Introduction
Globally, all district attorneys, law enforcement officers, and correctional facility staff have their actions and words criticized by the public. They are expected to meet the high standards of their supervisors and citizens whom they serve by making ethically sound decisions and embracing morals. They must embrace ethical values such as concern for the health and safety of others, respect for the law, and equality for all genders (Velasquez et al., 2023). In the criminal justice system, ethical dilemmas have constantly presented themselves. Law enforcement officers are presented with issues that will influence the community’s safety and an individual’s fate. The analysis will focus on various ethical dilemmas in different scenes, the moral course of action, and the consequences of making a wrong decision.
The Case of the Judge
In the CJS, judges are the determinants of the sentencing and verdict of a criminal. In the first scenario, Woodrow Wilson, the defendant, was charged with armed robbery after entering a liquor store, hitting the owner, and demanding cash. The case has been presented to Judge Jeffrey, who faces an ethical dilemma because the evidence proves Mr. Wilson is guilty. Witnesses, surveillance, and cash recovered were submitted as evidence. As per the sentencing guidelines, the judge is expected to sentence him to a 5-7-year sentence in a state correctional prison system. In addition, the judge is aware that the perpetrator is suffering from addiction connected to mental health problems that forced him to commit violent and non-criminal outbreaks in the past. The state correctional prison has no funding to assist and support individuals with illnesses, such as Mr. Wilson. The judge also knows that the county jail that hosts inmates of less than 18 months received a grant to establish services needed by Mr. Wilson.
The judge is faced with a dilemma of the best sentence to give to Mr. Wilson that considers the health of the defendant and the safety of the community. The sentencing guidelines state that Mr. Wilson is condemned to the correctional prison system. However, considering Mr. Wilson’s condition, he would be better in a county jail where he would receive treatment. The judge’s motivation is to sentence Mr. Wilson to the required sentence while ensuring he receives treatment for his mental health problems until he can be rehabilitated into the community. If the defendant is sentenced to a correctional facility, he will not receive effective treatment making the jail time considered useless (Velasquez et al., 1992). This aspect allows him to revert to crime even after his sentence ends, creating a vicious prison cycle. If he is sent to the county jail, he will not serve his full punishment, but the cause of his violence will have been handled well.
I believe that the judge should consider both options available. For instance, he could sentence Wilson to five years in prison. The last 18 months in county jail and the first years in a correctional facility. This facet ensures that he has decided in the best interest of the public, the law, and the defendant. I made this decision because it is the judge’s responsibility to ensure the well-being of the community and the inmate (Velasquez et al., 2021). The ethical basis of the decision is the deontology theory which states that individuals should adhere to their duties and obligations in decision-making when ethics are in play. Judge Jeffrey needs to consider his responsibilities and obligations when making the decision.
The Case of the District Attorney
In the scenario, Jessica is a recently elected district attorney who ran a successful and conservative campaign. She is interested in implementing a rule to ensure that law enforcement officers who display misconduct are prosecuted with criminal charges. However, the chief of police does not support her since he believes that police misconduct can be served with suspensions, demotions, and termination (Boateng et al., 2022). In addition, he believes that civil could sue police officers who act outside the scope of their authority in a civil court. Jessica’s actions have led to disputes among the chief and other officers. Police officers have responded by not cooperating; hence criminal cases such as felonies are lost.
Jessica is faced with a dilemma where she believes the public supports her campaign and must prove that she can do more. She knows that she needs the cooperation of police officers. Therefore, continuing with the prosecution will push away many officers. She is motivated to continue her conservative campaign and gain the support of the police force. This motivation has numerous consequences. First, she will have no police force cooperation if she continues campaigning for their prosecution. This means that most criminals and felons will be released without proper execution (Boateng et al., 2022). This aspect is a threat to the public since criminals are arrested with no outcomes. Secondly, if she discontinues prosecution, most of the community’s trust will be lost, but she will have the police force’s cooperation. It will negatively affect her reputation, making her look incompetent.
I believe that Jessica can address the ethical dilemma by involving police officers’ representatives in decision-making processes; hence they are aware of the offenses that meet prosecution and those that receive administrative action. The policies can then be communicated to the police force, and official documentation and signing can be made to promote transparency. This will motivate the police force to cooperate in criminal court cases. The ethical basis of the decision is based on the utilitarianism theory (Kahn & Marseille, 2019). The theory advocates for actions that foster pleasure and happiness and oppose actions that cause harm. Therefore, if Jessica makes the above decision, she will be happy that she does not need to let the community keep the police force. The majority of the police force will have agreed on the type of offenses to be prosecuted, and most of them will be satisfied since there is transparency.
The Case of the Probation Officer
Police officers are expected to utilize discretion to make the best decision. In the case scenario, Scot is a police officer on probation (NIJ, 2016). When Scot was on patrol, he spotted a car that had violated a minor traffic rule. After stopping the vehicle, Scot asked the driver a question which caused him to be visibly agitated. This reaction makes Scot suspicious, asking the man out of the car; hence he checks his trunk. The driver yells that he had not permitted to search his trunk. Upon opening the trunk, Scot found thousands of pharmaceutical-type capsules. The driver insisted the drugs were not his. Scot realized he had committed an illegal search because he did not have a warrant.
Scot has a dilemma about how he will proceed with the scenario. He found a driver with capsules, which raised a lot of suspicions, he had illegally searched without a warrant and hence could be dismissed from his job. Scot is also aware of the damages of selling illegal drugs; thus, allowing the driver to continue his way will promote addicts and drug money in the community (Velasquez et al., 1988). Scot’s motivation is to arrest the driver and the drugs as evidence and also miss dismissal due to an illegal search. There are consequences for the motivations. First, the search conducted was illegal; hence the evidence collected is unlawful. The driver can say the drugs are not his, leading to his dismissal due to lack of proof. Secondly, if Scot lets the man go free, he will live to question his moral character since the victim will be distributing drugs around the community. People could die or be addicted since the capsules have a significant impact on the community.
I believe Scot must protect the community from all kinds of behaviors that might cause harm. The officer has a legal mandate supposing he suspects possible misconduct among the public. He should arrest the man for his suspicious behaviors and not for the capsules in his trunk. Once he has arrived with him at the police station, the officer can inform the supervisor that the driver could be hiding something hence his agitated behavior. He could then request a search warrant to check the properties of the suspect to identify if there are some illegal substances (Velasquez et al., 2014). After it has been granted, he could examine the vehicle, collect the capsules as evidence, and present them to the supervisor. The drugs will be collected as evidence and will not be dispersed in the community.
If the processes follow due process, Scot will not be dismissed from his job and the offender will be taken to court. The ethical basis of this decision is based on the Virtue theory, which states decisions should be made based on the consequences (Velasquez et al., 2014). Through the virtue model, Scot will make the wisest decision by arresting the driver for his original crime and confiscating the capsules with a legal warrant. In addition, the approach will ensure the police officer remains immune following an effective process to arrest the suspect. In other words, the officer could have acted with integrity to ensure his conduct did not jeopardize his future career.
Conclusion
Based on the scenarios, the actors experienced demanding ethical dilemmas. Law enforcement officers have been forced to make moral decisions without clear guidance on what is right or wrong. The officers are to decide based on what is right to protect the citizens they are serving. They need to do everything to safeguard the public from dangerous people and situations without being selfish by embracing integrity, morality, and ethical bases. Therefore, to ensure each personnel offers services with dignity, the police department should promote and embrace moral conduct among the staff members. This aspect will ensure each person within the office will behave morally when undertaking their duties. Similarly, judges should practice as well and decision-making should be guided by ethical conduct. It is necessary to do what is right to ensure the affected victims receive justice for the wrong they encountered.
References
Boateng, F. D., Pryce, D. K., & Abess, G. (2022). Legitimacy and cooperation with the police: examining empirical relationship using data from Africa. 32(3), 411-433. Web.
Kahn, J. G., & Marseille, E. (2019). Utilitarianism and the ethical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in resource allocation for global health. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. Web.
NIJ. (2016). Police Integrity and How to Improve It. Web.
Savulescu, J., Persson, I., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). Utilitarianism and the pandemic. 34(6), 620-632.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks T., S.J., & Meyer, J. M. (1988). Conscience and authority. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. Web.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks T., S.J., & Meyer, J. M. (1992). Ethical Relativism. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. Web.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks T., S.J., & Meyer, J. M. (2010). What is ethics?Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. Web.
Velasquez, M., Andre, C., Shanks T., S.J., & Meyer, J. M. (2014). Rights. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. Web.
Velasquez, M., Moberg, D., Meyer, J. M., Shanks, T., McLean, R. M., DeCosse, D., André, C., Hanson, O. K., Raicu, I., & Kwan, J. (2021). A framework for ethical decision making. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Santa Clara University. Web.