A crucial component of the law and justice systems is ethics. The ethical ramifications of a particular deed are considered when making decisions within the institution. The foundation of legal fraternity activities is ethics. Nevertheless, there are several moral conundrums that emerge in the course of enforcing the law. A police officer with a past of corruption, for example, might not be permitted to testify in a case. Due to a lack of witnesses, the move might result in the dismissal of a criminal case. Therefore, it is the responsibility of law enforcement organizations to uphold officers to the highest ethical standards in order to prevent the justice system from being derailed. The case study, Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liar's Squad Coming to Your Town examines the implications of an officer's ethical history in the application of justice.
The Case Study
The case involves the police code of conduct. Essentially, one of the police officers has been found to have breached the established police guidelines. Being the Chief of Police of the Municipal, I will be compelled to engage several measures to address the issue. Since the officer has been an exemplary figure in the 15 years that he has worked in the organization, I will have to engage an intervention that sets precedent for future cases and also remedies the prevailing situation.
How Would You Handle the Situation?
The only option that would be available to me as the Chief of Police entails the application of a legally-sanctioned caveat that discourages similar behavior in the future. Subsequently, I will impose significant disciplinary action as opposed to termination. Termination is an extreme intervention given that the perpetrator set a good precedent in the 15 years that he operated as a police officer. My decision will be predicated on consideration of future cases involving the police officer and the reliability of his testimony in a court of law. I would not terminate his contract given that the officer's slight did not impede the delivery of justice.
Reasons Justifying Remedy
Watching porn in an institutional setting is an administrative rather than criminal breach. Given the absence of proof that a criminal act was successful as a result of officer's neglect, a stern punishment suffices the slight. Had the officer's actions resulted in an infringement of justice, then termination of his contract would have been imminent. Such an argument is a reflection of the consequentialist ethical principle (Wolterstorff, 2010, pp. 16-27). The consequentialist principle suggests that the outcome of a given action provides the most appropriate metric in defining morality. Thus, since the police officer's actions had not resulted in any operational stagnation, then the decision to punish him provided the most appropriate measure.
Using the computer to search pornographic sites is a breach of the police code of conduct. The punishment extended will be a legally-sanctioned response to the occurrence of administrative failures. The action cannot be ignored given that it impeded the ethical guidelines within the institution (Lerman & Schrag, 2016, pp. 53-58). The punishment will also be intended to discourage administrative lying in future cases. Since the police officer acted as both a witness and victim in his case, his lying action should not be used as a future reference in court of law. The investigation had been conducted internally and had not been sanctioned by a court of law. It would be unjust and illegal to claim that the individual attempted to subvert justice against an individual who was charged.
Precedent
The decision to punish the officer will act as a precedent for similar cases in the future. Officers should not be criminally charged for administrative errors. In the case, punishment was warranted. It was necessary to discourage other police officers from involving themselves in similar behavior. As a precedent, the punishment will communicate the police administrative body's discontent with the action and provide a framework through which similar tendencies can be addressed.
Termination does not set a precedent. It is a harsh response to a non-criminal offense. Since the affected officer had not been charged formally in a court of law, termination would have been a breach of his contract. According to the law, the weight of the legal sanction ought to reflect the immensity of the crime committed (Souryal, 2014, pp. 34-36). In the officer's case, the crime committed did not warrant the weight imposed by the termination of contract initiative. The precedent system is a branch of the common law. It aims to discourage unwanted behavior and actions by determining the weight of the punishment that will be instituted against an individual for breach of duty (Howard & Peter, 2015, pp. 102-105). Since the officer had not been caught on a similar charge previously, the punishment would be a culmination of the desire to prevent similar behavior in the future.
History of the Defendant
The case study suggests that the police officer's history was devoid of similar misdemeanor. He had not been subject to warning regarding the issue of pornography. In the case of United States vs. Argus, the District Court refused to engage evidence of criminal record as the parameter by which the police officer would be charged. Subsequently, evidence of deceitfulness in the officer's case cannot be used in a court of law. Termination based on fear for future validity of the officer's testimony is thus rendered inadmissible. The officer will be able to testify in future cases without having to justify the validity of their assertions given their irrefutable history.
The officer's untainted history serves to justify the course of action that was taken to remedy the situation. The relatively docile punishment intervention vis-à-vis termination reflects the significance with which the police institution regarding its members. The impeccable history reflected by the police officer warrants the determination of a punitive measure that does not subject the perpetrator to disrespect. Imposing a significant disciplinary action communicates the idea that administrative errors will not be tolerated (Wolterstorff, 2010, pp. 41-47). On the other hand, wholesome termination reflects the organization's lukewarm attachment to its employees. The staff need to feel that they are an integral part of the system. A contrary intervention would inspire job insecurity and ultimately lukewarm performance from the police officers.
Alternatively, in the event of a termination, the respondent may decide to sue the police department for gross misconduct. Since the court determines that it is the duty of the prosecutor to disclose information that favors the interests of the defendant in a court of law. Subsequently, the officer will use his history to refute the claims of negligence on his part. Given that he had been arrested on a charge that is not related to his duty as a police officer, the charge would not be used as a metric to infer the officer's continued inconstancy. In the Kyles V. Whitley case, the Unites States Supreme Court determined that it was the duty of the prosecutor to table evidence that would support the defendant's plea. The evidence could be in form of the respondent's history. The decree allows the police officer to negate the police department's order of termination. Subsequently, the termination option provides an inefficient intervention. It is subject to opposition in a court of law and provides a temporary measure to the manifested problem.
Ethical Concern
Ethically, the imposition of significant disciplinary action provides the best alternative. The charged police officer had exhibited commitment to his work. The proof of his effort is reflected by the absence of discrepancies in the execution of his duties. The use of office resources to access porn sites is a personal infringement rather than an organizational infringement. His actions cannot be proven to have hindered the effectiveness of other employees or officers who were present during the crime. The utilitarian principle of ethics demands that the morality of an action be weighed on the precincts of weight of implication on the majority (Weinstein, 2011, pp. 82-99). Hence, since the act by the police officer had solely affected him, it should not be used as justification for termination.
As the Chief of the Police, I would use punishment as a negative reinforcement. Mainly, it would serve the purpose of discouraging tendencies among other police officers. The initiative would communicate the police department's discontent with such behavior. However, the intervention ought to reflect the significance of each personnel in the police force. The ethics of doing good, under the deontological imperative, contends that one needs to engage an action that does not threaten the life of the next individual (Raz, 1994, pp. 16-28). Terminating the officer's contract would prevent them from accessing benefits that may have accrued to them within the 15 years of duty. I would convene a meeting with the department heads, institute a collective measure that does not jeopardize the position of the officer and apply a punitive measure that is temporary rather than permanent.
Conclusion
The case study Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liar's Squad Coming to Your Town? Provides an example of an ethical dilemma in the legal justice system. Since the police officer had admitted his guilt and determined never to repeat the same, the best intervention to apply would be to impose significant disciplinary action as opposed to termination. The punitive decision would be predicated on the knowledge that the officer's actions did not impede the application of justice. Similarly, ethical principles demand the consideration of the police officer's history in the application of a remedy. Since the officer projects an impeccable history with the police force, it would be unethical to force such an individual out of the police force. The utilitarian principle suggests that an action ought to be weighed on the premises of its weight to the masses. If the implications of one's actions affects majority people negatively, then such an action is deemed to be immoral. However, in the case off the officer, the action did not jeopardize operations within and outside of the department premises. Termination is also subject to legal procedure and the officer could use his impeccable history to claim injustice and hence hindering the application of justice.
References
Albanese, J. S. (2015). Professional Ethics in Criminal Justice: Being Ethical When No One is Looking. London: Pearson.
Howard, B. S., & Peter, J. (2015). Ethics in the Criminal Justice System. Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
Lerman, L. G., & Schrag, P. G. (2016). Ethical Problems in the Practice of Law. GA: Wolters Kluwer.
Raz, J. (1994). Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Souryal, S. S. (2014). Ethics in Criminal Justice: In Search of the Truth. London: Routledge.
Weinstein, B. (2011). Ethical Intelligence: Five Principles for Untangling Your Toughest Problems at Work and Beyond. Novato, California: New World Library.
Wolterstorff, N. (2010). Justice: Rights and Wrongs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
