The Ethical Dilemma of Cooper’s Model of Ethical Decision Making

Moral principles that dictate an individual’s behavior and nature are referred to as ethics. Ethics can be viewed as the basic moral instinct that is ingrained in a person in regard to the law, his/her beliefs and societal norms. Ethical consideration and practices are engraved in society with leaders being at the forefront in establishing regulations and policies that are ethical (Downe, Cowell, & Morgan, 2016). Cooper, 2012 established a model that facilitates ethical decision making. The model contains the following elements; perception/identification of the ethical problem, the definition of the ethical problem, identification of possible alternatives, identification of possible consequences, selection of an alternative, and finally resolution of the problem (Cooper, 2012).

The Corcoran State Prison case analysis highlights the basic notion of what ethics stands for and the various quagmires associated with ethical living and standards. It is a case involving two correction officers who witnessed the mistreatment and death of an inmate at the expense of fellow officers. The whole incident revolves around the Security Housing Unit (SHU) that houses inmates with disciplinary issues (Drybaugh, 2009). The correction officers orchestrated fight games among the inmates by pairing rival factions and gangs, fueling tension among the said gangs and along racial divide (Drybaugh, 2009). The officers viewed the fights as entertainment to an extent of betting and mimicking sports commentators during the fights which were dubbed ‘gladiator days’ (Drybaugh, 2009). The fights were charged with anger and discontent that it was always difficult to stop them and occasionally lethal force was used to stop the fights, leading to the death of inmates. In the case of such an incident, the officers falsified information in a bid to protect themselves from wrongdoing (Downe, Cowell, & Morgan, 2016).

                         The death of an inmate prompted officers Steve Rigg and Richard Caruso to report the incident to the FBI. They viewed the fights and this specific death as a gruesome violation of the civil rights of the inmates. The ethical issues were, betting on someone’s life, encouragement of fights by the officers, falsification of documents, killing of inmates and threatening of officers who posed a threat.  

 In a system that encourages loyalty and a lack of it leads to grave consequences, the available courses of action were limited. The first course of action would be to take on the matter and try to solve the challenges internally. Caruso and Rigg tried to solve the issue internally (Drybaugh, 2009). They identified that one of the causes of the high frequency of gun death and gun-related injuries in the prison was due to confusion an lack of clear guidelines on the shooting policy. Riggs together with a fellow inmate organized session to educate fellow officers on the appropriate use of lethal force. This move lead to Rigg’s reprimand. Being the change is another possible cause of action. Rigg and Caruso used little lethal force as possible and discouraged the fights.

Following the chain of command is another possible course of action, whereby the issue is reported to a higher authority in the same organization and a request for change and evaluation of policy is presented. Leaders have the potential to act on non-ethical issues and dilemma and influence positive change (Cooper, 2012). Rigg and Caruso noticed the trend of pairing rival inmates as disastrous and reported the issue to the supervisors.  The prison’s policy is to keep rival faction in close proximities when they are in SHU so as to encourage them to interact and learn to live with each other (Drybaugh, 2009). This policy had the potential of misuse by the guards who used it to orchestrate fight nights. The supervisors did not act accordingly and hence the remaining possible alternative was to report the issue to the authorities and leak the information to the media, in a bid to force change.

            Whistleblowing is normally the last resort when change in an organization is not enacted since it holds a huge ethical dilemma. The two officers choose to be whistleblowers due to lack of change in the prison, poor legislation on use of excessive force in inmates and the constant threats of reprimand and transfer if they continue with their quest for change.

 The actions taken had positive and negative consequences. Taking matters into your own hands shows initiative and it is the first step towards positive change, however, it has potential of generating hatred and unwanted attention. Taking the issue to a higher authority shows genuine care for the institution however it may be seen as a sign of rebellion by the leaders. Whistleblowing any tarnishes the organization’s image and lead to retrenchment however it forces change.

Whistleblowing possesses a huge ethical dilemma. On one side, an employee is meant to stay true to the organization since he/she is a member of the organization, however, on the other side, there is a moral obligation to abide by the law and expose any wrongdoing to the authorities (Malek, 2010). This is especially true for officers who have sworn to protect the constitution and rights of every individual. The officers solved the dilemma by first acknowledging that they are officers and due to this they have to be loyal to the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation mission, which highlights the department’s main values of integrity, justice, and accountability (Drybaugh, 2009). By identifying themselves with this mission, they solved the ethical dilemma and decided they have to uphold the said values. This lead to indictment of several officers who were culpable in the killing and mistreatment of inmates and a chain effect on the change of policy regarding use of lethal force began.

References

Cooper, T. L. (2012). The Responsible Administrator- An approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Downe, J., Cowell, R., & Morgan, K. (2016). What Determines Ethical Behavior in Public Organizations: Is it Rules or Leadership. Public Administration Review, 898-909.

Drybaugh, M. M. (2009). Personal and Policy implications of Whistle-Blowing- THe case of Corcoran State Prison. Public Integrity, 155-170.

Malek, J. (2010). To tell or Not to Tell? The Ethical Dilemma of the Would-Be whistleblower. Accountability in Research, 115-129.