Police integrity Research Essay

Police ethics and honesty are crucial components of a law enforcement system that supports effective crime management techniques. Law enforcement officials can benefit from a variety of standards, trainings, and laws that can help them uphold moral conduct while performing their responsibilities. (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Police officers must uphold the strictest morals because they hold a place of authority and have the legal authority to use force. Additionally, policing society takes into account factors like citizen complaints, internal affairs, ethnic profiling, procedural justice, and criminal inquiries that may result in the use of excessive force. Due to this, law enforcement personnel are expected to follow the current code of ethics, which outlines general principles. For this reason, the law enforcement officers are required to adhere to the existing code of ethics highlighting broad guidelines to principled character of police professionals (Raines, 2011). In order to promote effective law enforcement, the code of ethics must be engrained in the law enforcer’s conducts hence must act or live ethically aiming to evade contradictory behaviours (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014). Similarly, their moral values should guide their behaviours in their actions depending on what the society appreciates as wrong and right.

Ethics in criminal justice management

It is imperative to maintain high levels of ethical behaviours in criminal justice management. The absence of ethical behaviour weakens the determination of the criminal justice system (Souryal, 2010). Additionally, lack of ethical conduct contributes to the collapse of the criminal justice system. Therefore, only acquiring a real awareness on what constitute an ethical behaviour and strategies to safeguard it will sustain the criminal justice system (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). There is an assumption that proper ethical deeds are part of the people’s makeup, but in actual sense, ethical trait is learned hence it differs from one person to the next. Moral and ethical behaviours start evolving from childhood and continue to grow and change until adulthood (Baker, 2011).

It is essential to appreciate that the original moral values an individual acquires are normally obtained from the home environment and are significantly altered by the behaviours of family members and parents (Fitch, (Ed.). 2013). Therefore, if a child is affected by violence and crime then the conduct could turn out to be the norm and this person’s ethical standards and values would be contrary to the societal norm (Raines, 2011).

In the management of criminal justice, morals principles should be a long-term share of policy making and management associated to punishment (Baker, 2011). Moreover, ethics play a critical part in the process of decision making concerning sentencing, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Persons serving in the department of criminal justice uphold authority over persons’ lives (MacVean & Neyroud, 2012). The persons should be aware of the influence of the office and the moral standards needed when conducting out those functions. Various scholars argue that training is an important factor, which can guarantee ethical standards (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014). More persons are interested to training and appreciate the essence of preserving ethical standards.

The charges of damages, litigation, and legal fees from claims of unethical actions cost huge sums of money. Therefore, it is easier to sustain training for employees rather than spending millions in settling existing claims (Souryal, 2010). More recently, reports indicated that claims against criminal justice officials have increased due to unethical traits (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary for experts in the criminal justice system to be conversant with ethical framework where persons acquire their strategies for decision-making.

The key idea is idealism where it is assumed that the desired results may be acquired by utilization of the suitable action. The problem for these persons is selecting the correction action in a particular condition (Raines, 2011). Furthermore, the second idea is relativism, which is derived from the epitome that while the preferred outcome is desired, all matters are subject to circumstance. For this reason, undesired results occur regardless of the decision taken (Baker, 2011).

Various pieces of literature have identified four approaches to ethical management in criminal justice and assist in identifying the alignments. They include situationists, subjectivist, absolutists, and exceptionists (Albanese, 2015). Precisely, situationists consider that all matters relative hence they make their decisions on the assessment of existing situation. Such persons decides not to accept the universal ethical code or guidelines adhered by society. On the other hand, subjectivist managers also think that all issues are relative and discard the societal codes (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Nonetheless, such managers of the criminal justice system safeguard ethical principles utilized when evaluating situations. Moreover, absolutist managers adhere to idealism trusting that the greatest result is acquired by observing the universal ethical principles. Finally, the exceptionist managers use the same concept s absolutists with a minor difference (Souryal, 2010). In this regard, they think that some situations in the criminal justice management permit deviation from the universal ethical guidelines.

Critical thinking assists the people to reason out in the right manner to guarantee appropriate making of decisions. In the management of criminal justice, critical thinking helps the manager reach ethical decisions when evaluating information. At the centre of critical thinking are the affective and cognitive skills (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014). Affective dispositions are needed by the manager of criminal justice system in order to sustain a apprehension for being knowledgeable, inquisitive, understanding when to use critical thinking, and readiness to revise or reconsider previous actions when required. On the other hand, cognitive skills are useful during self-regulation, explanation, inference, evaluation, analysis, and interpretation. The process of decision-making does not take place instantly (Raines, 2011). The management of criminal justice normally take adequate time to take actions and any options. In this regard, critical thinking is vital for managers because it permit a manager to assess on the kind of actions to take (Albanese, 2015).

Persons serving in the criminal justice system are evaluated and judged based on their decisions in terms of whether they are unethical or ethical. Discretion is needed of all persons operating within the system. Appreciating the discretionary responsibility of every individual is important to recognizing how unethical concerns takes place (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Legislators have the authority to outline what is regarded as punishable and illegal pursuant to the law. Law enforcement officers (police) have a high level of discretion when making crucial decisions such as investigations, citations, and arrests. In most cases, prosecutors experience the lowest level of scrutiny because of the confidence placed at them to defend the law (Albanese, 2015). They retain discretion when downgrading charges, filing charges, and influencing other persons.

Furthermore, judges have discretion over regulation of evidence, the law review, sentencing, and plea-bargains (Fitch, (Ed.). 2013). Persons providing services in correction centres have power to make decision over parole, inmates’ supervision, assessment of appropriate conduct, and probation. Every person is responsible for implementing the law and safeguarding the constitutional right (Souryal, 2010). Therefore, in order to facilitate appropriate process of decision making in the management of the criminal justice system, all stakeholders must be trained on reasoning, analytical skills and the capacity to identify the outcomes of their actions (Raines, 2011). Ethical training is also important to create awareness on ethical issues, explore personal feelings, know how the system normally emboldens coercion and cultivate critical thinking skills (Caldero & Crank, 2010).

Applied ethical theories in a criminal justice organization

Three ethical theories that related to criminal justice include libertarianism, justice as fairness, and utilitarianism. The three theories of justice suggest that justice can refer to any accessibility of equality, fairness, and rights. The theories of justice are not inevitably ethical theories since justice is quite specific although they could not be alienated from ethics completely (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014).

The utilitarian theory of justice by Mills implies that there is no major difference between morality and justice. In this respect, they consider morality as part of justice and vice versa. In addition, they believe that justice does not have a higher priority as compared to any other ethical issue (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Meanwhile, utilitarian theory indicates that individuals must facilitate value or goodness. In fact, utilitarian concept of justice interlinks ethics to the politics, economic distribution, and law. More importantly, utilitarian theory normally promotes social welfare since all persons’ well-being is of ethical interest. On the contrary, limiting the people’s freedom because a wide range of suffering which deny them justice (Baker, 2011). According to John Stuart Mill, justice is a subsection of ethics or morality. The law enforcement officers have a utilitarian explanation of utilizing coercive and deceptive means to accomplish the ethical good of safeguarding the community from social ills. Utilitarian emphasizing of police activities fail to concentrate on the significance of the character of a person utilizing such means (Raines, 2011). Even in cases where the code of ethics is detailed, police officers make decisions based on their mental culture and character, which are informed by their discretion. For this reason, it is important to build ethical culture and character in the police force to provide the highest level of moral good to the public within the scope of professionalism and law (Albanese, 2015).

Libertarian theory of justice by Robert Nozick suggests that government intervention and control must be minimized and the main purpose of law must be implemented as a social order or contract. Libertarians tend to prefer the negative rights, free market, and a small government (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014). They advocate for a minimal police force to offer physical enforcement and protection of contracts. The theory also supports the idea that individuals have property freedoms and rights to preserve their belongings provided they were acquired fairly without fraud, harm and human right violation (Souryal, 2010). Furthermore, the human beings should be given the power to possess property and other natural resources based on the justice principle. In addition, libertarian theory is against some of the activities such as taxation as they are viewed as a type of theft as it disrupts its property rights (Fitch, (Ed.). 2013).

More importantly, libertarian theory of justice insists that the law enforcement officers should not deny the public their rights to be alone. It also notes that people have no moral obligation to assist others (Caldero & Crank, 2010). Additionally, it is against social welfare and other positive rights in the society, which are founded on the redistribution of resources. Significantly, this theory of justice insinuates that it would not be right to have law enforcement department and other policing organs because it is one of the unfair abuses of the people’s property rights (Raines, 2011). The criminal justice systems including the prisons, and police departments should be sustained via donations and must be operated from volunteers.

However, many philosophers’ rejects this theory because all humankind has a duty and right to each other hence this moral fact should not be ignored (MacVean & Neyroud, 2012). For instance, the public cannot allow the disadvantaged groups such as the elderly, the infants, and the uninsured to die since they have no ethical obligations to anyone (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Furthermore, the absence of police and other law enforcement officers would lead to serious consequences in the society such as rising levels of crime and anarchy.

The theory of justice as fairness by Rawls implies that justice is a bit distinct from morality. The theory opposes the utilitarian system of justice. The theory proposes the idea of original position, which explains that a group of persons will determine the justice principle (Baker, 2011). Therefore, Rawls’s reasoning is based on the fact that fair distribution of resources, which are referred to as key social goods. The theory justice as fairness proposes that criminal justice and law enforcement department must endeavour for in a liberal and pluralistic society. It borrows heavily from the concept of social contract (Souryal, 2010). Nonetheless, the theory identifies issues with the social contract, which does not permit equality and fairness to occur among members of the public. In this regard, it recommends a social contract, which is initiated under a “veil of ignorance.” At this point, the discussing persons are not selected on their sexual orientation, health, education, gender, race, and other features in order to guarantee fairness in their social contract (Raines, 2011).

Based on the ideas of this theory of justice, every individual has equal right to the most widespread fundamental liberty harmonious a similar right for others. The society should be permitted to participate in any activities but they should not overstep the others’ right (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014). Secondly, the economic and social inequalities are to be set in a way that they both can serve all persons equally and offices or positions are accessible to anyone. Similarly, there should be equitable distribution of resources and wealth in the society in order to benefit all members. However, the theory does not advocate that all persons must receive equal payments but all persons must benefit from a reasonable salary or income (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Likewise, they should be accessible to job opportunities that provide higher salary. It ensures that the disadvantages are reduced and all person occur equal chance of justice.

Rawls’ theory concurs with Nozick arguments that individuals in the society have no positive rights but rather have negative rights. However, he proposes that the law enforcement department should ensure that there is fairness by providing equal opportunities to all (Fitch, (Ed.). 2013). As opposed to libertarian theory, because it encourages use of police departments and prisons to ensure fail administration of justice in the society.

Concept of the noble-cause corruption and how it affects ethical decision-making

Noble cause corruption refers to dishonesty emanating from the use of teleological ethical process. Precisely, teleological ethical process pays closer focus on the effects of a person’s behaviour although it ignore whether the actions were inherently negative or positive (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014). For instance, if the deeds were positives but generated negative effects, the teleological process defines such actions to be unethical. However, ethical results are achieved where the impacts are positive although the actions may be negative. In this regard, it put a lot of emphasis on actions as long as they generate proper outcomes (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Therefore, it suggests that individuals will utilize illegal or unethical process to acquire preferable goals an outcome, which tends to contribute to the greater good. Where conventional corruption is characterized by individual achievement, noble cause corruptions generates when an individual is assured of his/her righteousness (Ruggles, 2014). Consequently, they will engage in all activities within their capacity to accomplish the required outcome. For instance, police misconduct is a form of noble cause corruption done in the guise of good ends or disregards the due process via an ethical commitment to ensure that the world is a safer area to exist (Raines, 2011).

Ethical leadership methodology

Ethical leadership is a kind of headship that is guided by respect for moral values and beliefs as well as rights and dignity of others (Ruggles, 2014). Therefore, ethical leadership is concerned with the issues of fairness, charisma, consideration, honesty, and trust. Ethics deals with the types of morals and values a society or a person finds appropriate or desirable. Moreover, ethics deal with the decency of persons and their intentions (Baker, 2011). Research indicates that the choices of a leader are affected by their ethical development.

Robust ethical leadership is the feature, which initiates, sustains and safeguards the procedure of ethical transformation in a firm. Such leaders also adhere to the robust ethical leadership, ethics training, and code of ethics will be affected as long-lasting behaviour within the firm is changed. Value-based leadership is a more systematic process of articulating ideas (Perez & Barkhurst, 2012). Nonetheless, leaders who are dedicated to ethical principles in an organization are likely to experience myriad of challenges. For instance, a stressful workplace may affect leaders’ performance and judgement hence leading to unethical behaviours. In addition, competition between companies is also another issue that can negatively influence the behaviours of leaders in crucial conditions (Souryal, 2010). Stiff resource’s competition and low proceeds margins forces leaders to engage in unethical actions.

Conclusion

Ethical management especially in law enforcement is crucial factor, which determine the success or failure of the firm or criminal justice system. It is important to sustain high levels of ethical behaviours in criminal justice management (Ruggles, 2014). Morals principles should be a long-term share of policy making and management associated to punishment. Theories on criminal justice include libertarianism, justice as fairness, and utilitarianism (Raines, 2011). The utilitarian theory of justice implies that there is no major difference between morality and justice. In this respect, they consider morality as part of justice and vice versa. Libertarian theory of justice suggests that government intervention and control must be minimized at all levels of management (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2014). Rawls’s theory proposes that there must be fair distribution of resources, which are referred to as key social goods.

References

Albanese, J. S. (2015). Professional ethics in criminal justice: Being ethical when no one is looking. Pearson.

Baker, T. E. (2011). Effective police leadership: Moving beyond management. Looseleaf Law Publications.

Caldero, M. A., & Crank, J. P. (2010). Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause. Routledge.

Fitch, B. D. (Ed.). (2013). Law Enforcement Ethics. Sage.

Hess, K., Orthmann, C. H., & Cho, H. (2014). Introduction to law enforcement and criminal justice. Nelson Education.

MacVean, A., & Neyroud, P. (2012). Police ethics and values. Learning Matters.

Perez, D., & Barkhurst, M. (2012). Paradoxes of leadership in police management. Cengage Learning.

Raines, J. (2011). Ethics in policing: Misconduct and integrity. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Ruggles, C. (2014). Principles of Leadership and Management in Law Enforcement. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management.

Souryal, S. S. (2010). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth. Routledge.