol. 73, no. 3, 2018, pp. 256. Web.
McPhee, Duncan, et al. “Criminal Justice Responses to Domestic Violence and Abuse in England: An Analysis of Case Attrition and Inequalities Using Police Data.”Policing and Society, 2021, pp. 1-18. Web.
Moriconi, Marcelo, and César De Cima. “To Report, or Not to Report? From Code of Silence Suppositions within Sport to Public Secrecy Realities.” Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 74, no. 1, 2020, pp. 55-76.
Olszowy, Laura, et al. “Voices from the Frontline: Child Protection Workers’ Perspectives on Barriers to Assessing Risk in Domestic Violence Cases.” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 116, 2020, 105208.
Pollock, Joycelyn M. Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning, 2021.