Ethical Dilemma 1: Gun Rally
At the gun rally ethical dilemma, the main actor (administrator in a police department), should seek the most ethical course of action depending on the analysis of the situation. Hence, it will be necessary to assess the important facts of the situation, considering the consequences of the decision made. From the consequentialist perspective, the most ethical decision should be based on utilitarianism ethical theory.
The theory dictates a look at the consequences of an action before making the decision. In this case, the ethical course of action is the one that will bring the most happiness to the majority, and at the same time, minimize the pain (Souryal 35). The local gun advocacy group should be allowed to hold the rally because their actions are based on public good. Although the group does not apply for a permit, their actions do not pose danger to the public, considering that there was such a peaceful rally held by the same group in the past. Additionally, it is within the constitutional rights of the advocacy group to hold such a rally (Cheeseman 22). However, the administrator should organize for security details to ensure that no security breach occurs during the rally.
The administrator has an important ethical decision to make to protect the public and at the same time uphold the constitutional rights of the advocacy group. The ethical decision that is most appropriate in the situation is allowing the group to hold the rally but organize security to ensure that everything is done peacefully.
Ethical Dilemma 2: Chief’s Orders
The group is within the constitutional confines to hold a peaceful rally, and in this situation, the chief of police is the one who is acting unethically and illegally. Hence, from the ethical formalist point of view, as a police officer, there is the duty to protect the rights of the people. As the administrator, I will not blindly follow through with the orders.
The ethical basis of the decision made, in this case, is to act in such a manner that will protect the rights of the people and such that can generally be agreed to be ethical (Hrebenar and Scott 71). Although the officers are expected to follow the orders of the chief, they do not have to always follow them even when they are unethical and illegal. As the administrator, I will still gather the police officers, but to ensure that the rally is held in peace and that the public is kept safe. I would not go through with harassing or arresting the members of the group but instead keep law and order. I would advise the chief that the group is constitutionally allowed to hold the rally and that they should not be treated with violence.
Consequently, the directives of the chief are the ones in violation of the law and unethical. It could be true that the group did not get a permit, but they are not violating any law by holding the rally. I would take time to express my concerns with the chief, hoping that her personal opinions and feelings do not get in the way of her making ethical decisions.
Ethical Dilemma 3: Accepting Favors
Police officers have the duty to serve the public, maintain law and order, without expecting any favors in return. Police officers should not receive bribery or gratuities when they are working in order to serve the public (Souryal 372). On the case of the police officer I am working with, I would advise against taking the food in exchange to getting the protection, which is a right for owner of the store.
I would not take the food from the local convenient store and would also advise the officer to refrain from doing the same in future. This is a form of corruption perpetrated by the police that is against the law as well as ethically wrong (Souryal 372). My concerns are that the police officers in the area would be putting the lives of the same people they are supposed to protect in danger. On getting used to the gratuities and bribes, the police officers will concentrate on protecting those who are able and willing to give. As a result, those who fail to give will be left within their rightful protection (Cheeseman 69). In fact, this would, in turn, breed insecurity in the county.
As a rule, police officers have a duty to protect the public, maintain law and order, without expecting any favors in return. In the case where the officer accepts food from the store to protect the owner, he is committing an illegal and unethical act. If the officer is unwilling to change, then I have a duty to report the behavior to the chief of police in the county.
Ethical Dilemma 4: Reporting A Deal
Judges have the constitutional duty to uphold justice (Cheeseman 128). Regardless of the status of the person facing justice, the court should remain impartial. The judgment should not be discriminatory such that fair and impartial judgment is given. As a law abiding citizen, I have a duty to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Since I overheard the derogatory comments made by the judge and I am convinced that this will affect the outcome of the case, I will immediately talk to the judge and the chief prosecutor before the case commences. Ethical criminal justice should be the role of all the players in the system (Souryal 279). Hence, I feel that I have the duty to uphold the justice. In the event that the judge is unwilling to give a fair and impartial judgment, I will consult with the defendant’s side of the case to seek the best possible course of action, including demanding that the case is heard in front of a jury. I am sure that one of these players in the case will hear the plea and ensure justice for the defendant.
Every person coming into contact with the criminal justice system has the right to receive justice. Hence, in the case where the justice is preparing for a miscarriage of justice, I believe that I have a role to play in preventing the action to take place. This will be achieved by approaching the relevant actors to prevent the unethical decision from being made.
Ethical Dilemma 5: Breaking Prison Rules
The prison rules are supposed to be upheld in all situations and breaking them would be illegal and unethical. However, I believe that there are always some exceptions to the rule, particularly in the cases where the rules go against the rights of the inmates. In the case of the prisoner handing over a note, I would not report the case without understanding what the note entails.
Hence, I would begin by going through the note before deciding which is the best course of action. It might sound unethical to open and read the note, but taking into consideration the background on the inmate ((his problematic nature) I would not follow through with his request blindly (Cheeseman 175). Therefore, I would read the note to ensure that he is not planning any action that could be considered illegal. My decision would be based on the content of the note. If the note has nothing incriminating, then I will make sure it gets to the recipient (Schmalleger et al. 49). On the other hand, if it is incriminating, I have a duty to take action based on the law, including reporting to the relevant authorities.
Breaking the law in the process of upholding the law is unethical. However, there are incidents where protecting the rights of certain individuals or groups might appear to go contrary to the law. In the case, protecting the inmate will depend on his intentions. In case where he has intentions to break the law, then preventing the same is necessary, if not then he needs to be protected.
Ethical dilemma 6: Crisis Intervention or use of force?
Maintaining law and order is the primary duty of the law enforcement officer. In the case where the tenant is disturbing the peace, it can be concluded that there are aspects of violation of law and order. Hence, as the police officer responding to the call, I have a duty to ensure that the violation of law is dealt with as appropriately as possible.
Therefore, I have the duty to apprehend the offender of the law. It is true that the offender is acting in a manner that insinuates that he has a mental illness, but such a conclusion cannot be made without the necessary evaluation. I will begin by assuming my duty, which is arresting the offender and leave the assessment to the experts (Schmalleger et al. 52). The offender could be pretending to be mentally ill to evade justice. Therefore, a proper assessment should be carried out as soon as possible, following the arrest. The necessary course of action will be assumed as soon as the results of the assessment are made. Nonetheless, that should be left in the hands of the experts since my role is the arresting the offender.
The law enforcement officers have the duty to ensure that law and order is maintained. Hence, the person breaking the law should be arrested, regardless of the perceived mental health status. The results of a mental health assessment will determine whether the person is fit to stand a trial or get the necessary mental health intervention.
References
Cheeseman, K., San Miguel, C., Frantzen, D. and Nored, L. (2011). Everyday Ethics for the Criminal Justice Professional, Carolina Academic Press
Hrebenar, R. J., & Scott, R. K. (2015). Interest group politics in America. Routledge.
Schmalleger, F., Donaldson, S., Kashiwahara, K., Koppal, T., Chase, S., Brown, A., … & Marash, D. (2014). Criminal justice today. Prentice Hall.
Souryal, S. S. (2010). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth. Routledge.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
