Introduction
Criminal justice refers to the processes and systems that maintain peace and order in a community. Every country has criminal justice professionals to ensure that citizens abide by the law and are punished if they break it. Some countries have a harsher criminal justice system than others, like the United States, where police brutality against black people is well-known.
In every jurisdiction with a criminal justice system, ethical issues must be addressed. Australian criminal justice professionals face numerous ethical challenges. Most crimes are reported to the police, resulting in a workload overload, which means that police officers receive low wages and are often required to perform multiple jobs.
In addition, police brutality is prevalent in Australia due to a lack of accountability measures (Douglas & Fitzgerald, 2018). Australian criminal justice professionals also tend to ignore ethical standards when apprehending criminals. They may sometimes even help criminals escape the law enforcement system. This is due to a lack of oversight in the issuance of professional licenses. Utilitarianism, divine command theory, and deontology are the major theories; the paper’s core inquiry is whether the criminal justice system is significantly affected by these ideas.
Key Ethical Theories
Utilitarianism is the idea that the most moral decision is the one that causes the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the largest number of people. In a criminal justice context, utilitarianism can be used to determine if crime prevention strategies are successful or not. Suppose a particular method of law enforcement results in a greater level of happiness for more people than it does for those who feel hurt by it. In that case, it is more likely that utilitarianism supports this measure (Gisev et al., 2019).
For example, many Australian police officers have been accused of using excessive force to subdue citizens over the years. When this happens, some onlookers may say that these methods are unnecessary and only cause suffering. However, a utilitarian would point out that when police apply such laws and tactics, they protect many more citizens than they harm. This is especially evident in cases of terrorism and domestic extremism. With the current threats at home and abroad, Australian officials who believe that terrorist activity needs to be stopped may use any means necessary to apprehend those responsible, like excessive force.
The divine command theory posits that ethical behavior is grounded in the belief that every person has a divine and holy source of being that created them to do good, rather than evil. Moral laws govern the actions of people and apply to everyone. One person cannot break the law while another person obeys it. When this occurs, it implies that there is no divine justice because no one can be punished for doing right if they are doing it. The divine command theory also suggests that ethics should never be questioned, as it is considered the ultimate truth.
This theory is applicable in the Australian criminal justice system, as all citizens are equal under the law and, therefore, cannot be subject to special punishment. If someone violates a law for which they have not been charged, this does not mean they feel remorse for their actions. It means they are punished according to the law (Blackley & Bartels, 2018). A person cannot break the law without knowing what it entails, as everyone is expected to follow these rules.
Deontology is an ethical theory that posits that human morality should be based on each person’s ability to make moral decisions. In other words, people should adhere to a moral code that guides them in determining what they believe is right and wrong in various situations (Moradi et al., 2019). While the criminal justice system in Australia holds some deontological beliefs, such as the principle that citizens are innocent until proven guilty, it is primarily based on utilitarianism (Walklate et al., 2018). For instance, when weighing the pros and cons of a particular issue or law, officials often focus on which creates more happiness for a greater number of individuals rather than which is morally right or wrong.
Ethical Issues Relevant to Law and Society
The ethical issues relevant to law in the criminal justice sector encompass a variety of issues that should be discussed to raise awareness of the law’s problems and promote greater ethical integrity. The most relevant ethical issue is the principle of innocent until proven guilty. When criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, they are deprived of their fundamental rights, such as freedom, which has been an issue since the inception of the court system and remains unresolved.
Another issue is the successful use of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining has become a useful tool for prosecutors, but it can also be a harmful tool for citizens, as in some cases, if someone pleads guilty to a crime they did not commit, they may still be convicted of that crime, which causes innocent citizens to serve a sentence for crimes they did not commit. This is unethical because innocent citizens are wronged by their government. It is significant to discuss this issue because most people believe everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The debate surrounding these ethical issues should be more based on utilitarianism or deontology.
The other issue is whether or not human rights should be extended to all offenders. The extension of human rights to all offenders has been a significant problem since the beginning of history, and there is still no conclusion. There are several arguments from individuals who oppose the extension of human rights to offenders, including the notion that they do not deserve it due to the nature of their offense or that other citizens should be protected from them (Nittari et al., 2020).
However, some argue in favor of extending human rights to offenders; one may argue that if offenders were given their basic rights back, society would have better control. For example, they respect the rights to freedom and a fair trial; however, they do not respect the right to liberty because, in prison, cellmates are randomly assigned to each other, and prisoners are constantly monitored (Milano et al., 2020). Therefore, this issue should also be discussed because it has been a topic of debate and has further hindered the criminal justice system.
Another ethical issue relevant to law and criminal justice is the death penalty. Almost all countries have this law, which is used as punishment for killing another person. However, some countries have abolished this practice and replaced it with life sentences or jail time. The debate over the death penalty concerns whether or not people should be allowed to live, even if they killed someone else (Douglas, 2018). This is a complicated debate because one side believes that humans are human and we should never kill one another, no matter the crime.
On the other hand, the other side believes that sometimes killing someone else may be necessary to eliminate violent criminals. In Australia, the death penalty is still legal and is often used (Grella et al., 2020). Although this can be beneficial in some cases, it is very harmful because individuals are not allowed to speak in their defense, or they are forced to act guilty when they know that they committed a crime. Therefore, this issue should also be addressed since every individual has the right to live.
Ethical Standards
The ethical standards applied to criminal justice professions include autonomy, beneficence, fidelity, and justice. The term autonomy refers to a person’s ability to decide for themselves what to do and, as a result, whom the criminal justice system should hold accountable. Examples include the influence of factors such as age, illness, and intelligence on decision-making and, consequently, criminal responsibility (Yogev & Mehozay, 2022). In these professions, autonomy is used to determine whether a person should be held accountable for their actions. In beneficence, people are treated ethically when their judgments are respected, they are shielded from damage, and efforts are made to ensure their well-being.
The beneficence principle covers such treatment; in the provision of services, all individuals are to be treated with care, respect, and dignity. For example, in Australia, criminal justice professionals must ensure that the people they deal with are treated well to participate in their civil liberties, such as the right to the presumption of innocence. As a result, justice is not only the goal of these professionals but also their responsibility to follow this ethical standard.
The fidelity principle stipulates that an individual’s beliefs must be independent of their position as a criminal justice professional. In this context, the term “required” refers to mandatory standards. For example, a prosecutor’s duty would include informing the defendant of their rights and responsibilities, as well as the consequences of not fulfilling these duties. These duties would be mandatory, as outlined in the law, and failure to fulfill them would mean that the professional is not fulfilling their responsibilities (Pakes, 2019).
As such, a prosecutor’s fidelity must always lie with their ethical responsibilities. In the context of criminal justice professions, these principles should always remain intact and be adhered to by all practitioners. However, it is imperative to note that these principles should never conflict with the law. If this were to happen, it would likely result in an ethical dilemma that would need to be addressed by relevant jurisdictions or organizations, such as a government department or a professional body.
The justice principle is also a widely used ethical standard among criminal justice professions. Just as the term ‘required’ refers to current standards of conduct, the term ‘ongoing’ in this context also refers to current standards of conduct. These standards ensure that people are treated fairly and can access legal representation, which helps them understand the consequences of their actions (Pakes, 2019). For example, when someone is arrested, legal counsel should be provided to them so they can understand their rights, including protection from self-incrimination and the right to a fair trial. As a result, criminal justice professionals must uphold these principles so that people can receive justice and feel that they are being treated fairly by the authorities.
Ethical Dilemmas
The ethical dilemmas faced by the criminal justice system include the evils of the death penalty, ethical dilemmas of the death penalty, and issues surrounding the bail system. First, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, to avoid depriving individuals of their right to the presumption of innocence, they should not be held accountable for something they may or may not have done (Douglas & Fitzgerald, 2018). This is where the death penalty arises, as it is often used to eliminate suspects from society, meaning guilt cannot be proven or denied. However, this situation is commonly addressed by opposing both sides to develop reform in this situation.
The other ethical dilemma faced in Australian criminal justice is the bail system. People accused of a crime have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, a fundamental principle of a fair criminal justice system. Therefore, people accused of committing crimes must be released on bail and allowed to participate in their defense (Douglas & Fitzgerald, 2018). However, there are many cases where people accused of committing crimes do not receive bail, such as those with violent offenses (such as murder). This implies that the state should be held responsible for recognizing the dangers of releasing such individuals into society before committing further offenses (like murder).
The other ethical dilemmas faced by criminal justice professionals include the atrocities of genocide and the atrocities of genocide and the dangers of self-defense. First, people have a right to life, and when this right is denied, it can be argued that they have been denied their human rights (Pakes, 2019). As such, genocide is often used as a word to describe the killing of innocent people based on their race or religion. State authorities need to recognize these warning signs and intervene before further action is taken to prevent this from happening in society. Hence, a state government can act against these atrocities and prevent them from occurring.
Conclusion
In conclusion, criminal justice professionals frequently encounter numerous ethical dilemmas that impact the lives of innocent people. Therefore, they need to fulfill their duties and adhere to laws and regulations, ensuring fairness and justice for all parties involved. Ethical standards in this system are used to ensure that the rights of people accused of committing crimes are upheld. These include the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Likewise, criminal justice professionals must uphold these obligations to avoid potential human rights violations, such as genocide and inhumane treatment.
Additionally, state and federal governments are responsible for recognizing these dilemmas and ensuring that they act accordingly by passing laws to protect human rights. These ethical dilemmas can be resolved through a collaborative effort aimed at achieving the common goals of justice and fairness. For instance, governments should collaborate with criminal justice professionals to establish a rule of law that guarantees all individuals accused of committing crimes are granted bail until proper legal representation is provided.
References
Douglas, H., & Fitzgerald, R. (2018). The domestic violence protection order system as entry to the criminal justice system for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 7(3), 41.
Douglas, H. (2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 84-99.
Gisev, N., Bharat, C., Larney, S., Dobbins, T., Weatherburn, D., Hickman, M., Farrell, M. and Degenhardt, L., (2019). The effect of entry and retention in opioid agonist treatment on contact with the criminal justice system among opioid-dependent people: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet Public Health, 4(7), e334-e342.
Grella, C. E., Ostile, E., Scott, C. K., Dennis, M., & Carnavale, J. (2020). A scoping review of barriers and facilitators to implementation of medications for treatment of opioid use disorder within the criminal justice system. International Journal of Drug Policy, 81, 102768.
Milano, S., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2020). Recommender systems and their ethical challenges. AI & Society, 35(4), 957-967.
Moradi, S., Mahdizadeh, H., Šarić, T., Kim, J., Harati, J., Shahsavarani, H., Greber, B. and Moore, J.B., (2019). Research and therapy with induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs): social, legal, and ethical considerations. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 10(1), 1-13.
Nittari, G., Khuman, R., Baldoni, S., Pallotta, G., Battineni, G., Sirignano, A., Amenta, F. and Ricci, G., (2020). Telemedicine practice: review of the current ethical and legal challenges. Telemedicine and e-Health, 26(12), 1427-1437.
Pakes, F. (2019). Comparative criminal justice. Routledge.
Walklate, S., Fitz-Gibbon, K., & McCulloch, J. (2018). Is more law the answer? Seeking justice for victims of intimate partner violence through the reform of legal categories. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 115-131.
Yogev, D., & Mehozay, Y. (2022). Comparative criminology in the time of algorithmic knowledge: the challenges of global comparison. In Research Handbook of Comparative Criminal Justice (pp. 365-382). Edward Elgar Publishing.