Discussion/ criminal ethics

• 3 •

C h a p t e r O b j e c t i v e s

1. Give examples of how discretion permeates every phase of the criminal justice system and creates ethical

dilemmas for criminal justice professionals.

2. Explain why the study of ethics is important for criminal justice professionals.

3. Learn the defi nitions of the terms morals, ethics, duties, superogatories, and values. 4. Describe what behaviors might fall under moral/ethical judgments.

5. Explain the difference between ethical issues and ethical dilemmas.

Morality, Ethics, and Human Behavior

Consider the following dilemma: You are a police offi cer patrolling late at night and see a

car weaving back and forth across lanes of traffi c. You turn on your siren, and the car pulls

over. The driver stumbles out of the car, obviously intoxicated. There is no question that

the driver meets the legal defi nition of intoxication. He also happens to be your father.

What would you do?

Or decide what you would do in this case: You are a correctional offi cer working the

late-night shift. Your sergeant and another offi cer from the day shift come onto the tier

where you are working and ask you to open up an inmate’s cell. After you do so, they enter

the cell. Then you hear a series of grunts, cries, and moans. They leave, muttering about

how the inmate has been taught a lesson. You believe that you have been a party to an as-

sault, but you say nothing. The next night you fi nd out that the inmate did not report the

incident, nor did any other inmate. You believe that if you come forward and report what

you saw, you will be severely ostracized. You may not be believed (especially if the inmate

doesn’t back you up). You might even lose your job. What would you do?

Finally, consider this scenario: You are a student interning in a criminal defense law-

yer’s offi ce. As part of your duties, you sit in court with the lawyer you are working with,

help her with legal research, and assist in interviewing witnesses. During the course of the

internship, you conclude that the lawyer, in your opinion, is extremely negligent. She does

not return clients’ calls, she misses appeal deadlines, and she ignores or does not follow up

on promising leads that might lead to exculpatory evidence. You are appalled that several

1 C

la rk

B re

n n

a n

/ A

la m

y

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 346429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 3 11/1/10 8:37:20 PM11/1/10 8:37:20 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

4 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

of her clients are advised to plead guilty even though you think that the evidence against

them is weak. When you bring up these issues with her, she fi res you on the spot and tells

you that all her clients are guilty anyway and that she is just another ‘‘cog in the wheel’’ of

the justice machine. What, if anything, would you do?

Why Study Ethics? How would you go about deciding what to do in these situations? Learning how to deter-

mine the “right thing to do” is the central purpose of this book. We make ethical decisions

all the time, whether we recognize them or not. Think about some ethical choices you have

been faced with in the last couple of weeks or months. Perhaps you have been faced with

one of the following ethical choices:

A fellow student offered you a paper purchased from an Internet site. You believe that •

you could turn it in as your own and never be caught.

A co-worker took something from the store where you both work and expected you •

to say nothing.

A friend asked you to lie for him to his girlfriend to cover up the fact that he went out •

with another girl.

You felt compelled to tell a professor a “white lie” when asking for an extension on an •

assignment.

All of us make choices that can be judged under ethical standards. Further, we fre-

quently judge other people’s behaviors as right or wrong. Those who work in the crimi-

nal justice fi eld must be especially sensitive to the ethical issues that may arise in their

professional lives. Criminal justice professionals, whether they work in law enforcement,

the courts, or corrections, encounter a multitude of situations in which they must make

choices that affect people’s lives.

The criminal justice system can be examined using political, organizational, or so-

ciological approaches. Let us shift the lens somewhat and look at the system through an

ethics perspective. Asking whether something is legal, for instance, is not necessarily the

same question as asking whether something is right. Actors at every stage in the justice

process make decisions that can be analyzed and judged as ethical or unethical. Although

the decisions faced by these professionals—ranging from legislators who write the laws to

correctional professionals who supervise prisoners—may be different, they also have simi-

larities, especially in that these professionals all experience varying degrees of discretion, authority, and power.

Legislators have the power to defi ne behavior as illegal and, therefore, punishable.

They also have the power to set the amount of punishment. They criminalize behavior

usually because it threatens public safety, but sometimes also employ moral defi nitions

for deciding which behaviors should be legal and which should be illegal. “Protection of

public morality” is the rationale for a number of laws, including those involving drugs,

gambling, and prostitution. How do legislators use their great discretion to balance the

rights of all people? We explore these questions in more detail in Chapter 3, which covers the concept of justice, and in Chapter 8, which begins our discussion of the law and legal

professionals.

Police offi cers, who enforce the laws created by legislators, have a great deal of discre-

tionary power. For instance, they have the power to deprive people of their liberty (through

arrest), the power to decide which individuals to investigate and perhaps target for under-

cover operations, and the power to issue a ticket or let a driver off with a warning.

discretion The authority to make a decision between two or more choices.

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 446429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 4 11/1/10 8:37:23 PM11/1/10 8:37:23 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 5

Police serve as the interface between the awesome power of the state and the citizenry

governed. In some countries, police operate as a fearsome coercive force for a controlling

political body. In the United States, we enjoy constitutional protections against untram-

meled police power, and police act as the guardians of the law, not merely enforcers for

those in power. In Chapters 5, 6, and 7, the ethical use of police discretion is discussed in

more detail.

Prosecutors probably face the least public scrutiny of all criminal justice professionals—

which is ironic because they possess a great deal of discretion in deciding who and how to

prosecute:

They decide which charges to pursue and which to drop. •

They decide which cases to take to a grand jury. •

They decide how to prosecute a case and whether to pursue the death penalty in •

homicide cases.

Although prosecutors have the ethical duty to pursue justice rather than conviction,

some critics argue that at times their decision making seems to be infl uenced by politics or

factors other than the goal of justice. Defense attorneys have ethical duties similar to pros-

ecutors in some ways; however, they also have unique duties to their client.

Judges also possess incredible power, typically employed through decisions to deny

or accept plea bargains, decisions regarding rules of evidence, and decisions about sen-

tencing. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 explore the ethical issues of legal professionals in the crimi-

nal justice system.

Finally, correctional officials have the following immense powers over the lives of

some citizens:

Probation officers make recommendations in presentence reports and violation •

reports that affect whether an individual goes to prison.

Prison offi cials decide to award or take away “good time,” and they may punish an •

inmate with segregation; both types of decisions affect the individual’s liberty.

Correctional offi cers make daily decisions that affect the life and health of the prison- •

ers they supervise.

Parole offi cials decide when to fi le a violation report, and make other decisions that •

affect a parolee as well as his or her family members.

In short, all correctional professionals have a great deal of discretion over the lives of those

they control. The ethical issues of correctional professionals are discussed in Chapters 11,

12, and 13.

Although the professionals discussed face different dilemmas, they also have the fol-

lowing common elements:

They each have discretion—that is, the power to make a decision. • Although the specifi c decisions are different, they all involve power over others and the potential depriva-

tion of life, liberty, or property.

They each have the duty of enforcing the law. • Although this concept is obvious with police, it is also clear that each of the professionals mentioned has a basic duty to up-

hold and enforce all laws; they serve the law in their professional lives.

They must accept that their duty is to protect the constitutional safeguards that are the • cornerstone of our legal system—specifi cally, due process and equal protection. Due pro- cess protects each of us from error in any governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or

property. We recognize the right of government to control and even to punish, but we

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 546429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 5 11/1/10 8:37:24 PM11/1/10 8:37:24 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

6 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

have certain protections against arbitrary or unlawful use of that power. Due process

protects us against such abuses. We also expect that the power of our government will

be used fairly and in an unbiased manner. Equal protection should ensure that what

happens to us is not determined by the color of our skin, our gender, nationality, or

the religion we practice. Laws are for everyone, and the protection of the law extends

to all of us. Although a fair amount of evidence indicates that different treatment does

exist, the ideal of equal protection is an essential element of our legal system and

should be an operating principle for everyone working in this system.

They are public servants. • Their salaries come from the public purse. Public servants possess more than a job; they have taken on special duties involving the public trust.

Individuals such as legislators, public offi cials, police offi cers, judges, and prosecutors

are either elected or appointed guardians of the public’s interests. Arguably, they must

be held to higher standards than those they guard or govern. Temptations are many, and, unfortunately, we fi nd examples of double standards, in which public servants take advantage of their positions for special favors, rather than higher standards of exemplary behavior.

The Josephson Institute (2005), which is heavily involved in ethics training for cor-

porations and public agencies, identifi es the ethical principles that should govern public

servants: public service (treating the offi ce as a public trust), objective judgment (striv-

ing to be free from confl icts of interest), accountability (upholding open decision mak-

ing), democratic leadership (observing the letter and spirit of the law), and respectability

(avoiding the appearance of impropriety). It cannot be over-emphasized that the ethical

demands placed upon public servants are different than those placed upon the rest of us.

Edwin Delattre (1989b: 79) argued that:

Part of what is needed [for public servants] is a public sense of what Madison

meant by wisdom and good character: balanced perception and integrity.

Integrity means wholeness in public and private life consisting of habits of justice,

temperance, courage, compassion, honesty, fortitude, and disdain for self-pity.

It would be ideal if all public servants possessed the characteristics identified by

Delattre; however, even public servants of good character are sometimes perplexed as to

the right course of action in situations they encounter in their professional duties. Obvi-

ously, the law governs many of the decisions that public servants make, but because of

the discretion that exists at every stage of the criminal justice process, the possibility of

an unethical use of such discretion remains. Understanding the ethical issues involved

in one’s profession might help to guide such discretion and prevent abuse. Therefore, all

professionals in the criminal justice fi eld must be sensitive to ethical issues. These issues

may involve their relationships with citizens and others over whom they have power, their

relationship with their agency, or their relationships with one another.

Felkenes (1987: 26) explained why the study of ethics is important for criminal justice

professionals:

1. Professionals are recognized as such in part because [a] “profession” nor-

mally includes a set of ethical requirements as part of its meaning…. Profes-

sionalism among all actors at all levels of the criminal justice system depends

upon their ability to administer policy effectively in a morally and ethically

responsible manner.

2. Training in critical ethics helps to develop analytical skills and reasoning

abilities needed to understand the pragmatic and theoretical aspects of the

criminal justice system.

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 646429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 6 11/1/10 8:37:24 PM11/1/10 8:37:24 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 7

3. Criminal justice professionals should be able to recognize quickly the ethical

consequences of various actions and the moral principles involved.

4. Ethical considerations are central to decisions involving discretion, force, and

due process which require people to make enlightened moral judgments.

5. Ethics is germane to most management and policy decisions concerning

such penal issues as rehabilitation, deterrence, and just deserts.

6. Ethical considerations are essential aspects of criminal justice research.

In answer to a similar question, Braswell (1996/2002: 8) explained the following fi ve

goals of a study of ethics:

Become aware of and open to ethical issues. •

Begin developing critical thinking skills. •

Become more personally responsible. •

Understand how the criminal justice system is engaged in a process of coercion. •

Develop • wholesight (which roughly means exploring with one’s heart as well as one’s mind).

The comprehensive nature of these two lists requires few additions; however, we also

could note that individuals who ignore ethics do so at their peril. They may fi nd them-

selves sliding down a slippery slope of behaviors that threaten their career and personal

well-being. Even if their actions are not discovered, many people suffer from personal cri-

ses when their actions are in confl ict with their conscience. Three basic points are reiter-

ated below:

We study ethics because criminal justice is uniquely involved in coercion, which •

means there are many and varied opportunities to abuse such power.

Almost all criminal justice professionals are public servants and, thus, owe special du- •

ties to the public they serve.

We study ethics to sensitize students to ethical issues and provide tools to help iden- •

tify and resolve the ethical dilemmas they may face in their professional lives.

wholesight Exploring issues with one’s heart as well as one’s mind.

in the N E W S T R A N S P A R E N C Y I N T E R N A T I O N A L

Every year, this international organization publishes their list of the most corrupt and least cor-

rupt nations in the world. The information is drawn from surveys of ordinary citizens, who are

asked to describe the honesty and practices of public offi cials. Not surprisingly, in the 2009

r esults, countries such as Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, and Chad are identi-

fi ed as the most corrupt countries in the world. Perhaps surprisingly, the United States is not

ranked in the top 10 least corrupt countries. While New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden,

Switzerland, Finland, and the Netherlands rank as the least corrupt countries, the United States

comes in at number 19.

SOURCE: Transparency International web site, available at www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_ indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table (accessed June 27, 2010).

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 746429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 7 11/1/10 8:37:24 PM11/1/10 8:37:24 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

8 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

Defi ning Terms The words morals and ethics are often used in daily conversations. For example, when public offi cials use their offi ces for personal profi t or when politicians accept bribes from

special interest groups, they are described as unethical. When an individual does a good

deed, engages in charitable activities or personal sacrifi ce, or takes a stand against wrong-

doing, we might describe that individual as a moral person. Often, the terms morals and ethics are used interchangeably. This makes sense because they both come from similar root meanings. The Greek word ethos pertains to custom (behavioral practices) or charac- ter, and morals is a Latin-based word with a similar meaning.

M O R A L S A N D E T H I C S

Morals and morality refer to what is judged as good conduct. (Immorality refers to bad

conduct.) The term moral also is used to describe someone who has the capacity to make value judgments and discern right from wrong (Souryal, 1992/2007: 12). The term ethics refers to the study and analysis of what constitutes good or bad conduct (Barry, 1985: 5;

Sherman, 1981: 8).

There are several branches, or schools, of ethics:

• Meta-ethics is the discipline that investigates the meaning of ethical systems and whether they are relative or are universal, and are self-constructed or are independent

of human creation.

Normative ethics • determines what people ought to do and defines moral duties based on ethical systems or other means of analysis.

Applied ethics • is the application of ethical principles to specifi c issues. Professional ethics • is an even more specifi c type of applied ethics relating to the behavior of certain professions or groups.

To many people, ethics has come to mean the defi nition of specifi c behaviors as right

and wrong within a profession. Often, in common usage, morality is used to speak of the total person, or the sum of a person’s actions in every sphere of life, and ethics is used to refer to behaviors relating to a profession and is an analysis of behavior relevant to a

certain profession. For instance, the medical profession follows the Hippocratic Oath,

a declaration of rules and principles of conduct for doctors to follow in their daily

practices; it dictates appropriate behavior and goals. In fact, most professions have their

own set of ethical standards or canons of ethics.

Even though professional ethics typically restricts attention to areas of behavior rel-

evant to the profession, these can be fairly inclusive and enter into what we might consider

the private life of the individual. For instance, doctors are judged harshly if they engage in

romantic relationships with their patients, as are professors if they become involved with

their students. These rules usually are included in codes of ethics for these professions. We

are very much aware of how politicians’ private behavior can affect their career in politics.

When John Edwards was exposed in 2009 as attempting to cover up fathering a child with

his mistress, his presidential aspirations were destroyed. Clearly, in professions involving

the public trust, such as politics, education, and the clergy, there is a thin line between

one’s private life and one’s public life.

For our purposes, it does not make a great deal of difference whether we use the for-

mal or colloquial defi nitions of morals and ethics. This text is an applied ethics text, in that we will be concerned with what is defi ned as right and wrong behavior in the professions

morals Principles of right and wrong.

ethics The discipline of determining good and evil and defi ning moral duties.

meta-ethics The discipline of investigating the meaning of ethical terms, including a critical study of how ethical statements can be verifi ed.

normative ethics What people ought to do; defi nes moral duties.

applied ethics The study of what is right and wrong pertaining to a specifi c profession or subject.

professional ethics Applied principles of right and wrong relevant to specifi c occupations or professions.

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 846429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 8 11/1/10 8:37:24 PM11/1/10 8:37:24 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 9

relevant to the criminal justice system and how people in these professions make decisions

in the course of their careers. It also is a professional ethics text, because we are concerned

primarily with professional ethics in criminal justice.

D U T I E S

The term duties refers to those actions that an individual must perform to be considered moral. For instance, everyone might agree that one has a duty to support one’s parents if

able to do so; one has a duty to obey the law (unless it is an immoral law); and a police

offi cer has a moral and ethical duty to tell the truth on a police report. Duties are what you

must do in order to be good.

Other actions, considered superogatories, are commendable but not required. A Good Samaritan who jumps into a river to save a drowning person, risking his or her

own life to do so, has performed a superogatory action. Those who stood on the bank

receive no moral condemnation, because risking one’s life is above and beyond anyone’s

moral duty. Of course, if one can help save a life with no great risk to oneself, a moral duty

does exist in that situation.

Police offi cers have an ethical duty to get involved when others do not. Consider the 2001

attack on the World Trade Center. One of the most moving images of that tragedy was of po-

lice offi cers and fi refi ghters running toward danger while others ran away. This professional

duty to put oneself in harm’s way is why we revere and pay homage to these public servants.

Many civilians also put themselves in harm’s way in this disaster, and because they had no

professional duty to do so, they could be said to be performing superogatory actions.

There are also imperfect duties, general duties that one should uphold but do not have a specifi c application as to when or how. For instance, most ethical systems support a general

duty of generosity but have no specifi c duty demanding a certain type or manner of generos-

ity. Another imperfect duty might be to be honest. Generally, one should be honest, but, as

we will see in Chapter 2, some ethical systems allow for exceptions to the general rule.

V A L U E S

Values are defi ned as elements of desirability, worth, or importance. You may say that you value honesty; another way of saying that is that one of your values is honesty. Others

may value physical health, friendships, material success, or family. Individual values form

value systems. All people prioritize certain things that they consider important in life. Val-

ues only become clear when there is a choice to be made; for instance, when you must

choose between friendship and honesty, or material success and family. Behavior is gener-

ally consistent with values. For instance, some individuals believe that fi nancial success is

more important than family or health. In this case, we may assume that their behavior will

refl ect the importance of that value and that these persons will be workaholics, spending

more time at work than with family and endangering their health with long hours, stress,

and lack of exercise. Others place a higher priority on religious faith, wisdom, honesty,

and/or independence than fi nancial success or status.

Values as judgments of worth are often equated with moral judgments of goodness.

We see that both can be distinguished from factual judgments, which can be empirically

verifi ed. Note the difference between these factual judgments:

“He is lying.” •

“It is raining.” •

duties Required behaviors or actions, i.e., the responsibilities that are attached to a specifi c role.

superogatories Actions that are commendable but not required in order for a person to be considered moral.

imperfect duties Moral duties that are not fully explicated or detailed.

values Judgments of desirability, worth, or importance.

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 946429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 9 11/1/10 8:37:25 PM11/1/10 8:37:25 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

and these value judgments:

“She is a good woman.” •

“That was a wonderful day.” •

The last two judgments are more similar to moral judgments, such as “Lying is wrong” or

“Giving to charities is good.” Facts are capable of scientifi c proof, but values and moral

judgments are not.

Some writers think that value judgments and moral judgments are indistinguishable

because neither can be verifi ed. Some also think that values and morals are relativistic and

individual. In this view, there are no universal values; values are all subjective and merely

opinions. Because they are only opinions, no value is more important than any other value

(Mackie, 1977: 22–24).

In contrast, others believe that not all values are equal, and that some values, such

as honesty, are always more important than other values, such as pleasure. In this view,

values such as charity, altruism, integrity, knowledge, and responsibility are more impor-

tant or better than the values of pleasure or wealth. You may value personal pleasure over

charity or honesty, but to someone who believes in universal values, you would be wrong

in this view. This question is related to a later discussion in Chapter 2 concerning whether

ethics are relative or absolute.

As stated earlier, values imply a choice or a judgment. If, for instance, you were con-

fronted with an opportunity to cheat on an exam, your values of success and honesty

would be directly at odds. Values and morals are similar, although values indicate the rela- tive importance of these constructs, whereas morals prescribe or proscribe behavior. The value of honesty is conceptually distinct from the moral rule against lying.

Messner and Rosenfeld’s (1994) theory of crime utilizes the concept of values. In their

explanation of why the United States has a higher rate of violent crime than other Western

countries, they propose that the U.S. value system, which emphasizes consumerism over

family and fi nancial success over honesty, creates an environment in which crime results.

In the United States, success is defi ned almost exclusively by the accumulation of material

goods, not by doing good. Because behavior is infl uenced by one’s value system, indi-

viduals who place material success over any other value will behave dishonestly or even

violently in the pursuit of such goods.

An explicit value system is part of every ethical system, as we will see in Chapter 2.

The values of life, respect for the person, and survival can be found in all ethical systems.

Certain values hold special relevance to the criminal justice system and those profession-

als who work within it; privacy, freedom, public order, justice, duty, and loyalty are all

values that will come up again in later discussions.

Making Moral Judgments We make moral or ethical judgments all the time: “Abortion is wrong.” “Capital punish-

ment is just.” “It’s good to give to charity.” “It’s wrong to hit your spouse.” These are all

judgments of good and bad behavior. We also make choices, knowing that they can be

judged as right or wrong. Should you call in sick to your boss, even though you aren’t sick,

to get a day in the sun? Should you give back extra change that a clerk gave you by mistake?

Should you tell a friend that her husband is having an affair even though he asked you not

to tell? Should you cut and paste sections of Wikipedia into your term paper?

Not all behaviors involve questions of ethics. To draw the boundaries of our ethical

discussion more specifi cally, we need to know which behavioral decisions might be judged

1 0 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1046429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 10 11/1/10 8:37:25 PM11/1/10 8:37:25 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 1 1

under ethical standards. Decisions that can be judged involve four elements: (1) acts that

are (2) human and (3) of free will (4) that affect others.

ACT First of all, some act must be present to judge. For instance, we are concerned with the act of stealing or the act of contributing to charity, rather than an idle thought that stealing a lot of money would enable us to buy a sailboat or a vague intention to be more

generous. We are not necessarily concerned with how people feel or what they think about

a particular action unless it has some bearing on what they do. The intention or motive

behind a behavior is an important component of that behavior. For instance, in ethical

formalism (which we will discuss in Chapter 2), one must know the intent of an action to

be able to judge it as moral or immoral, but one also must have some action to examine

before making a moral judgment.

ONLY HUMAN ACTS Second, judgments of moral or ethical behavior are directed spe- cifi cally to human behavior. A dog that bites is not considered immoral or evil, although

we may criticize pet owners who allow their dogs the opportunity to bite. Nor do we con-

sider drought, famine, fl oods, or other natural disasters immoral even though they result

in death, destruction, and misery. The devastating earthquake that hit Haiti in 2010 is not

considered immoral; although individuals who could have helped victims and did not

might be. Philosophers widely believe that only humans can be moral (or immoral) be-

cause of our capacity to reason. Because only humans have the capacity to be good—

which involves a voluntary, rational decision and subsequent action—only humans, of all

members of the animal kingdom, have the capacity to be bad.

There is much more to this argument, of course, and there are those who argue that some

mammals show moral traits, if not moral sensibilities. Shermer (2004: 27–28), for instance,

recognizes a pre-moral sense in animals, including shame or guilt in dogs, food sharing in

bats, comforting and cooperative behaviors in chimpanzees, life-saving behaviors in dolphins

and elephants, and defending behaviors in whales. Mammals, especially apes, monkeys, dol-

phins, and whales, exhibit attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy

and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, confl ict resolu-

tion and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring

about what others think, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.

Does this mean, then, that these mammals can be considered moral or immoral? Al-

though they may be placed on the continuum of moral awareness closer to humans than

other species, one could also argue that they do not possess the moral rationality of hu-

mans. They do not, as far as we know, freely choose to be good or bad, nor do they judge

their fellow animals as right or wrong.

FREE WILL In addition to limiting discussions of morality to human behavior, we usu- ally further restrict our discussion to behavior that stems from free will and free action.

Moral culpability is not assigned to persons who are not suffi ciently aware of the world

around them to be able to decide rationally what is good or bad. The two groups tradition-

ally exempt from responsibility in this sense are the young and the insane, similarly to

what occurs when ascribing legal culpability.

Arguably, we do not judge the morality of their behavior because we do not believe

that they have the capacity to reason and, therefore, cannot choose to be moral or immoral.

Although we may punish a 2-year-old for hitting a baby, we do so to educate or socialize,

not to punish, as we would an older child or adult. We incapacitate the violent mentally

ill to protect ourselves, but we consider them sick, not evil. This is true even if their actual

behavior is indistinguishable from that of other individuals we do punish. For example,

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1146429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 11 11/1/10 8:37:25 PM11/1/10 8:37:25 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

1 2 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

a murder may result in a death sentence or a hospital commitment, depending on whether

the person is judged to be sane or insane, responsible or not responsible.

AFFECTS OTHERS Finally, we usually discuss moral or immoral behavior only in cases in which the behavior signifi cantly affects others. For instance, throwing a rock off a bridge

would be neither good nor bad unless you could possibly hit or were aiming at a person

below. If no one is there, your behavior is neutral. If someone is below, however, you might

endanger that person’s life, so your behavior is judged as bad.

All the moral dilemmas we will discuss in this book involve at least two parties, and the

decision to be made affects at least one other individual in every case. In reality, it is diffi cult

to think of an action that does not affect others, however indirectly. Even self-destructive

behavior is said to harm the people who love us and who would be hurt by such actions.

We sense that these elements are important in judging morality when we hear the

common rationale of those who, when judged as doing something wrong, protest, “But

nobody was hurt!” or “I didn’t mean to.” Indeed, even a hermit living alone on a desert

island may engage in immoral or unethical actions. Whether he wants to be or not, the

hermit is part of human society; therefore, some people would say that even he might

engage in actions that could be judged immoral if they degrade or threaten the future of

humankind, such as committing suicide or polluting the ocean.

One’s actions toward nature also might be defi ned as immoral, so relevant actions

include not only actions done to people but also to animals and to the environment. To

abuse or exploit animals can be defi ned as immoral. Judgments can be made against cock-

fi ghting, dog racing, laboratory experimentation on animals, and hunting. The growing

area of environmental ethics refl ects increasing concern for the future of the planet. The

rationale for environmental ethics may be that any actions that harm the environment

affect all humans. It also might be justifi ed by the belief that humankind is a part of nature—

not superior to it—and part of natural law should be to protect, not exploit, our world.

Thus far, we know that morality and ethics concern the judgment of behavior as right

or wrong. Furthermore, such judgments are directed only at voluntary human behavior

that affects other people, the earth, and living things. We can further restrict our inquiries

regarding ethics to those behavioral decisions that are relevant to one’s profession in the

criminal justice system. Discussions regarding the ethics of police offi cers, for instance,

would concern issues such as the following:

Whether to take gratuities •

Whether to cover up the wrongdoing of a fellow offi cer •

Whether to sleep on duty •

Discussions regarding the ethics of defense attorneys might include the following:

Whether to devote more effort to private cases than appointed cases •

Whether to allow perjury •

Whether to attack the character of a victim in order to defend a client •

Of course, all of these actions affect other people, as do most actions taken as a profes-

sional. Most behaviors that might be judged as ethical or not for criminal justice profes-

sionals fall into four major categories:

Acts involving citizens/clients (i.e., misuses of authority, harassment, malfeasance or •

misfeasance)

Acts involving other employees (i.e., harassment, gossip, lying) •

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1246429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 12 11/1/10 8:37:25 PM11/1/10 8:37:25 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 1 3

Acts involving one’s organization (i.e., theft, work ethic, fi ling false reports) •

Acts involving those one supervises (i.e., arbitrary discipline, unrealistic demands, •

discouraging honest criticism)

In this text, we will present some of the unique issues and dilemmas related to each area of

criminal justice. It is important, fi rst, however, to explore the means available for analyzing

and evaluating the “right” course of action.

Morality and Behavior One of the most diffi cult things to understand about human behavior is the disjunction

between moral beliefs and behavior. We all can attest to the reality that believing some-

thing is wrong does not always prevent us from doing it. Often, we engage in acts that

we believe are bad, such as lying, stealing, and cheating. Some individuals, such as the

ones highlighted in the White Collar Crime box, engage in very wrong acts, despite their

great wealth. It seems obvious that these successful, educated men knew their conduct

was wrong, but this knowledge did not stop them.

Why do people engage in behavior that they believe to be wrong? Criminology at-

tempts to explain why people commit unlawful acts, but the larger question is this: why

do any of us engage in wrongful acts? Unfortunately, even though over 80 percent of col-

lege students believe cheating to be wrong, most have cheated on tests or papers (McCabe

White Collar Crime: How Much is Enough?

While one might be able to understand why someone who

is poor may shoplift or commit burglary, it is much harder

to understand why those who seem to have plenty of money

commit crimes to get even more. We have seen a steady

stream of individuals convicted and punished for white

collar crimes involving millions of dollars. The question is

evidently not whether they knew what they were doing was

wrong, but rather, how much money is ever enough

Allen Stanford The most recent king of the Ponzi

schemes, Stanford has been charged with running

a $7 billion scheme. A Ponzi scheme is when an of-

fender convinces investors that they can make large

returns on their money and uses subsequent investors

to pay earlier ones. As long as new investors are con-

vinced to put in their money, the scheme continues.

It collapses when investors want to withdraw their

principal—because there isn’t any. This fl amboyant

businessman, who was awarded a knighthood in the

tiny Caribbean country of Antigua, is believed to have

defrauded thousands of investors, using the money to

fund a profl igate lifestyle.

Bernard Madoff Madoff obtained notoriety in one of

the largest Ponzi schemes ever uncovered, stealing

between $10 and $20 billion. He defrauded thou-

sands of investors, including many charitable organi-

zations. Madoff is serving a 150-year sentence for his

crimes.

Dennis Kozlowski The former head of Tyco Interna-

tional was convicted and sentenced to 8 to 25 years

for misappropriating more than $400 million from the

company.

Lord Conrad Black This newspaper magnate was con-

victed in 2007 of diverting funds from his company to

his personal use. He was sentenced to 78 months.

Andrew Fastow and Jeffrey Skilling The former Enron

CFO and CEO were sentenced for fraud, insider trad-

ing, money laundering, and conspiracy for concealing

the company’s true financial situation from federal

regulators and shareholders. They are currently in fed-

eral prison.

Bernard Ebbers This former WorldCom CEO was

convicted of an $11 billion fraud against investors.

Source: BusinessWeek Online, July 6, 2006, www. businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_06/b3970083. htm (accessed June 28, 2010).

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1346429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 13 11/1/10 8:37:25 PM11/1/10 8:37:25 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

1 4 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

and Trevino, 1996). Some looters in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina may have been

stealing food as a matter of necessity, but many others exploited the natural disaster to

take what belonged to others. Theories abound endorsing everything from learning and

role modeling to biological predisposition, but we still haven’t answered fundamental

questions of causation. Even with all the scientifi c and philosophical attempts to explain

human action, we are left with troubling questions when we read or hear about people

who kill, steal, or otherwise offend our sense of morality. Evil is still one of the great

m ysteries of life.

In discussions concerning these questions, basic beliefs about the nature of human-

kind must be considered. Are people fundamentally bad and held in check only by rules

and fear of punishment? Or are people fundamentally good and commit bad acts because

of improper upbringing or events that subvert their natural goodness? Or are there funda-

mentally bad and fundamentally good people who are just “born that way” for no reason?

An applied ethics approach, as we will illustrate below, presumes that individuals gener-

ally prefer to do what is right. In those circumstances where the right thing to do is unclear,

there are steps to take to help make the decision easier.

Analyzing Ethical Dilemmas Ethical discussions in criminal justice focus on issues or dilemmas. Ethical issues are broad social questions, often concerning the government’s social control mechanisms and

the impact on those governed—for example, what laws to pass, what sentences to attach

to certain crimes, whether to abolish the death penalty, and whether to build more prisons

or use community correctional alternatives. The typical individual does not have much

control over these issues. The ethical issues that arise in relation to criminal justice are

serious, diffi cult, and affect people’s lives in fundamental ways. These are just a sample of

some criminal justice issues that have ethical implications:

Decriminalization of soft drugs •

Megan’s Law and other sex-offender registry statutes •

The death penalty •

Mandatory DNA registries •

Three-strikes legislation •

Racial profi ling •

Law-enforcement corruption •

Waiver of juveniles to adult courts •

Citizen oversight committees for police departments •

The Patriot Act and other challenges to civil liberties in the wake of terrorism •

Periodically we will highlight a criminal justice policy issue in this text to illustrate the

relationships among law, policy, and ethics. The issue of the medical use of marijuana is

examined in this chapter’s Policy Box.

While ethical issues are broad social questions, ethical dilemmas are situations in which one person must make a decision about what to do. Either the choice is unclear or

the right choice will be diffi cult because of the costs involved. Ethical dilemmas involve the

individual struggling with personal decision making, whereas ethical issues are topics for

which one might have an opinion but rarely a chance to take a stand that has much impact

(unless one happens to be a Supreme Court judge or a state governor).

ethical issues Diffi cult social questions that include controversy over the “right” thing to do.

ethical dilemmas Situations in which it is diffi cult to make a decision, either because the right course of action is not clear or the right course of action carries some negative consequences.

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1446429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 14 11/1/10 8:37:25 PM11/1/10 8:37:25 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 1 5

At times, one’s belief regarding an ethical issue gives rise to a personal dilemma. In

2000, George Ryan, then governor of Illinois, declared a moratorium on use of the death

penalty in his state when at least fi ve individuals on death row were exonerated through

the use of DNA evidence. One of his last acts as he left offi ce in 2003 was to commute the

sentences of all 160 prisoners on death row to life without parole.

Governor Ryan faced a diffi cult personal dilemma because he was in a position to do

something about his belief that the death penalty was implemented in a way that could

never be just. The strong support and strong opposition to his action indicate the depth of his dilemma and the seriousness of the issue. In a sad and ironic footnote to this story,

Ryan ended up in prison himself after being convicted of federal racketeering charges and

sentenced to a six-and-a-half-year sentence in a federal prison. Evidence proved that he

had been involved in a system of “sweetheart deals” and backroom bribes selling govern-

ment contracts since he had been secretary of state (Schaper, 2007).

Sadly, there are additional examples of public fi gures whose private lives aren’t consis-

tent with their public actions. Eliot Spitzer, governor of New York who was elected on a law-

and-order platform, resigned in March 2008 after it was revealed that he had paid thousands

of dollars to prostitutes. Even though he consistently took courageous stands to promote the

public good as part of his professional duties, his private decisions led him to break the law

and engage in marital infi delity. Then, Lieutenant Governor David Paterson, who stepped

in as governor after Spitzer’s resignation, admitted that both he and his wife had engaged in

extramarital affairs, and that he had tried marijuana and cocaine in the 1970s when he was

in college. Later it was revealed that he helped his lover get a government job.

Although most of us do not have the power to commute death sentences or sign laws

into effect, we can also act upon our beliefs. Writing letters, petitioning our legislators,

Controversy exists over whether marijuana should be legal- ized for the limited use of pain relief and nausea control for seriously ill individuals, including cancer patients and those individuals suffering from AIDS. Many medical professionals have testifi ed in state and federal hearings that they believe that marijuana is more effective and has fewer side effects than other forms of legal pain relief. Others dispute the fi nd- ings. There has been a move recently in several states to pass medical marijuana laws that allow for limited use of small amounts of marijuana if it is medically prescribed.

Laws The federal government’s drug laws do not make an excep- tion for the medical use of marijuana. California passed a law allowing medical uses of marijuana to be regulated but decriminalized. The Supreme Court held that the federal laws “trumped” California law. As of 2010, there are 10 states that have passed some version of a medical marijuana law, allow- ing for some limited prescription of marijuana, but federal laws against any use still remain.

Policy Federal drug offi cials under President George W. Bush made it clear that they would enforce the federal laws against doc- tors and medical co-ops that distribute marijuana. In a new development, after President Obama took offi ce, the Justice Department has indicated that they will not pursue these types of cases in states that have laws allowing for the use of medically prescribed marijuana. This constitutes a substan- tial change in policy for the Justice Department.

Individual ethics Doctors, and others, must decide whether to violate the fed- eral law regulating the use of marijuana, even if they happen to be in a state that has passed a medical use law. Personal ethical systems determine whether these individuals will risk arrest for their actions. Personal ethical systems may also in- fl uence individuals to seek a change in the law (in either di- rection) to match their own personal views on the issue (see Raich v. Ashcroft, 248 F.Supp. 2d 918 [N.D. Cal. 2003]; also see www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/).

Medical Use of MarijuanaPOLICY ISSUES

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1546429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 15 11/1/10 8:37:25 PM11/1/10 8:37:25 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

1 6 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

marching in demonstrations, and working to pass (or overturn) laws are examples of act-

ing on our moral beliefs. Personal ethical dilemmas arise when the individual is forced to

choose between two or more behaviors. In applied ethics texts, various authors set out

the steps to take when facing ethical dilemmas. For instance, Ruggiero (2001) advises us

to study the details of the case, identify the relevant criteria (obligations, ideals, conse-

quences), determine possible courses of action, and decide which is the most ethical.

Here are the steps we will use throughout this book to clarify any dilemma:

1. Identify the facts. Make sure that one has all the facts that are known—not future pre- dictions, not suppositions, not probabilities.

2. Identify relevant values and concepts. Concepts are things that cannot be proven empirically.

3. Identify all possible moral dilemmas for each party involved. This can help us see that sometimes one’s own moral or ethical dilemma is caused by others’ actions. For in-

stance, a police offi cer’s ethical dilemma when faced with the wrongdoing of a fellow

offi cer is a direct result of that other offi cer making a bad choice. It is helpful to see all

the moral issues involved to be able to address the central issue.

4. Decide what is the most immediate moral or ethical issue facing the individual. This is always a behavior choice, not an opinion. For example, the moral issue of whether

abortion should be legalized is quite different from the moral dilemma of whether

I should have an abortion if I fi nd myself pregnant. Obviously, one affects the other,

but they are conceptually distinct.

5. Resolve the ethical or moral dilemma by using an ethical system or some other means of decision making. (Ethical systems will be discussed in Chapter 2.)

Let us refer to the dilemma, at the beginning of this chapter, of the correctional offi cer

who must decide what to do about the possible beating he observed.

1. This offi cer has to make sure that he has all the facts. Was the inmate hurt? Did his

injuries occur during the time the two other offi cers were in his cell? Is the offi cer sure

that no one reported it? Would the inmate come forward if he believed that someone

would testify against the other two offi cers, or would he deny the assault (if there was

one)? What other facts are important to know? Remember that facts are those things

that can be proven; however, this does not necessarily mean that the individual facing

the dilemma knows what the facts are.

2. The offi cer might examine the relevant values. In this situation, one can identify duty,

legality, honesty, integrity, safety, protection, loyalty, self-preservation, and trust. Are

any other values important to resolve the dilemma? Concepts also are important. They

are like values in that they are not susceptible to empirical proof, but they are not nec-

essarily values. Although this dilemma may not have any relevant concepts, others

do. For instance, the issue of abortion revolves around the value of life, but it is also a

concept in that there is no proof of when life begins or ends (although there are facts

regarding respiration, brain activity, etc.). Many arguments surrounding ethical issues

are really arguments about concepts, not necessarily values or ethical judgments.

3. Several ethical issues come into play here. The first is whether the other officers

should have entered the prisoner’s cell. There is probably an earlier issue involving

whatever the prisoner did to warrant the visit. There is obviously the issue of whether

the offi cer should have let off-duty offi cers into the cell in the fi rst place. Finally, there

is the issue of what the offi cer should do now that he believes an injustice may have

taken place.

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1646429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 16 11/1/10 8:37:26 PM11/1/10 8:37:26 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 1 7

4. The most immediate dilemma for the offi cer is whether or not to come forward with

the information.

5. To resolve the dilemma, it is helpful to work through Chapter 2 fi rst because one way

to resolve ethical dilemmas is to decide on an ethical system. If the offi cer was a utili-

tarian, he would weigh the costs and benefi ts for all concerned in coming forward and

in staying quiet. If he followed duty-based ethics (ethical formalism), he would fi nd

the answer once he determined his duty.

C O N C L U S I O N

In this chapter, we defi ned the terms morals and ethics as both relate to standards of behavior. We explained why a study of ethics is especially important to criminal justice profes-

sionals. It also was noted that not all behaviors would be subject to ethical j udgments—only

those that are performed by humans who are acting with free will and that affect others.

Scott Waddle was the captain of the U.S.S. Greenville in 2001, a former Eagle Scout whose career in the Navy saw

a steady progression of successes resulting in his com-

mand of the Greenville. A tireless promoter of the Navy and the giant submarine he captained, Waddle sent au-

tographed pictures of the sub to schoolchildren, and he

enthusiastically participated in the “distinguished visi-

tor” program, which allowed civilians to accompany the

submarine crew on cruises.

During one of these public relations cruises, on

February 9, 2001, the submarine captain gave the order

for an “emergency blow,” a maneuver in which the sub-

marine comes up out of the depths at great speed, break-

ing the surface of the water like a breaching whale before

settling back onto the surface. In a tragic accident, the

probabilities of which boggle the mind, the submarine

came up under a Japanese trawler carrying students and

their teachers, as well as a crew. The submarine smashed

it to bits and sent the crew and passengers who survived

the initial impact into the ocean. The accident killed nine

people and cost more than $100 million in damages and

compensation costs.

The ensuing investigation and testimony deter-

mined that the person in charge of the radar deferred to

Waddle’s visual inspection of the surface and didn’t tell

him of a sonar contact that was within 4,000 yards. Wad-

dle and other officers who manned the periscope had

scanned the surface too quickly and missed the small

ship in the turbulent swells. Testimony indicated that

W A L K I N G T H E W A L K

Sources: Hight, 2005; Putman, 2008; Newsweek, 2001.

after the crash Waddle grimly kept the crew focused,

and instructed them over the intercom, “Remember

what you saw, remember what happened, do not em-

bellish. Tell the truth and maintain your dignity.”

Against his lawyer’s advice, Waddle gave up his

right to silence in the military tribunal that was held to

assess whether to court martial him. He was reported to

have said, “This court needs to hear from me—it’s the

right thing to do.” In his testimony, he refused to shift

responsibility to others and accepted all blame for the

accident. He said, “I’m solely responsible for this truly

tragic accident, and for the rest of my life I will have to

live with the horrible consequences.”

A father of one of the victims was sitting in the

room when Waddle testified, and his anger was over-

come by Waddle’s tearful apology. Waddle ultimately

accepted a letter of reprimand that ended his career

with the Navy. Then he went to Japan to apologize to

the victims’ families personally.

In the aftermath of his decision to testify and not

fi ght to keep his career, Waddle reported that he con-

sidered suicide, but he moved past his shame and guilt.

Today he gives speeches on the experience and advises

others of the importance of dealing with failure hon-

estly, one of which was to a Boy Scout awards ceremony

in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Speaking to the 500 attend-

ees, he said that the values of honesty and responsibility

he learned in Scouting helped him make the decisions

he did during the aftermath of the accident.

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1746429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 17 11/1/10 8:37:26 PM11/1/10 8:37:26 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

1 8 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

Professional ethics deals with only those behaviors relevant to one’s profession. We make

ethical judgments (what we consider right and wrong) using rationales derived from histor-

ical and traditional ethical systems. These ethical systems will be described in Chapter 2.

The most important thing to remember is that we all encounter situations where we

must determine the ethical or moral course of action among several choices. In the boxes

throughout the book titled Walking the Walk, we will offer real-life examples of individuals

who faced ethical dilemmas. It is clear that in many of these situations, the easier decision

would have been to avoid responsibility, transfer blame, hide behind rationalizations, or

refuse to stand up for what is right. By becoming aware of those who uphold ethics in their

professional decision making, we can honor them for doing what is right.

This chapter closes with a chapter review, followed by study questions to answer in

class or in a journal. These can be helpful to check your understanding of the issues. These

are followed by writing/discussion exercises, which have no right or wrong answers and

can be the basis for classroom discussions or individual writing assignments. Finally, ethi-

cal dilemmas are presented to encourage the reader to practice ethical analysis.

C H A P T E R R E V I E W

1. Give examples of how discretion permeates every phase of the criminal justice system

and creates ethical dilemmas for criminal justice professionals.

Discretion can be defined as the power and authority to choose one of two or more

alternative behaviors. At each stage of the criminal justice system, professionals have such

discretion: legislators make decisions regarding the creation of laws, police make decisions

on the street in their enforcement of those laws, prosecutors make decisions about which

arrests to formally prosecute, judges make decisions about which evidence to allow, and

correctional professionals make decisions that affect the lives of offenders.

2. Explain why the study of ethics is important for criminal justice professionals.

First, we study ethics because criminal justice is uniquely involved in coercion, which

means there are many and varied opportunities to abuse such power. Second, almost all

criminal justice professionals are public servants and, thus, owe special duties to the public

they serve. Finally, we study ethics to sensitize students to ethical issues and provide tools

to help identify and resolve the ethical dilemmas they may face in their professional lives.

3. Learn the defi nitions of the terms morals, ethics, duties, superogatories, and values.

The terms morals and ethics come from Greek and Latin words referring to custom or behavioral practices. Morals refer to what is judged as good conduct. Ethics refers to the

study and analysis of what constitutes good or bad conduct. Duties are obligatory acts (by

law, practice, or morals). Superogatories are those acts that go above and beyond duties.

Values are statements of worth or importance.

4. Describe what behaviors might fall under moral/ethical judgments.

Behaviors that can be adjudged under moral criteria are those that are acts (not thought),

committed by humans (not animals), of free will (not by those judged as incompetent),

and that affect others.

5. Explain the difference between ethical issues and ethical dilemmas.

Ethical issues are broad social questions, while ethical dilemmas are situations in which

one person must make a decision that can be judged as right or wrong, and where what is

right is diffi cult to decide or is hard to do for some other reason.

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1846429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 18 11/1/10 8:37:26 PM11/1/10 8:37:26 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 1 9

K E Y T E R M S applied ethics

discretion

duties

ethical dilemmas

ethical issues

ethics

imperfect duties

meta-ethics

morals

normative ethics

professional ethics

superogatories

values

wholesight

S T U D Y Q U E S T I O N S

1. Defi ne a public servant and why public servants should be especially sensitive to ethi-

cal issues.

2. Discuss Felkenes’s reasons for why it is important for criminal justice professionals to

study ethics.

3. Defi ne morals, ethics, values, duties, superogatories, imperfect duties, meta-ethics, nor- mative ethics, and applied ethics.

4. What are the four elements that specify the types of behaviors that are judged under

ethical criteria? Which groups traditionally have been exempt from legal and moral

culpability? Why?

5. What are the steps in analyzing an ethical dilemma?

W R I T I N G / D I S C U S S I O N E X E R C I S E S

1. Write an essay about (or discuss) a diffi cult ethical dilemma that you faced. What was

it? What were the options available to you? Who was affected by your decision? Were

there any laws, rules, or guidelines that affected your decision? How did you make

your decision?

2. Write an essay (or discuss) whether public servants should be held to higher standards

than the rest of us. Touch on the following questions in your response: Should we be

concerned about a politician who has extramarital affairs? Drinks to excess? Gambles?

Uses drugs? Abuses his or her spouse? What if the person is a police offi cer? A judge?

Should a female police offi cer be sanctioned for posing naked in a men’s magazine,

using pieces of her uniform as “props”? Should a probation offi cer socialize in bars

that his or her probationers are likely to frequent? Should a prosecutor be extremely

active in a political party and then make decisions regarding targets of “public in-

tegrity” investigations of politicians?

3. Write an essay (or discuss) the issue of the medical use of marijuana. What do medical

studies indicate regarding whether or not it is necessary or the best medical alternative

for certain patients? What do critics argue in their opposition to the medical use laws?

If you or a loved one were suffering and someone told you that marijuana could ease

your pain, would you violate the law or not? Why?

E T H I C A L D I L E M M A S

Situation 1

A rich businessman’s daughter, Patty, had the best of everything all her life. Her future

would have included college, a good marriage to a successful young man, and a life of

comparative luxury—except that she was kidnapped by a small band of radical extremists

who sought to overthrow the government by terror, intimidation, and robbery. After being

raped, beaten, and locked in a small, dark closet for many days, continually taunted and

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 1946429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 19 11/1/10 8:37:26 PM11/1/10 8:37:26 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

2 0 P A R T I | E t h i c s a n d t h e C r i m i n a l Ju s t i c e S y s t e m

threatened, she was told that she must participate with the terrorist gang in a bank robbery;

otherwise, she and her family would be killed. During the course of the robbery, a bank

guard was shot.

Was her action immoral? What if she had killed the guard? What if the terrorists had

kidnapped her mother or father, too, and told her if she didn’t cooperate, they would kill

her parents immediately? What would you have done in her place? (Readers might rec-

ognize this dilemma as the Patty Hearst case. In 1974, the Symbionese Liberation Army,

a terrorist group, kidnapped the daughter of Randolph Hearst, the tycoon of a large news-

paper chain. Her subsequent capture, trial, conviction, and prison sentence have been

portrayed in books and movies and provide ripe material for questions of free will and

legal and moral culpability.)

Situation 2

You are taking an essay exam in a college classroom. The test is closed-book and closed-

notes, yet you look up and see that the person sitting next to you has hidden under his

blue book a piece of paper fi lled with notes, which he is using to answer some questions.

What would you do? Would your answer change if the test was graded on a curve? What if

the student were a friend? What would you do if the student was fl unking the course and

was going to lose the scholarship he needed to stay in school? What about a situation of

plagiarism? Would you turn in a student if you knew they turned in a plagiarized paper?

Why or why not? If someone cheats in school, isn’t it likely that they will be less honest as

a criminal justice professional?

Situation 3

You are selected for a jury in a trial of a 64-year-old mother who killed her two adult sons.

The two men had Huntington’s disease, a degenerative brain disease, and were institution-

alized. They were certain to die and would endure much pain and suffering before they

expired. The defendant’s husband had died from this same disease, and she had nursed

him throughout his illness until his death.

The defendant took a gun into the nursing home, kissed her sons good-bye, and then

shot them both through the head. She was arrested for fi rst-degree murder. The prosecutor

informs you that there is no “mercy killing” defense in the law as it is written.

If you were on the jury, how would you decide this case? What punishment does she

deserve? (See “Justice Tempered with Mercy,” by K. Ellington, Houston Chronicle, January 30, 2003: 10A. The prosecutor accepted a plea of guilty to assisting suicide.)

Situation 4

You are completing an internship with a juvenile probation agency and truly have enjoyed

the experience. Although working with the kids is challenging, you see many rewards in

the job, especially when you sense that you are reaching a client and making a difference.

Mr. Childers, the probation offi cer with whom you work, is less optimistic about the kids

and operates in a strictly by-the-book legalistic manner. He is burned out and basically

does his job without getting too involved. Although you respect him, you know you would

approach the clients differently if you were to be hired full-time.

One weekend, you are out with friends in a downtown bar frequented by college stu-

dents. To your surprise, you see Sarah, a 16-year-old probationer, dancing. In watching

her, you realize that she is drunk and, in fact, is holding a beer and drinking it while she is

dancing with a man who is obviously much older than she is. You go over to her, and she

angrily tells you to mind your own business and immediately leaves with the man. Later

she comes back into the bar and pleads with you to keep quiet. She is tearfully apologetic

and tells you that she already has had several violations of her probation and at the last

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 2046429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 20 11/1/10 8:37:26 PM11/1/10 8:37:26 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE

C H A P T E R 1 | M o r a l i t y, E t h i c s , a n d H u m a n B e h a v i o r 2 1

hearing was told that if she has one more violation, she will be sent to a juvenile detention

center. You know that Sarah has been doing much better in school and plans to graduate

and even go to college.

On Monday morning, you sit in Mr. Childers’s offi ce. What should you tell him?

Situation 5

All your life you have played by the rules. When you went to college, you studied hard

and didn’t party to the extent that it hurt your grades. During your senior year, you began

to make plans to graduate and begin your career. One Friday night, you were in a car with

four other students heading home from a bar. Before you knew what happened, the car

was hit head on, and all of you were injured seriously. You now are paralyzed and face the

rest of your life in a wheelchair. The car that hit you was driven by a drunken student who,

coincidentally, was in several of your classes. Several days after you return home from the

hospital, he wants to see you. Despite your anger, you do see him, and he begs for your

forgiveness. He breaks down and cries and tells you that he had never done anything like

that before and wishes he were dead.

Can you forgive him? When he is prosecuted, what would your sentence recommen-

dation be? Would your answers be different if someone had died? What if he had prior

drunk-driving incidents? What if he also had committed other crimes and was not a fellow

college student?

46429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 2146429_01_ch01_p001-022_pp2.indd 21 11/1/10 8:37:26 PM11/1/10 8:37:26 PM

NO T F

OR SA

LE