Ethical Issues and Ethical Dilemmas
Ethical thinking is crucial in a variety of spheres of human activity, and this array includes criminal justice. Pollock (2017) states that ethical discussions in this area exist within the framework of two notions: issues and dilemmas. The first category is defined as “Difficult social or policy questions that include the controversy over the “right” thing to do” (Pollock, 2017, p. 2). In other words, ethical issues comprise a broad range of acute issues that are discussed in the context of governmental control and impact on the citizens. According to Pollock (2017), the list of topics is large and comprises such matters as marijuana legalization, the use of private prisons, and capital punishment. It is important to note that an average citizen has little or no control over ethical issues, as they exist on a greater scale. At the same time, they are directly affected by such matters, and it is the responsibility of policymakers to evaluate the impact and provide effective solutions.
On the other hand, ethical dilemmas form a related yet different concept. Unlike the first category, they exist on the scale of a particular situation that can be encountered by any person (Pollock, 2017). Pollock (2017) defines ethical dilemmas as “Situations in which it is difficult for an individual to decide, either because the right course of action is not clear or carries some negative consequences” (p. 2). For example, a defense attorney may face a dilemma regarding a murder case, in which the client’s guilt seems obvious. In this scenario, there is a conflict between one’s obligation to do their job and universal ethical dogmas. Overall, the primary difference between ethical issues and dilemmas lies in their scale. While the former concept concerns society in general and high-end policymakers, the latter is faced by many people in their line of duty.
The Controversy between Relativism and Universalism
Ethical issues and dilemmas can be resolved through an effective application of particular decision-making paradigms. However, there are several independent approaches to this matter, and it may be difficult to discern the correct one. Cultural relativism dictates that “values and behaviors differ from culture to culture and are functional in the culture that holds them” (Pollock, 2017, p. 44). Therefore, dogmas adopted by one community may contradict the views of other cultures. If hunting is the primary means of survival of a particular society, the euthanasia of the elderly and the sick can be deemed acceptable. At the same time, communities that exist in another environment may stand strongly against it. The purpose of cultural relativism is to recognize objective differences between cultures. Nevertheless, this approach is heavily criticized due to its inconsistency. Absolutists argue that some cultures normalize despicable behavior, such as cannibalism and child molestation.
At the same time, relativist proponents claim that this paradigm encourages tolerance and acceptance of others’ views. Universalists argue that the removal of global principles of morale will lead to a surge of egoism and multiple conflicts. Pollock (2017) points out a logical inconsistency regarding the influence of cultures on one another. Relativism dictates that other parties should not interfere with the internal cultural processes of other societies due to varying perceptions of morality. However, if it is one nation’s custom to enforce its views on others, this behavior can also be justified by cultural relativism. This paradigm aims at highlighting the duality of good and evil, but other approaches, including universalism, have adopted particular theories in this respect. Even absolutism acknowledges the principle of forfeiture, meaning that one’s violation of others’ rights accordingly deprives him or her of said rights.
The Concept of Restorative Justice
Crimes and violations of people’s rights launch a thorough procedure, which aims at identifying the suspect and proving their guilt. However, there are several approaches to this process, and restorative justice is one of them. It focuses on the victim of the crime, and increased attention is paid to their rights and compensation (Pollock, 2017). However, the needs of all parties involved are also taken into account in the case of restorative justice. Pollock (2017) states that this model would allow redirecting toward victim compensation programs some of the funds presently allocated to correction institutions and law enforcement. Therefore, people whose rights were violated by personal and property crimes would have their needs met even if the perpetrator were not caught. Restorative justice implies that service should become the central notion instead of punishment. Accordingly, the focus of attention shifts from the offender to the victim. The application of this method would consist of obligatory payments and services delivered by the perpetrators.
Overall, restorative justice allows for the direct mediation of the conflict between all parties concerned by the crime. According to Pollock (2017), it is not the offender’s identity that matters but the damage sustained by the victim. In addition, this system promotes the victim’s participation in the process, allowing them to partake in the decision-making process. This principle correlates with the person-centric paradigm, which is gaining importance in today’s world. However, despite the evident advantages of restorative justice, it cannot be applied universally. Traditional forms of justice are better suited for severe crimes, such as terrorism, rape, and murder, as the compensation may be physically impossible. Nevertheless, restorative justice presents a viable, ethically correct alternative to conventional practices.
Psychological Theories Explaining Individual Differences in Behavior
While some ethical norms are considered universal, each person may demonstrate specific patterns related to their behavior. Psychologists have been researching these particularities for a long time, and several theories are aiming at explaining them. The Learning theory states that people acquire behavioral patterns, as well as values and morals, through learning, combined with punishment and rewards (Pollock, 2017). According to Pollock (2017), “learning can take place through modeling or by reinforcement” (p. 85). In the first case, an individual acquires values and norms from a role model, meaning that they attempt to copy the behavior of someone they admire. At the same time, reinforcement develops behavioral patterns through a system of rewards and punishments (Pollock, 2017). The former promotes positive actions and specific values, whereas the latter discourages the individual from unfavorable attitudes. Both processes are particularly strong during childhood, as this period of learning lays the foundation for the future personality, and some patterns may be difficult to change moving forward.
On the other hand, there are developmental theories, as well. Such models suggest that “individuals mature physically, cognitively, and emotionally” (Pollock, 2017, p. 87). Kohlberg’s moral stage theory comprises a hierarchy of three levels, each having two stages (Pollock, 2017). First, the pre-conventional level implies that a person follows personal interests when facing an ethical issue. Second, societal norms influence their decisions at the conventional level. Finally, at the post-conventional level, the individual “moves beyond the norms and laws of a society to determine universal good” (Pollock, 2017, p. 87). Therefore, according to this model, each individual undergoes complex cognitive transformations, developing a deeper understanding of ethical paradigms.
The Two Missions of Law Enforcement in Democracy
Nowadays, law enforcement has been receiving increasing attention due to a range of unfortunate incidents in which police officers were involved. As these events resulted in people’s deaths, it is vital to outline the primary objective of law enforcement. According to Pollock (2017), there are two particular missions of the police and other departments. First of all, law enforcement must pursue the objective of crime control. This mission is most commonly associated with the police, as the public views them as soldiers at the front of the war against criminals. Therefore, once officers share this perception, it will affect their decision-making paradigms. In this case, law enforcement may follow the principles of criminal conduct repression, efficiency, and presumption of guilt. In other words, officers that focus solely on the first aspect are likely to disregard the societal impact of their actions if they decide to accomplish their mission by all means. Simultaneously, when the described views are adopted by the public, their judgment regarding certain cases may be impaired. As a result, brutal actions against suspects, even though their guilt is not yet proven, are deemed due to retribution.
On the other hand, there is an equally important law enforcement mission that should balance the first one. Pollock (2017) refers to this role as that of a public servant, meaning that it is the primary objective of police to serve their communities and maintain order. Accordingly, officers influenced by this approach remember that they “owe everyone the duty of civility and legality” (Pollock, 2017, p. 115). This mission highlights the complex nature of the crime as a social phenomenon and imposes necessary restrictions on the use of force and ungrounded judgment.
Ethical Issues of Proactive Investigations
One of the primary objectives of law enforcement is to solve crimes, and this goal is attained through careful investigations. Pollock (2017) states that there are several approaches to investigation, and the proactive method is one of them. This model is applied when police initiate investigations instead of responding to criminal activity. Proactive investigations often involve a certain amount of undercover work, especially in the cases of “Drug distribution networks, pornography rings, and fences of stolen property” (Pollock, 2017, p. 164). This context implies the use of police deception, which is justified as a necessity. However, deception can take different forms, and, despite the overall requirements in some cases, it can hurt the investigation and community. Police officers may opt for unjustified lying if they think it will facilitate the investigation or help them close the case more quickly. Once uncovered, these forms of deception ruin the credibility of the officer and his unit in general. Therefore, police deception, while being a powerful instrument, poses ethical issues, as it is often abused in the agents’ interests.
At the same time, the range of ethical concerns surrounding proactive investigations extends beyond lying. Asset forfeiture legislation allows the police to “confiscate property and money associated with organized criminal activity” (Pollock, 2017, p. 165). Consequently, officers’ judgment in certain cases may be entirely on the value of assets they may seize. In addition, there are concerns regarding the way law enforcement treats informants (Pollock, 2017). As the latter are usually former criminals, police officers may feel strong dislike toward them which translates into excessive brutality used to make them cooperate. Finally, there are issues related to undercover police work, as it is reported that such missions negatively affect officers’ mental states. These concerns are particularly topical nowadays, as more attention is devoted to the credibility of law enforcement.
Reference
Pollock, J. M. (2017). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice (10th Edition). Cengage Learning.