Ethics criminal justice wk2 db
ismails95
12DutyandPrincople4.pptxDuty and Principle
(12) Ethics & the CJS
Prof M. Spencer & R.Boomhower
Incident Description
Terrence G. Clarke, 59, was arrested on June 16, 2015, for aggressive battery of an off-duty police officer working security at a restaurant in the Near North neighborhood of Chicago, according to police reports.
When the officer informed customers of the restaurant’s pending closure, Clarke became belligerent, yelled obscenities and threw a cup of cheese at the officer.
The officer declared his position and again requested for Clarke to exit or to face arrest.
Upon refusal to leave, Clarke resisted arrest and swung a chair at the officer, according to police reports.
Officer struck Clarke in the face and head with his right hand, which contained handcuffs.
Clarke was transported to the hospital where he was treated for head, face and eye injuries.
The officer experienced minor injuries. Incident begins at the start of this video.
Incident Description
Officers observed Lisa Simmons, 43, publicly drinking alcohol out of a plastic cup in the North Lawndale neighborhood of Chicago on July 12, 2014.
Three others were arrested: Jerome Simmons, 22, for public consumption of alcohol; Octavius Simmons, 23, for interfering with the arrest and Jeremiah Smith, 30, for the same offense.
Incidents occur at approximately (a) 30 seconds and (b) 1 minute and 10 seconds into this video.
Immanuel Kant
Morality depends upon following absolute rules
Ex. Lying is never right
Central issue: what ought I to do?
Attempts to develop maxims, rules and principles of actions that we should adopt
Actions possess moral worth only if they are performed in accordance with what he termed the “categorical imperative” and out of motive of duty
Motive of Duty
It is important not only to do what is right BUT to do it for the right reason or motive
Only motive with moral worth is the motive of duty
We do what is right because it is right and it is right because it is our duty
People who act from the motive of duty “have a good will”
Takes no account of the consequences of a particular act, of preference or of any theological framework
Motive of Duty
Moral person is one who acts from duty and not from inclination or simply in accord with duty
Ex: Refusing to commit suicide despite awful life
If it is out of duty – moral
If it is out of fear – not moral
Ex. Those who help others w/o motives of self interest or vanity VS those who help because of the pleasure they receive
Morality is a struggle – the moral strength of our will to overcome the temptations that might lead us to go against the moral law
Hypothetical & Categorical Imperatives
Hypothetical Imperatives
Course of conduct governed by the word “ought” that establish a pattern that we have a certain wish and recognize that a course of action will help us achieve it
If you want to achieve good grades, you will have to study hard
Categorical Imperatives
Commands and lays down a law
Such acts are unconditional
Should be helpful to ppl regardless of your particular wants and needs and desires
Two versions:
Principle of universality
Respect for all persons
The Principle of Universality
“act only according to the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
This can determine what one’s duty will be in a particular set of circumstances
Always behave as though your conduct were to become a universal law (applied to everyone)
Maxim – personal or subjective plan of action, incorporating the agent’s reasons for acting as well as a sufficient indication of what act the reasons call for
Usually a subjective rule:
Always be loyal to your friends
Test Your Maxim
Rational person tests his maxim before acting upon it
“the maxim of the act” – the rule you would be following if you were to do that act
Are you willing for that act to be followed by everyone (make it a universal law)?
If so, then it is permissible
NOT concerned with consequences
Ex: Borrowing money w/o ability to repay
Do you lie and say “yes I can repay it”?
Maxim would be: whenever you need a loan, promise to repay it even thought you know you will not be able to do so
As a universal law this would be self defeating
No one would believe promises to repay loans anymore
The categorical imperative binds rational agents because they are rational
A person who did not accept the categorical imperative would be not only immoral but irrational
A moral judgment must be bracketed by good reasons – it must be arrived at rationally
Can not say you accept the reason some of the time and not other times
Moral reasons require a consistent approach
Ex: Rule against lying
Categorical imperative because lying in any circumstances is “the obliteration of one’s dignity”
Lying as a universal law would be self defeating
All relations based on trust and honest would be unworkable
Respect for All Persons
“act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.”
Same idea as earlier version
Respect others because they are rational human beings like you
Respect should not be based on rank, talents, or moral goodness
Grounded in the dignity of humanity – a value possessed by everyone who has the capacity to be a moral agent
Humans have an intrinsic worth (or dignity) not enjoyed by other animals
Animals are a means to an end
We have a strict duty to promote the welfare of others and avoid causing them harm
RESPECT
We must never manipulate or use people to achieve our own purposes
Ex: Borrowing Money
Lie to friend you are manipulating her
Important in theories of democracy because it supports the notion that all people are created equal
Applies even to perpetrators of serious crimes who should not be seen as having forfeited that respect based in their crimes
FORCE
Use of force to protect oneself is a right and responsibility
Responding as such does not include a contemptuous attitude to the offender
Prefer he retreat peacefully and ultimately rejoin the community
Basic respect for human dignity can be seen in: fair trial, right to legal advice, appeals process, mitigating circumstance, prison conditions
Kingdom of Ends
Emphasis on this form of the categorical imperative is that when we act morally we fully choose our own moral decisions as autonomous moral agents
Should not allow our choices to be made for us by anyone – it compromises our integrity
Can not rely on society, government, religious leader to tell us what our moral decisions should be
Can not allow our decisions to be determined by our won desires, preferences or wishes
This would reduce all decisions about choices to acts of self love
This notion broke radically from the prevailing thought
During this time (17th & 18th Century) did not believe many people had the ability to know what was right without being told
Morality centered on obligations imposed by law and backed by threats of punishment
Conflicting Duties
What do you do when faced with two courses of action – both of which are held to be absolutely wrong??
Example - WWII
Dutch fisherman often smuggled Jewish refugees in their boats
When stopped asked if they had refugees?
Two choices:
Lie
Tell Truth (both would die)
In certain circumstances only one of these rules is absolute
Perhaps all moral rules should be treated as generalizations
In other words telling the truth is an obligation that should be kept provided there are no other overriding factors present.
Ross: refers to those obligations we are obliged to perform in the absence of any overriding factors as prima facie duties
Help others, keep promises, increase the welfare of others
No set of rules to determine which action is more important
Kantian moral theory – strict moral dilemmas are conceptually impossible
Solution is to go back and rethink the issue
Applying Deontological Theory
Rough Justice in a Juvenile Institution
Case Study 12.1
Scenario
Joe is a corrections officer in a juvenile detention center and works on a unit housing 15 young offenders, many of whom suffer mental health problems. Joe has worked at the institution for about 2 months, he feels comfortable with the job, he has been accepted by the other staff, and he admires them for the skills they show. He has not had any significant problems with the juveniles and is generally enjoying the work and is learning skills on the job.
It is lunchtime on Monday, and Joe is in the dining room supervising the juveniles as they eat their lunch. At one table sit six juveniles, one of whom is a 17-year-old named Brian who Joe thinks has a developmental disability. Brian displays offensive table manners, which on this day put Joe off his own meal. Brian keeps adding ketchup in vast quantities to every dish and slurping it from the plate. He also uses his hands instead of his fork, keeps talking while he is eating, and spits food across the table. Joe can see that the other juveniles are repulsed by this behavior in the same way that he is.
Joe is surprised to see his coworker, Daren, suddenly get up from the table, go over to Brian, grab him by the shirt collar, and move him away from the table. Daren takes Brian off to the kitchen and returns with a large mixing bowl. He then tells Brian to scrape out what is left of his meal into the bowl, and, taking Brian to the center of the dining room, he puts the bowl on the floor and tells Brian to eat. He tells him he has disgusting manners, and if he is going to eat like a dog at the table, he might as well get down on the floor like a real dog. He tells him to stay down there until he has licked his bowl clean.
Joe does not react to these events. Later, Daren explains to Joe and other staff members who were present that the reason he acted in that way with Brian was to shock him into understanding that his table manners were highly offensive. He thought that if he used “tough love” on Brian in that way, Brian would be less likely to alienate his co-detainees, and this might help him get through the experience of being in the institution.
Process of Resolving an Ethical Dilemma (CHP 1)
Is Joe faced with an ethical dilemma?
Joe is faced with the dilemma of whether to report Daren’s treatment of Brian. He might also consider whether he ought to have intervened to prevent Brian’s mistreatment.
What are the facts and circumstances of the incident?
Joe needs to review in his mind the facts and circumstances and perhaps write them down in the form of a report so that his memory of the events is quite clear.
What are the facts relevant to the decision he has to make? What are his own values about the issue, and what are the values of his workplace about such an issue?
The relevant facts are the following:
Joe has worked at the institution for only a short time.
He has confidence and trust in the experience and skills of other staff.
Brian may be mentally challenged or have a developmental disability.
Daren’s conduct toward Brian was certainly offensive and unpleasant to watch.
Daren’s conduct in relation to Brian was surprising to Joe.
Joe takes note of Daren’s explanation for his conduct.
Joe agrees with Daren that it is important for the juvenile detainees to get along with each other during their time in the institution. Joe is in sympathy with the juveniles detained at the institution and does not have a punitive attitude toward them. He believes his job is worthwhile, and he believes in professionalism in the workplace. In relation to the values of the workplace, he is aware because of his training that there is a code of ethics that regulates his conduct as a correctional officer; he is also aware of various departmental rules and regulations about how he is to conduct himself that make him responsible for the safety and well-being of those in his custody. Informally, he is aware of an institutional culture that he shares with his coworkers. This culture is complex, but it does stress loyalty and support for coworkers generally.
What ethical theories does he call to mind to assist him in resolving the dilemma?
In this case, Joe will apply deontological ethical theory to the dilemma.
What are Joe’s available courses of action?
Joe made no move to intervene at the time of the incident, so the time has passed for decision-making in relation to the actual incident. This leaves him with two alternatives: He can take no further action, or he can prepare a written report of the incident and give it to his supervisor.
Joe will make his decision after applying, in this case, the deontological approach to each alternative course of action, and he will choose the course of action that is the most ethically appropriate for him under deontology.
Deontological Evaluation
1. The focus is on the act, and therefore one must identify the act to be evaluated. The question must therefore be asked, what is the act?
There are two possible options: to report the incident or to do nothing.
2. What is the intention underlying the act?
In reporting the incident, the underlying motive is to protect Brian from any further injury, to protect other juveniles from the same kind of treatment, and to deter Daren and possibly other staff from taking such action again.
In doing nothing, the underlying motive is to support coworkers through a demonstration of loyalty and to agree with Daren that, on balance, Brian’s interests are better served by tough love treatment like this, so he can reform his behavior and have good relations with his co-detainees.
3. What duties are involved in this situation and to whom or what?
Joe and all juvenile workers have a duty to protect those in their custody from mistreatment. At the same time, Joe and his coworkers have a duty to support each other in carrying out their duties within the bounds set by ethical standards and departmental rules and regulations.
4. Do the duties conflict?
Yes, the duties conflict with each other, and this creates a problem under the deontological approach because Kant offered no way of resolving such conflicts other than to go back and rethink the ethical dilemma and the relevant duties.
5. Will this act show respect for the human dignity of everyone involved?
Reporting the matter will show respect for the dignity of Brian. Not reporting fails to show respect for the dignity of Brian because it condones a humiliating act and raises the possibility that Daren or others might do the same or similar acts in the future.
6. Will it use any person as a means to an end?
If Joe reports the incident, he is not using anyone as a means to an end, and in particular, he will not be using Brian or his colleague Daren in making that report because in the process he will be respecting their humanity and dignity.
If Joe does not report the incident, he will be using Brian as a means to an end because his end will be to cover up the incident and protect Daren; in doing this, he will be sacrificing the interests of Brian and his duties toward him.
7. Given that the act must follow the categorical imperative and therefore must be applied universally, can I will this act onto everyone?
If he reports the incident, the maxim would be that “I ought to protect juveniles in my custody from harm and mistreatment,” and he can will this maxim as a universal law.
If he does not report the incident, he cannot formulate any universal maxim. The reason for not reporting is either because Joe believes he has a duty to be absolutely loyal to his coworkers or because he accepts Daren’s explanation that this particular act was one of tough love and therefore was for the good of the juvenile. It is not possible to have a universal law of absolute loyalty to coworkers because this would allow any act, however harsh or barbaric, to be condoned. Tough love is often used as justification for conduct that is seen by the perpetrator as appropriate in the particular circumstances. Such conduct may vary from case to case. Since it lacks precise definition and because others may not agree with the perpetrator that it is appropriate conduct, it cannot stand as a universal law.
In all the circumstances, it is clear that the appropriate course of action for Joe, applying the deontological perspective, is to report the incident to his supervisor.
