No directly quoted material may be used in this project paper.
Resources should be summarized or paraphrased with appropriate in-text and Resource page citations.
Final Project: Case Study
Ethical dilemmas permeate the criminal justice. At every level, in each segment of the system, people are exercising discretion that will influence the fate of an individual and/or the security of the community. Incongruous laws, regulations, policies and practices create conflicts and distort the basis upon which judgments are made. Very often these conflicts result in an ethical dilemma. Which is the appropriate course of action? What is the moral/ethical rational for the decisions that were made? What purposes or principles are served? This project will ask you to consider a sequence of decisions (do, or not do) all of which contribute, directly or indirectly the final scene.
For each of the three (3) scenarios, your assignment is to:
Examine each situation and describe the ethical and/or moral question,
Describe what you believe to be the motivation of the actor and the potential consequences of BOTH/EACH options,
Identify the decision you believe the actor SHOULD make, and
Provide the ethical basis for your decision.
Connect the ethical basis for your decision to ethical theories introduced at the beginning of the course and explain the rational for this connection.
Each decision must be considered separately and not be influenced by earlier decisions and/or actions.
This project is an opportunity for the student to demonstrate their understanding of ethics and value-based decisions. Most of these situations do not have a single correct answer. Grading is NOT based on solving the problem that is presented to the actor but in identifying the ethical dilemmas and determining and explaining the most ethical course of action.
————————————————————————————————————-
1. The judge
Judge Jeffery Owens is very troubled by the felony case before him. The defendant, Woodrow Wilson, had been found guilty of armed robbery of a liquor store. The case alleged that Wilson had a handgun in plain sight when he entered the Sin-Yon liquor store, that he hit the owner in the head with the weapon and forced him to open the cash drawer. Fleeing the scene on foot, Woodrow only got a few blocks before responding police officers spotted him and made the arrest. The prosecutor, armed with the recovered cash, video surveillance and an eyewitness as evidence had an easy case. Now it is time for sentencing.
Jeffery saw the demonstration of business owners in the hallway when he entered the courthouse that morning. They were chanting “Justice for our victims” and were demanding a lengthy prison sentence. The Pre-Sentence Investigation report said Wilson was suffering from acute addiction and associated mental problems that had caused these violent (but not criminal) outbreaks in the past. There is no information in the file that Wilson has ever received treatment for his disorders. Jeffery knows that, due to budget cuts, the state prison system has very little in the way of addictive or behavioral disorder treatment programs. The prisons had reverted to merely warehousing inmates. However, he had read that the county jail had received a federal grant to establish exactly the kind of services that it appeared Wilson needed. Obviously, he had no way of knowing if this or any treatment would be successful for Wilson.
Sentencing guidelines were established to ensure that defendants convicted of similar offenses received similar punishments. According to the sentencing guidelines, Wilson should be sentenced to 5-7 years in the state correctional prison system. Jeffery knows that the business community was calling for the maximum sentence. The county jail only took inmates sentenced to eighteen months or less. What sentence should Judge Owens impose on Mr. Wilson?
2. The District Attorney
Jessica ran a successful campaign for district attorney on a very conservative platform generally critical of the incumbent’s inability or unwillingness to prosecute police misconduct with criminal charges. The city’s police chief did not support her campaign. He felt that administrative actions that could result is fines, suspensions, demotion or termination of employment were sufficient punishment. Additionally, victims could sue an officer in civil court if the officer acted outside the scope of their authority and immunity. The chief felt that these consequences should be sufficient for any police misconduct except, perhaps, a felony. Since her election Jessica has brought criminal charges of larceny against one officer for switching city tires off his patrol car on to his personal car. She also brought assault charges against an officer when she learned a suspect needed medical treatment for wrist abrasions due to her handcuffs being too tight. Recently several assistants have cautioned her that they are losing criminal cases, including serious felony cases, because police officers are either not appearing to testify at court or are having “difficulty remembering” critical details during their testimony. This started in traffic court but has also occurred in misdemeanor trials as well. The feeling is these officers are retaliating against the district attorney’s officer for the criminal charges being brought against members of the police force. The pattern is quite clear and getting worse. Prosecutors are complaining that police detectives are “too busy” to return their calls. Jessica understands she cannot successfully prosecute criminal cases without the cooperation of the police department. At the same time, she feels as though she is being bullied by an overly protective autocratic police chief. She feels she can and should prosecute police officer for any criminal offense …and feels that her election demonstrated that the community agrees with her. What should Jessica do?
Final Project: Case Study of Ethical Dilemmas
The Judge
Situation and the Ethical and/or Moral Question
In the case involving judger Jeffery, it is apparent that he is in an ethical dilemma. On one hand, he believes that Wilson has a legitimate cause for his actions. It is noted that he has had disorders in the past, and this has affected his behavior. The reports state that he has never been involved in criminal case, but he has had bouts of violent conduct. Further revelation is that the criminal records do not cite him for any offense, and he has never received medical attention for the illness that he has. At the same time, the government has indicated that there are budget constraints such that people with behavioral disorders may not receive treatment that is initiated by the administration. For this reason, the only approach that would be confirmed is warehousing the inmates as this will keep them away from the innocent society (Turvey & Crowder, 2014). On the other hand, the justice system has set standards on the punishment that should be accorded to an individual that has been involved in criminal activity. It is stated that he should receive the punishment that other people with the same wrongdoing have done. In particular, he should spend between 5 and 7 years in correctional institution. During this time, it is not guaranteed that the suspect will be given the treatment that he needs to control the disorder that he has. Therefore, the ethical dilemma is according the plausible treatment to Wilson even though a number of constraints can clearly be seen.
Motivation of the actor and the potential consequences
In this case, Jeffery is the actor. He has to make a decision that will affirm the ethical and moral stands of the society. Ideally, the community and the victim’s neighbors are stakeholders that will be affected by the decision. If they feel that justice has not been delivered, they are likely to cause jitters, and this could be of significant negative impact to law enforcement. Through this process, the society will not have trust and condfidence in the justice system, and this could likely cause an increase in criminal activities since imprisonment, which acts as deterrence is not confirmed. In worst cases, people may intentionally attack others and get involved in armed robbery with the pretense that they have mental and behavioral disorders. Similarly, it is apparent that Jeffery has to withhold the law in affair and just manner (Braswell, Pollock & Braswell, 2012). It will be inconsequential for him to imprison an individual that clearly has a behavioral disorder that has not been treated. When this is done, Wilson’s health may deteriorate further due to the absence of treatment that is initiated by the state. It is almost obvious that when an individual is incarcerated, they can hardly get self-sponsored or private medical attention. In such a case, unintentional act by an individual may have led them to jail, and this cannot be justified especially when looking at the facts of the case.
Decision the Actor Should Make
In the case, it is apparent that Wilson has been involved in a criminal act unintentionally. Thus, there is the option of confining him to a medical care center so that he can receive medication for his disorder. Accordingly, the judge has received information that a certain county jail has the option of giving the services to such inmates. Although it is not confirmed, this is the appropriate decision that the actor should take. The initial stage is contacting the county jail so that they can furnish him with the possible information that will help the case. At this point, the institution should be in a position to offer Wilson with the help that he needs. However, there are chances that the county jail may not have the services, and this will reintroduce the ethical dilemma. At this point, it will be prudent for the judge to liaise with other law enforcement officers, the administration and government officials so that they can reflect on the issue at hand (Dempsey & Forst, 2013). It is possible that they can identify the gap in the law such that they can act on it. For example, the law makers can enact a regulation that prioritizes the plight of the people with disorders and they need treatment for their condition.
Ethical Basis for Decision
The essence of ethical decisions is to ensure that there is dispensation of justice and all people are treated fairly in accordance to their acts. In this case, it is apparent that Wilson did not intent to commit the offence since he has a disorder that makes him violent. Therefore, the judge incorporating the county jail rumored to treat such disorders will be the most satisfying approach as it focuses on the needs of other people. On the same note, it is not confirmed that Wilson is the only individual with the disorder. Other people may be affected, and this could lead to a wave of criminal activities that will affect the society (Turvey & Crowder, 2014). Thus, the approach to offer treatment using the available institution is critical. Similarly, compelling the government to offer the services will be instrumental in the avoidance of future cases that involve people with disorders.
Ethical Theory for the Decision
Deontological ethics is a theory that focuses on treating people with dignity with a review of the applicable principles that the society uses (Pollock, 2014). In addition to this, people should respect the rights of others so that there is justice and fairness. In this approach, Wilson will be treated fairly despite his situation of having behavioral disorder. In this theory, people have the obligations, and these should be their objectives when excercising their duties. For this reason, the judge should consider Wilson’s situation and this should influence the decision that is made thereafter.
Rationale for the Theory
The actor has to consider the principles that are used in the society especially in conviction of individuals that have been involved in transgressions against the society. However, this case is different in that Wilson has a problem yet he does not receive treatment for the situation. Despite the rule that he can be confined in a correctional center, it is prudent to focus on his health. Medical treatment is a necessity for human existence, and it will influence the person’s way of life in the future (Pollock, 2014). Therefore, the introduction of treatment by compelling the county jail or introduction of laws that prioritize behavioral treatment will affirm that the judge acted in a deontological manner that has respect for human beings and it avers human dignity.
The District Attorney
The Ethical and/or Moral Question
Jessica is concerned with the restoration of sanity and justice by ensuring that all the people that are guilty of offenses receive sentences accordingly. However, this has created the emergence of a number of issues that could affect the entire situation. On one hand, a number of police officers have been convicted for the perpetration of criminal activities including larceny and using violence in the arrest of a suspect. Due to the consequences that the police officers are facing, they do not appreciate the new regulation (Braswell, Pollock & Braswell, 2012). In particular, a number of officers have not been performing their duties, and this affects the law enforcement in the area. Continuity of such activities could lead to deterioration of the morality in the area. At the same time, Jessica has been made aware that her actions of prosecuting police officers have led to an unexpected turn in the justice system. Some assistants have stated that continuity of the campaign has led to them losing numerous cases in court since some police officers do not appear in court when they should present evidence. In addition to this, some of the police officers indicate that they may have disremembered the supporting material in the case (Dempsey & Forst, 2013). For this reason, some of the innocent victims cannot receive the justice that they need. The chief of police has also stated the discontentment with the approach that the district attorney is using. For this reason, Jessica is in a dilemma if she should continue with the prosecution of police officers or stop since it could have a significant impact to criminal justice.
The Motivation of the Actor and the Potential Consequences
Jessica believes that the society should be protected at all means, and this includes the prosecution of police officers that are involved in wrongdoings. She suggests that they should receive the same treatment that is accorded to the members of the society as they do not have immunity when involved in criminal activities. The motivation that she displays is the need for justice to the victims that suffer from police brutality and the loss of public accounts (Dempsey & Forst, 2013). It is a belief that through this approach, the levels of morality will be significantly high since all the people will have respect for the law. In particular, police officers will be instrumental in protection of the society, and they will act in accordance to the regulations that have been provided.
The consequences of Jessica’s action include the foiled relationship with the chief of police officers. Accordingly, the chief is opposed to the prosecution of police officers and he does not offer any help when the law enforcement officers are involved. At the same time, the police officers that should help in prosecution of the fellow officers do not corporate, and this has led to the loss of many cases (Turvey & Crowder, 2014). Although a few police officers have been convicted, it is apparent that the innocent individuals that need justice are also affected in the situation.
Decision the Actor Should Make
It is apparent hat there is division in the system since the officer of the district attorney does not corporate with the office of the police chef especially when involving prosecution of the officers that are involved in wrongdoings. The critical approach that Jessica should undertake is the opening communication channels with the stakeholders that are involved. They include the community, government agencies, police officers and the office of the prosecution (Dempsey & Forst, 2013). Through this approach, they will be in a position to discuss all the concerns revolving around the issue. For instance, Jessica should be in a position to state the reasons for the introduction of this new regulation, and this includes the focus on the instilling fairness and justice in the system. She should unequivocally state that she needs to protect the society and ensure that there is universality in the dispensation of justice. The indulging meeting will focus on the needs of all the people, the right for protection, the diligence at work and commitment to the welfare of the members. After understanding this scope, al the parties will agree on the basic principles that will be instituted to ensure that all the individuals involved are treated fairly. Afterwards, there will be a high chance of corporation between the involved parties, and this will lead to restoration of just and fair ways of dealing with cases that involve criminal activities by police officers.
Ethical Basis for Decision
The communication between the stakeholders emanates from the fact that laws are used to govern people so that justice and fairness is dispensed. The meeting will focus on the core issue, which is the treatment of all the people that have been involved in crime. They should face the punishment that is accorded to the wrongdoing irrespective of their position and rank (Braswell, Pollock & Braswell, 2012). In this approach, there is universality in the use of laws such that no person receives special treatment. Although many of the police officers are against this, they have to understand that the consequences are dire including the deterioration of behavior of the forces, gross misconduct by officers and lassitude in acting on the cases.
Ethical Basis and Ethical Theories
The social contract theory dictates that individuals in a society will agree on a certain way that they will use to uphold peaceful cohesion, understanding and existence (Pollock, 2014). It will lead to an organized society where there is law and order since all people are protected by the system. All the involved parties have to be involved in the decision making process so that they have a binding contract, and they will gather their efforts to protect it. Additionally, the theory states that there is a need to regulate the relations between the members such that they have mutual approach towards the law.
Rationale
The disagreeing parties are involved in a confined society and they should be dependent on each other to satisfy the needs of the community. However, they have had disagreements over the implementation of the law since they feel that they are targeted. On this note, there is a need to incorporate them in a contract so that they can comprehend the essence of the entire process, and they should also understands that collaboration will have a positive impact on orderliness in the area. When they agree together, there are high chances that the officers will reflect on their behavior since they know the consequences of involvement in the activities. In particular, the officers are resistant to change since they fear that they could be cited numerous times for the involvement in activities that go against the regulations (Dempsey & Forst, 2013). Therefore, the communication will make them know the boundaries, rights of the suspects and the right action that they should undertake in every situation. Moreover, it will help in showing that the law is fair and just to everyone despite their occupation, power, authority and influence.
The Officer
The Ethical and/or Moral Question
Scott is a police officer that should uphold the laws of the society and ensue that the transgressors are convicted in accordance to the constitution (Dempsey & Forst, 2013). However, he has been involved in a situation that has warranted probation. Accordingly, he can be dismissed from duty if he is involved in any illegal activity. At this point, he has been staying out of trouble, but an encounter with a person having illegal possessions may have warranted his action, which could be construed as illegal. In the same case, Scott has found out that an individual has made a traffic offense and they are still having illegal substances. After searching the vehicle, he knows that he has made an illegality and he could be dismissed from employment due to his involvement. Therefore, the moral question is whether he should report the issue to his leaders or if he should avoid reporting the case so that he saves his job.
The Motivation of the Actor and the Potential Consequences
Scot is a dedicated police officer that should protect the society against individuals that could cause harm. With this in mind, it is apparent that he was compelled to stop a driver that was involved in a traffic offense as the reckless driving could harm other people. On the same note, police officers have a duty to protect the society against illegal substances as they may have physical, mental and emotional implications (Dempsey & Forst, 2013). Notwithstanding, Scott is concerned with his job in that he could lose his only source of income. For this reason, the decision that he undertakes may have lifelong effects. One of the consequences includes dismissal from the job due to the illegal search of a suspect’s vehicle. Although he had sufficient cause of action, he was not on duty as he was on probation, and this disallows him to do such. To avoid the discharge from duty, he may opt to leave the driver go after warning him, but this has numerous implication. For example, innocent pedestrians and other road users could be injured if the driver continues to drive his car carelessly (Braswell, Pollock & Braswell, 2012). It could result to accidents, destruction of property and even deaths if the situation is dire. Moreover, there is the consequence of more people getting addicted to drugs since the suspect has a consignment in his car.
Decision the Actor Should Make
Scot has been involved in an illegal action that could cost him his job, but the right action to take is reporting the case to the leaders in higher ranks so that they can deal with the situation. It is apparent that scot acted due to the tendency to protect the society from individuals that could risk lives and property (Turvey & Crowder, 2014). As a police officer, this is the right approach to take in upholding orderliness. However, the police officers at the higher ranks will have the discussion of making a choice whether to dismiss him from the job.
Ethical Basis for Decision
The core task of police officers is to maintain orderliness in the society and protect the innocent people from imminent harm (Braswell, Miller, & Pollock, 2011). On this note, there are numerous positions that could be hazardous to the members of society. First, the reckless driving could injure people. Secondly, the illegal substances could be a risk to many members of the society especially when they become addicted. For this reason, reporting the case to the seniors will be critical as it will result in apprehension of he suspect, confiscation of the illegal substances and conviction for the possession.
Ethical Theories
Utilitarianism indicates that an individual should make a decision when it favors the majority of the stakeholders involved (Pollock, 2014). In some instances, self is a priority especially when the consequences could hurt many people. Therefore, the ethical approach that scot should use is the balancer between the benefits and consequences while focusing on how many people are likely to e affected. When the beneficiaries outnumber the victims, the decision will be a priority in this case.
The Rationale
Reporting the case will lead to arrest and possible incarceration of the suspect, and this will protect the people that could be affected by the illegal substances. Additionally, the apprehension of the suspect means that all the pedestrians using the roads are safe, and this will be beneficial to them (Turvey & Crowder, 2014). In contrast, scot is the only individual that could have negative consequences, which is dismissal from duty.
References
Braswell, M., Miller, L., & Pollock, J. M. (2011). Case studies in criminal justice ethics. Long Grove, Ill: Waveland Press.
Braswell, M., Pollock, J. M., & Braswell, S. (2012). Morality stories: Dilemmas in ethics, crime & justice. Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press.
Dempsey, J. S., & Forst, L. S. (2013). An introduction to policing. Albany, N.Y: Delmar.
Pollock, J. M. (2014). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Turvey, B. E., & Crowder, S. (2014). Ethical Justice: Applied Issues for Criminal Justice Students and Professionals. Saint Louis: Elsevier Science.
