Can There Be Ethical Consistency Amongst Criminal Justice Employees
Before delving into the debate as to whether a consistent set of ethical rules can be applied to the actions and conduct of criminal justice employees, the differences between absolute ethics and relative ethics needs to be explored. Absolute ethics is the belief that only one eternally true and valid moral code applies (Stace, Ethics Arent Relative). This universal moral code applies to anyone, anywhere at anytime. This code even applies whether a person is aware of it or not (Stace, Ethics Arent Relative). The basis for absolute ethics often rests in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Morality and ethics is derived from Gods commands so it does not matter the time or circumstance. The Greek philosopher Socrates raised the question, Is conduct right because the gods command it or do the gods command it because it is right (The Importance of Ethics in Criminal Justice). The issue with this issue arises when you have two people of different religious faiths. Who is right
On the flip side, relative ethics denies there is one universal code that applies to everything, everywhere all the time (Solon, Relative Ethics). A believer of relative ethics supports the idea that ethics and moral change depending upon the individual conviction, the cultural context or the historical context (Solon, Relative Ethics). This theory is very easy to understand and follow. It allows for adaptation and change. Ethics change depending on the situation, the culture and place. However, it fails to provide adequate guidance as to who is correct when religions or cultures overlap.
For example, it is common for to compare two civilizations against one another. In order to determine which civilizations is better, an external moral standard needs to be applied (Stace, Is Ethics Relative). In addition, if relative ethics is actually true, there can be no progression from one age of society to the next. A common moral standard would have to exist to measure the progression (Stace, Is Ethics Relative). The idea of a common moral standard conflicts with the very foundation of relative ethics.
With both absolute ethics and relative ethics failing to solve the debate on ethics, maybe Walter Terence Stace was on the right track when he wrote, I shall reject ethical absolutism. But I shall also reject ethical relativity. Morality, I shall try to show is relative in the sense that it is relative to the universal needs of human nature (Stace, The Concept of Morals). Stace ended up concluding that morality was universal, just not absolute (Stace, The Concept of Morals).
The American Buddhist monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi, explained in A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemnas of Human Existence that morality shall serve as a guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. R.M. Hare points out , however, that ethical terms do not affirm or deny that moral facts exists, only that human logic applies to our moral assertions consequently, they postulate an objective and preferred standard of moral justification (Hare, Sorting Out Ethics). These competing concepts may explain the difficulty in finding consistent ethical rules to be applied to the actions and conduct of employees in the criminal justice system.
For the most part, we use ethics to provide a blueprint to moral choices when uncertainty as to what to do in a situation concerning morality. In everyday life, moral rules are desirable, not just because they express absolute truth, but because they are generally reliable guides for normal circumstances (Singer 1995, p. 175). Problems arise when criminal justice employees steer away from this normal application of moral rules and deliberately act unethically in carrying out their functions or fail to make the ethically right decision (The Importance of Ethics). A prime example is the abuse of police authority.
Adolph Archie, an African-American male, life ended at the hands of the New Orleans police in March 1990 (Human Rights Watch, www.hrw.orgreports98policeuspo93.htm). Police accused Archie of fatally shooting a white police officer. When Archie became injured in an accident associated with the shooting, the police did not take him to a hospital that was 7 blocks from the incident, but took him to the police station where the deceased officer was employed. At the police station, a fight broke out between Archie and police officers and as a result, Archie fell, which caused blood to stain the floor. The sergeant on duty at the police station claimed he never saw Archie or saw fight. He did order the blood stains to be cleaned up.
When Archie finally made it to the hospital, it was evident that he had severely been beaten. Many concluded that his injuries were the cause of his death. Eventually, his death was ruled as a homicide by police intervention by the city coroner. Later it was reported that the New Orleans police has brutalized Archie, however, no police officer was ever held accountable (Human Rights Watch). The city did compensate Archies family for his death in an out-of court settlement, which ethical questions about the police use of force against Archie and the possible cover-up of illegal conduct.
The issue of employee ethics can also be detected in the court system. Defense attorneys often complain about prosecutorial misconduct as the cause for wrongful imprisonment. One example, concerns Michael Ray Graham, Jr. (Truth in Justice, HYPERLINK httpwww.truthinjustice.orgno92.htm www.truthinjustice.orgno92.htm). At 37, Graham was freed from death row after 14 years in prison. Charges against Graham were dismissed because the state determined that it had no credible evidence linking him to the crime. His conviction rested purely on a jailhouse snitch that was known to be a habitual liar and had struck a deal with prosecution. The plea bargain with prosecution was never revealed during his trial. Sadly, even the prosecutor admitted to having a weak case and it should have never gone to a grand jury.
Attorneys admit that this type of prosecutorial misconduct is not uncommon, but woven into the very fabric of the criminal justice system (The Importance of Ethics in Criminal Justice). Anyone who reads the newspaper or watches the evening news can attest that the misconduct of police officers as in Adolph Archies case is common as well. Many would even go as far to say that police brutality is woven into the fabric of the United States criminal justice system as well. Both Archie and Graham illustrate the need for the adherence of ethics in the criminal justice system.
Everyone faces ethical dilemmas, not just employees in the criminal justice system. Everyday we make decisions involving ethical issues in our personal and professional lives. These issues concern questions of right or wrong and what is proper conduct. We must make decisions as to whether to lie in order to get a promotion or do we use behavior considered wrong by society in order to right a wrong. Ethical dilemmas are so important in the criminal justice system because criminal justice professionals are often faced with having to make decisions that involve ethical issues (The Importance of Ethics in Criminal Justice). Maybe police officer and the prosecutors in the above example determined their behavior was justified in order to right a wrong that they perceived. This behavior is generally frowned upon by the greater society because criminal justice employees are expected to be able to say if I judge it wrong for you, I must be prepared to say that it is wrong for me as well (Holmes, 1998, p.151). For the most part, when criminal justice employees step outside these moral norms to satisfy a personal need, there is an expectation they will be reprimanded.
When criminal justice employees violate the law, they are expected to be held accountable for their actions as would any other citizen. There are also specific regulations that govern such employees behaviors as well. For example, New Mexico has personnel rules that govern judicial branch personnel. The New Mexico Judicial Branch Personnel Rules provide ethical guidance to court employees (Judicial Education Center, HYPERLINK httpjecclassroom.unm.educlerkethics httpjecclassroom.unm.educlerkethics). For example, Rule 9.05C(3)b authorizes discipline of employees for just cause. Just cause is defined as 1) attempting to use influence to affect an outcome in a court action or 2) acting in a manner that reflects poorly on the integrity of the judicial branch (Judicial Education Center). However, the difference of criminal justice employees and the average citizen is the rights that are afforded such employees.
Todays criminal justice employees are far more sophisticated about employee rights than they were just twenty years ago (Chaires and Lentz, Criminal Justice Employee Rights An Overview). In addition, criminal justice employees are generally protected by employee organizations that are there to make sure the employee is treated fairly. These employee organizations often wield political, economical and clout (Chaires and Lentz, Criminal Justice Employee Rights). This protection is not something that the average citizen has.
This often difference if often seen the area of sexual harassment. No matter whether you work in the criminal justice system or for a private employer, it is generally expected that employees will refrain from making sexual advances andor comments that are deemed inappropriate or offensive. This includes insinuations or behavior that came than be perceived as such (Judicial Education Center). Sexual harassment cases are always considered difficult cases no matter what arena you are in because they are rarely clear cut cases. Supervisors are expected to do a thorough investigation when a claim of sexual harassment is made and keep as much of the surrounding circumstances confidential. In addition, supervisors are to make sure that neither party is retaliated against. This can be difficult to accomplish under any circumstances. However, when dealing with criminal justice employees other factors complicate the matter.
Often criminal justice employees have a unique bond and relationship. There is generally a code of ethics amongst the employees that you do not air the groups dirty laundry. One example is Adolph Archies case. One of the issues that investigators ran up against was the silence amongst the police officers. Often known as a group that does not snitch on their own, police often remain silent when one of violates the rules. Traders can often be punished within the group. For example, the police officer that took Archie to the police station was supposedly vilified for not killing Archie himself (Human Rights Watch). Police officers may be an extreme example, but these unspoken codes of silence exist in many organization.
Another issue concerns an issue already raised. Many criminal justice employees have protective measures in place that make it difficult to even remove the wrongdoer. The employee organization can prevent the removal of an employee for months, even years. The political, economic and legal clouts can sway decisions and force the hand of decision makers. Often the average person does not have such power behind them when they are in similar predicaments.
Most of us would like to think that ethics is absolute. In theory it is. For the most part, no matter where you are in the world and the period of time you are in, it is wrong to harm, injure or kill somebody. It is wrong to take things that do not belong to you. In all societies, there is an expectation that people will not lie and they will be honest. Yet, the examples in this paper indicate that in reality ethics is relative. Ethics and morality do evolve and change. Ethics and morality is based upon religious faiths, time in history and cultural experiences and more. What was deemed acceptable treatment of women and people of color in the United States in the 1700s versus today has dramatically changed, and most would say that it changed for the better.
As this paper indicated that even during the same time period, ethics can differ between groups of people in the same country. This paper focused on the ethics of criminal justice employees and how ethical rules may apply differently to them versus the average citizen. Finding a consistent set of ethical rules to hold criminal justice employees up to may be very difficult simply because of the position they hold in society, their knowledge of the laws and the protective measures in place to protect their rights. Neither pure absolute ethics, nor relative ethics will provide the solution to finding such consistency.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment