Ethical Issues In Law Enforcement

timer Asked: Feb 6th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

Must have a minimum of 250 words and two scholarly sources. Scholarly sources does not count towards world count.

Suppose that John regularly watches Jane undress by peeping through a small hole that he has managed to drill through her wall. Suppose further that John has planted a small camera in a second hole, which allows him to take photographs of Jane undressing. Using each consequentialist approach to moral decisionmaking (ethical egoism, contractualism, and utilitarianism), explain the context in which John's behavior is ethical or not. Please use outside research to locate a definition for "contractualism" and analyze the scenario from that research. Also, please include a reference showing where you obtained that definition.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

7 M I L E S , S H A Frank Serpico N N O rank Serpico is arguably the most famous police officer in the United States, even thoughN he hasn’t worked in F Fred W. McDarrah/Premium Archive/Getty Images Police Corruption and Responses Chapter Objectives law enforcement since 1972. After serving in Korea, he 1. Describe the types of police corruption became a New York City police officer in 1959. He realized that (economic corruption and abuse of authority). the “pad” (payments by store owners to 1the cops) was widespread, and when he refused to take the money he earned the 2. Describe individual explanations of 9 corruption and potential solutions. distrust of those who did. Over 12 years, he rose to the rank of detective and never participated in the0pad. After repeated 3. Describe organizational explanations of corruption and potential solutions. attempts to get supervisors to do something, 9 in 1970–1971, he and David Durk, a fellow officer, went to the New York Times 4. Describe societal explanations of T corruption and potential solutions. and participated in an exposé of police corruption. The series of stories led to the Knapp Commission. S Serpico and Durk continued to work even though rumors that they were the “rats” were widespread and there was a real danger that corrupt police officers would retaliate against them. Before he had a chance to testify, Serpico was shot in the face at point-blank range in a drug bust while his fellow officers stood behind him. The 183 9781337259163, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, Ninth Edition, Pollock - © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization. 184   Part II   Police shooting was suspected of being a setup, especially since the “officer down” call never was issued. However, no officer was investigated or charged with any wrongdoing in relation to the shooting. Serpico survived and went on to testify before the Knapp Commission. The name Serpico continues to elicit two different reactions. For some, it represents the epitome of an honest and brave man who stood against corruption at great risk to self. For others, it represents a “rat,” a man who turned his back on his friends, and, for some officers, to be called a “Serpico” is a serious insult. Why we still talk about Frank Serpico is that his story includes all the elements of the problem of police corruption. From what we know, the problem is “vertical” in that supervisors and administrators are either involved, have been involved, or, more often, actively try to cover up or ignore the corruption. Secondly, the problem is known to many offic s even if few are involved, but the “blue curtain” shields the corrupt few. Finally, whistleblowers that expose the corruption are considered traitors and, sometimes, serious retaliation occurs. There is no doubt that M most police offic s are honest and strive to be ethical in all they do; however, examplesI of corruption and graft in law enforcement agencies are not difficult to fi d. In this chapter, we provide a more detailed discussion of misconduct. L misconduct into two broad categories: economic corrupFor our purposes, we divide E Economic corruption can be defi ed as the use of one’s tion and abuse of authority. position to obtain improper S fi ancial benefit. Abuse of authority is when the power and authority of the offic is misused. First, we discuss prevalence, then we provide , explanations for corruption are presented, followed by examples. Finally, individual organizational and societal explanations. Th s same order is followed when discussing responses and potential solutions. S of organized police departments, various investigative Since the very beginning bodies have documented H cases of corruption. Fyfe and Kane (2006), for instance, provide a long list of commissions and task forces that investigated police corruption A scandals in a number of cities, including the Chicago Police Committee (in 1931), N York City in 1972–1973), the Kolts Commission (Los the Knapp Commission (New Angeles County in 1992), the N Mollen Commission (New York City in 1993), the Philadelphia Police Study Task Force (in 1987), the Christopher Commission (Los Angeles in 1996), the New OrleansOMayor’s Advisory Committee (in 1993), the Royal Commission (Sydney, Australia,Nin 1997), and the St. Clair Commission (Boston in 1992), to name only a few. Bayley and Perito (2011) analyzed 32 different commissions that investigated police corruption; thirteen were in the United States, six in Australia, three 1 in Canada, and one each in a number of other countries, in the United Kingdom, four including India, Ireland, Kenya, 9 and Israel. Even though there is a large body of literature on police corruption, few studies have been able to measure0its extent and prevalence. An obvious barrier to discovery is getting police offic s to9admit to wrongdoing. One early study reported that, by offic s’ own accounts, 39 percent of their number engaged in brutality, 22 percent perT jured themselves, 31 percent had sex on duty, 8 percent drank on duty, and 39 percent S 1994). Barker (1983) reported that between 9 and 31 slept on duty (Barker and Carter, percent of offic s who had been employed for 11 months or less reported observing corrupt practices. In a sample of narcotics offic s, Stevens (1999) reported that 63 percent said they had very often heard of narcotics offic s using more force than necessary to make an 9781337259163, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, Ninth Edition, Pollock - © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization. Chapter 7   Police Corruption and Responses   185 arrest, 26 percent had often heard of other offic s personally consuming and/or selling drugs, and 82 percent had very often heard of other narcotics offic s violating the civil rights of suspects. These numbers must be interpreted carefully in that they do not mean that large numbers of offic s were corrupt, only that a fairly large number of offic s were aware of at least one offic ’s misconduct. Fyfe and Kane (2006; also see Kane and White, 2009) studied police offic s in New York City who were terminated for cause and found that only 2 percent of offic s in the 22 years under study (1975–1996) were terminated for misconduct. Th s study’s fi dings must also be interpreted with caution since the number of offic s who come to the attention of supervisors and are offi ally sanctioned by termination is probably quite a bit lower than the numbers who commit corrupt acts. Further, offic s are sometimes terminated for rule breaking that does not fit into any category of corruption. In 2011, 23 Washington, D.C. offic s (out of 3,818) were arrested on charges from Mfi ed into a car of transgendered people. sexual assault to murder. One office allegedly Another had sex with a teenager. Yet another I lied about a murder to protect her boyfriend. Police Chief Cathy Lanier defended the department, stating that many of the arrests were due to internal investigations; atLleast four of the offic s were detected in E have no way of knowing whether this a departmental audit and sting operation. We rate of offic s committing misconduct is higher S than in other departments, especially because in many states, personnel records of police offic s are not subject to open , records requests (McCabe, 2011). In 1977, 37 percent of the public rated police integrity and ethics as high or very high, and 12 percent rated police integrity as low or very low. In 2011, 54 percent of the S and 11 percent of the population rated public rated police integrity as high or very high Hof Criminal Justice Statistics, 2007, 2011). police integrity as low or very low (Sourcebook Of course, perceptions are not necessarily refl A ctive of reality, so the fact is that, other than the corruption scandals that occur periodically, we really do not have any good N or abuse of authority. data on the prevalence of economic corruption Space prohibits any description of corruption in other countries. Suffic to say N that the same types of scandals and examples of corruption that we see in the United States exist across the world in developingOand developed countries. Transparency International charts corruption worldwide,Nranking more than 90 countries. Th s agency defi es corruption as abuse of public offic (including police) for private gain (e.g., bribe taking). The countries with the highest scores for honesty typically 1 are fi st-world countries, while poorest countries produced very low scores. In the latest rankings available from Transparency9International, which used polls to rank 180 countries, New Zealand was ranked fi st in the public’s trust in the honesty of their public offi als, followed by Denmark,0Finland, Sweden, Singapore, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, and then 9 Canada in the tenth position on the list. The United States followed the United Kingdom T in rankings of 18 and 17, respectively, in 2009. In the 2011 rankings, the United States had dropped to 24, but returned to S current rankings were countries such the 17th spot in 2014. At the bottom of the as Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, North Korea, and Somalia (Transparency International, 2011, 2014). Before one can begin to research prevalence, it would be necessary to have some shared understanding of a defin tion of corruption. There are many defin tions and 9781337259163, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, Ninth Edition, Pollock - © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization. 186   Part II   Police typologies in the literature. Fyfe and Kane (2006: 37–38), for instance, reviewed the literature, and then identifi d a long list of types of misconduct: • Profit-motivated crimes (all offenses with the goal of profit except those that are drug-related) • Off-duty crimes against persons (all assaultive, non-profit-related crimes off-duty) • Off-duty public-order crimes (not including drugs, and most commonly DWI [driving while intoxicated] and disorderly conduct) • Drugs (all crimes related to possession, sale, conspiracy, and failing departmental drug tests) • On-duty abuse (use of excessive force, psychological abuse, or discrimination) • Obstruction of justice (conspiracy, perjury, official misconduct, and all other ­offenses with the goal of obstructing justice) Mperform (violating one or more departmental rules, poli• Administrative/failure to cies, and procedures) I • Conduct-related probationary L failures (simple failure to meet expectations). In the discussion to follow,Ewe will offer a much simpler typology of simply economic corruption and abuse of authority. S , Economic Corruption S as “acting on opportunities, created by virtue of one’s Corruption has been described authority, for personal gain H at the expense of the public one is authorized to serve” (Cohen, 1986: 23). Baksheesh, a euphemism for graft, is endemic in many developing A countries where officials, including law enforcement officers, expect baksheesh before N to do; alternatively, they extort money in exchange for doing the job they are supposed not doing their job. “It’s just N the way it is” is the explanation for why such corruption exists. Obviously the problem is not systemic in this country; however, one can find O using their position to acquire unfair benefits. many examples of police officers In 1973, the Knapp Commission detailed its findings of corruption in the New York N City Police Department. The terms grass eaters and meat eaters were used to describe New York City police officers who took advantage of their position to engage in corrupt practices. Accepting bribes,1gratuities, and unsolicited protection money was the extent of the corruption engaged9in by grass eaters, who were fairly passive in their deviant practices. Meat eaters participated in shakedowns, “shopped” at burglary scenes, and 0 practices. The Mollen Commission, which investigated engaged in more active deviant New York City Police Department corruption 20 years later (1993), concluded that 9 meat eaters were engaged in a qualitatively different kind of corruption in more recent T times. Beyond just cooperating with criminals, the corrupt cops were active criminals S themselves, selling drugs, robbing drug dealers, and operating burglary rings. Economic corruption includes gratuities (when they conflict with law and policy), kickbacks (e.g., from towing companies), overtime schemes (e.g., such as a 2014 scandal in Houston where officers made up tickets in order to create the need to appear and earn overtime), misuse/appropriation of departmental property, payoffs (payment for shifts, promotions, or other benefits), ticket “fixing,” bribery/extortion (shakedowns of storeowners or protection money to drug dealers), and theft from burglary 9781337259163, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, Ninth Edition, Pollock - © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization. Chapter 7   Police Corruption and Responses   187 scenes. The more serious acts in this list are also crimes. An important distinction that should be made is between crimes and ethical transgressions. It is an insult to law enforcement officers when certain actions, such as stealing from a burglary scene or taking money from a drug dealer to guard a shipment of drugs, are discussed as if they were ethical dilemmas in the same category as whether to avoid responding to a minor traffic accident or whether an officer should call in sick so he can go fishing. Stealing from a burglary scene and conspiring to protect drug dealers are crimes. The officers who engage in such acts are criminals who are quite distinct from officers who commit ethical lapses akin to other workers who do so within the parameters of their particular professions or jobs. Gratuities Gratuities are items of value received by an individual because of his or her role or M position rather than because of a personal relationship with the giver. The widespread practices of free coffee in convenience stores, I half-price or free meals in restaurants, and half-price dry cleaning are examples of gratuities. Frequently, businesspeople offer L for the police officers’ work. Although gratuities as a token of sincere appreciation the formal code of ethics prohibits accepting Egratuities, many officers believe there is nothing wrong with businesses giving “freebies” to police officers. They see these as S small rewards indeed for the difficulties they endure in police work. , that some businesses need (and should Justifications for gratuities include the idea pay for) extra protection; that they are no different than the perks of other occupations; that they compensate for poor pay; and that they cement community relations (when S the officer stays and drinks coffee with the storeowner; Prenzler, 1995; Kania, 1988). Research indicates that people do not H support gratuities, but do not think they are very serious either, especially when the items were infrequent, food, or inexpenA sive (Prenzler, 1995; Lord and Bjerregaard, 2003). Critics of gratuities argue that they N and undermine our quest for profes“erode public confidence in law enforcement sionalism” (Stefanic, 1981: 63). Cohen (1986: N 26) believes that gratuities violate the social contract because citizens give up their liberty to exploit only to be exploited. O 2004b) argue against gratuities for the Critics (Ruiz and Bono, 2004; Coleman, 2004a, following reasons: N gratuities Items of value received by an individual because of his or her role or position rather than because of a personal relationship with the giver. • Police are professionals, and professionals don’t take gratuities. 1 people expect different treatment in • Gratuities are incipient corruptors because return. 9 • Gratuities are an abuse of authority and create a sense of entitlement. 0 • Gratuities add up to substantial amounts of money and can constitute as high as 9 30 percent of an officer’s income. T • Gratuities can be the beginning of more serious forms of corruption. S because they are a type of fee-for• Gratuities are contrary to democratic ideals service for public functions that are already paid for through taxes, such as police protection. • Gratuities create a public perception that police are corrupt. Kania (1988, 2004) argues that only when either or both the giver and taker (officer) have impure intent are gratuities wrong. For instance, it would be an unethical exchange 9781337259163, Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice, Ninth Edition, Pollock - © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization. 188   Part II   Police if the intent of the giver was to give in exchange for some future service, not as reward for past services rendered. Another unethical exchange would be when the intent of the police officer taking the gratuity was not to receive unsolicited but appreciated gifts, but rather, to use the position of police officer to extort goods from business owners. A third type of unethical exchange would occur if both the giver and the police officer’s motives were unethical: if the giver expected special treatment and the officer’s intent was to take the gratuity in exchange for performing the special service. In Kania’s scheme, ethical exchanges are only when true rewards or gifts with no expectation of future acts are offered and received with no expectations. Unethical exchanges are when either the giver or receiver expects something in return, such as understandings, bribes, arrangements, and shakedowns. Where should one draw the line between harmless rewards and inappropriate gifts? Is a discount on a meal okay, but not a free meal? Is a meal okay, but not any other item, such as groceries or tires or car stereos? Do the store or restaurant owners M such as more frequent patrols or overlooking sales expect anything for their money, of alcohol to underage juveniles? Should they expect different treatment from officers I than the treatment given to those who do not offer gratuities? Suppose that an officer L owner that she can help herself to anything in the store— is told by a convenience store E chips, magazines, and the like. In the same conversation, free coffee, candy, cigarettes, the store owner asks the officer S for her personal cellphone number “in case something happens and I need to get in contact with you.” Is this a gift, or is it an exchange? , free merchandise? Should the officer accept the Many merchants give free or discount food to officers because they like to have police around, especially late at night. The question then becomes the one asked freS two or three police cars always at a certain restaurant? quently by citizens: Why are H to take their breaks wherever they want within their Police argue that they deserve patrol area. If it happens that A they choose the same place, that shouldn’t be a concern of the public. However, an impression of unequal protection occurs when officers N restaurants or congregating at certain convenience make a habit of eating at certain stores. Free meals or even N coffee may influence the pattern of police patrol and, thus, may be wrong because some citizens are not receiving equal protection. Ovaries from city to city. In cities where rules against graThe extent of gratuities tuities are loosely enforced, N“dragging the sack” may be developed to an art form by some police officers, who go out of their way to collect free meals and other gifts. Ruiz and Bono (2004) descri ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: University of Maryland



Last Name 1

Student Name:
Professor’s Name:
Ethical Issues in Law Enforcement
Contractualism described in philosophy as the moral view of morality. It is based on a
hypothetical social contract or moral standards that are generally accepted (Ashford et al., 2018).
With concerned to Consequentialism described as the result based ethics. Consequentialism
broadly dictates fundamentally that resul...

flag Report DMCA

Tutor went the extra mile to help me with this essay. Citations were a bit shaky but I appreciated how well he handled APA styles and how ok he was to change them even though I didnt specify. Got a B+ which is believable and acceptable.

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors