The Importance of Ethics in Criminal Justice
1.0 Introduction
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy concerned
with the study of questions of right and wrong and how we ought to live. It is in
this regard that Peter Singer (1995:174) wrote that:
To live ethically is to think about things beyond one’s own
interests. When I think ethically I become just one being,
with needs and desires of my own, certainly, but living
among others who also have needs and desires.
Ethics involves making moral judgments about what is right or wrong, good or
bad. Right and wrong are qualities or moral judgments we assign to actions and
conduct. Within the study of ethics, there are three branches: metaethics,
concerned with methods, language, logical structure, and the reasoning used in
the interpretation of ethical terms, for example, what exactly does the term
“good” mean; normative ethics, concerned with ways of behaving and
standards of conduct; and applied ethics, concerned with solving practical
moral problems as they arise, particularly in the professions, such as medicine
and law. Ethics provides us with a way to make moral choices when we are
uncertain about what to do in a situation involving moral issues. In the process
of everyday life, moral rules are desirable, not because they express absolute
truth, but because they are generally reliable guides for normal circumstances
(Singer 1995: 175).
2.0 Objectives
The focus of this unit is on normative and applied ethics, particularly the
exploration and analysis of ethical dilemmas and conflict situations that arise
within the criminal justice system.
3.0 Main body
The Value of Ethics
The question usually is why do we need to study ethics? One view is that if we
need to make a decision about a dilemma that confronts us, we can do so
without any knowledge of ethics. From this perspective, ethics is too abstract
and theoretical and is not related to the practical world. Another view is that we
need a system of rules and principles to help guide us in making difficult
decisions when moral issues arise. If we cannot draw upon an ethical
framework, we have to rely on emotion, instinct, and personal values, and these
cannot supply an adequate answer to moral dilemmas. Among the reasons
commonly given for studying ethics are the following:
1. Ethical considerations are central to decisions involving discretion, force,
and due process that require people to make enlightened moral judgments.
2. Knowledge of ethics enables a person to question and analyze assumptions
that are typically not questioned in areas of activity like business and
politics. Questioning the criminal justice system should also be
encouraged. This includes raising issues regarding such topics as the
relationship between crime and justice, the role of law enforcement, the
place of punishment, the limits of punishment, the authority of the state, the
proper function of prisons, fairness in the workplace through creating a safe
working environment, and equal opportunity.
3. The study of ethics increases sensitivity to issues of right and wrong and
the right way to conduct oneself, and aids in identifying acts that have a
moral content.
4. Only through studying ethics is it possible to define unethical behaviour. A
full understanding of ethical behaviour demonstrates that it includes not
only “bad” or “evil” acts, but also inaction that a llows “bad” or “evil” to
occur.
5. It is important to have the capacity to point to moral reasoning in justifying
behaviour , and the study of ethics develops that capacity.
6. It is crucial that ethical decisions are made, and the study of ethics enables
the development of tools that enhance ethical decision making.
7. Training in critical ethics helps to develop analytical skills and reasoning
abilities needed to understand the practical as well as the theoretical aspects
of the criminal justice system (Felkenes 1987).
8. Understanding ethics enables an appreciation of the complexities of acts
that involve ethical issues and dilemmas.
9. Without knowledge of ethics, criminal justice professionals may be naïve
about moral issues occurring within the criminal justice system.
10. The study of ethics helps criminal justice professionals quickly recognize
the ethical consequences of various actions and the moral principles
involved.
11. Within the criminal justice system, ethics is germane to most management
and policy decisions relating to punishment and is the rationale used in
making these decisions, such as whether to rehabilitate, deter, or impose
just deserts. Examples of such management and policy issues include
whether it is ethical to force someone to attend a treatment program against
his or her will, and, given that the system of punishment is based on
rehabilitation, whether it is ethical to send an offender to jail and not offer
treatment programs to help him or her change behaviour in order to regain
freedom (Felkenes 1987).
12. The criminal justice system comprises professionals who exercise power
and authority over others, and who in some cases are authorized to use
force and physical coercion against them. The law, or accepted standards of
behaviour, impose ethical rules and responsibilities on these professionals.
It follows that professionals in the criminal justice system must be aware of
ethical standards in carrying out their functions. Ethics is crucial in
decisions involving discretion, force, and due process, because criminal
justice professionals can be tempted to abuse their powers (Felkenes 1987).
In this unit, the value of the study of ethics by criminal justice professionals
will become apparent as the criminal justice system is analyzed to reveal
how decision makers sometimes fail to make the “right” choices, or
deliberately act unethically in carrying out their functions. It will become
clear that studying and applying ethics is a prerequisite for any competent
criminal justice professional.
Normative Ethics
Normative ethics is fundamental to ethical decision making in the criminal
justice system. A central notion in normative ethics is that one’s conduct must
take into account moral issues; that is, one should act morally, using reason to
decide the proper way of conducting oneself. Essentially, ethics, in prescribing
certain standards of conduct, gives us a way of making choices in situations
where we are unsure about how to act. What are these standards of conduct and
how do we decide what is right and wrong? Some argue that because standards
of conduct and ways of doing things differ from society to society, there can
never be one single standard for all people everywhere, and that we must make
ethical decisions based on each situation. This approach to setting standards of
conduct is called ethical relativism. Others argue that one set of ethical
standards applies across all societies, and people have an obligation to do what
is “known to be right”; that is, they argue in favo ur of ethical absolutism.
Ethical Relativism
Ethical relativists argue that what is morally right or wrong may vary in a
fundamental way from person to person or from culture to culture. In other
words, as Arrington (1983) argues, we cannot simply say that a moral judgment
is true for all purposes, persons, and cultures—we can assert only that it is true
for a particular person or social group. Relativism does not mean that we
cannot criticize people of other cultures on moral grounds, but it does mean
that when we say that a person in another culture did wrong or acted
immorally, we must judge that person by the standards of that culture and not
by our own (Cook 1999: 35). In other words, there are objective moral
standards as long as right or wrong are used relatively. Holmes (1998: 163–
164) discusses three forms of ethical relativism: ethical relativism, cultural
relativism, and extreme or individual relativism. Ethical relativists agree that
there is moral right and wrong, but contend that what is right for one person or
culture may be wrong for another. Cultural relativism is a form of relativism
that claims that moral beliefs and practices vary from culture to culture. It is
important to understand, however, that cultural relativists do not argue that
certain acts or practices are right or wrong in a particular culture. They simply
note the differences. Extreme or individual relativism takes the position that
moral beliefs and practices vary from person to person. In contrast to ethical
absolutists (see the following section “Ethical Abs olutism”), ethical relativists
draw attention to factors such as moral diversity among different cultures, the
varying state of morals in a particular society at different historical periods, and
the fact that at any given time there is a high degree of moral disagreement
within a particular culture. One example is the moral disagreement in the
United States concerning abortion (Bunting 1996: 73).
Cultural Relativism
The proponents of cultural relativism argue that every society has a different
moral code explaining what acts are permitted or not permitted. They argue
that we cannot judge one moral code as being superior to another because there
is no objective standard to apply to make such a judgment. In other words, the
moral code that we, in the United States, subscribe to is not special; it is simply
another moral code among many. If the moral code of a particular society
determines that a certain act is right, then the act is right within that society. It
is not for us to judge other people’s conduct in other societies. We should be
tolerant and avoid being judgmental. At first, the notion of cultural relativism
seems to reflect the way many of us see the world; for example, we believe in
tolerance and understanding and we recognize diversity in society. However,
there are a number of objections to cultural relativism that show it cannot be
viewed as a viable approach to ethical issues, including the following:
• There is the problem of identifying what constitu tes a culture or society. For
example, it is easy to imagine an isolated tribe in a far-off country as a separate
culture with its own ethical standards and rules, but what of American culture?
Although we may think of American culture as homogeneous, it is very diverse
because many languages are spoken within it, and the various ethnic groups
that make up American society may well maintain their own ethical standards
of conduct, which differ from those of the dominant culture.
• If this difficulty in identifying a culture or so ciety exists, then it is easy to see
that we may end up in a position where our own individual values, family
background, education, or religion can determine ethical standards. In other
words, cultural relativism can become transformed into a matter of individual
ethics (individual relativism), where each person can claim that his or her moral
standards are those that should apply to society and others.
• Cultural relativists are not able to explain whic h ethical standards should
apply when cultures overlap. Cultures are no longer totally isolated from each
other, and it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid interacting with other
cultures. This raises the problem of deciding whose ethical standards are to
apply.
• In all societies, standards of conduct change ove r time, and the cultural
relativist is faced with the problem of acknowledging these changes while
arguing that morality is relative to a culture. However, which values in which
historical period should apply? On the face of it, the values applying in all
periods have equal validity. For the cultural relativist, therefore, there is no
overall standard to apply.
• A major problem with cultural relativism is that it operates as moral
isolationism. This means that arguing that everything is relative tends to
suggest this must be the end of the issue and debate must stop. It also suggests,
in the view of Carol Gilligan (in Hinman 1998: 55), an attitude of “couldn’t
care less” because when we say that all things are relative, we are really saying
we don’t care about them. Therefore, cultural relativism fails to provide us with
answers to issues, and in fact tends to close off debate altogether. Cultural
relativism is closely associated with anthropology, and some even refer to it as
an anthropological theory. Some philosophers argue that cultural relativism is
in fact a methodology that requires that they adopt a nonjudgmental framework
toward the culture they study, and therefore, as a methodological practice only,
cultural relativism does not involve moral relativism (Cook 1999: Chapter 7;
Ladd 1973: 2). However, other philosophers contend that cultural relativism
contains elements of both methodology and a value system (Womack 1995:
48).
Ethical Absolutism
This view argues that there exists an eternal and unchanging moral law, the
same for all people, at all times and places (Holmes 1998: 165). The absolutist
believes that certain moral principles apply to all people everywhere, and that
people can recognize or discover these principles and be guided by them in
deciding the nature of their own conduct and in judging the conduct of others.
Also, the ethical absolutist, being already aware of these principles, believes
himself or herself qualified to pass judgment on anyone (Cook 1999: 7).
Absolutism is considered valid regardless of thought and feeling. This position
is the opposite of relativism, in that there can be no consideration of other
perspectives because it is argued that there is only one “true” perspective. An
example of an absolutist position arises in arguments about capital punishment.
As Jonathan Glover (1999: 245) points out, two absolutist views prevail on this
question. One is emphatic that the murderer must be given the punishment he
or she “deserves,” which is death, and the other ca n see no justification for
“judicial murder” under any circumstances. An absol utist would not change
his or her view whether they opposed or supported capital punishment,
whatever arguments were put forward by either side. Among the questions that
arise from adopting an absolutist position include, “If t here are universally
accepted values, what are they?” and, “If universally accept ed values exist, do
they remain constant or do they change over time?” If th ere is disagreement
about moral issues between societies, then how should we act? On the one
hand, the ethical relativist will say we should not judge and there is no single
truth that applies across societies and cultures. On the other hand, the moral
absolutist will argue that one single truth must be applied across all societies
and cultures, regardless of beliefs and values. In favor of ethical relativism, it
can be said that it is correct in warning us against assuming that our ethical
standards represent some absolute standard, because many, although not all, of
our ethical standards apply only to our own society. Also, ethical relativism
teaches us the value of an open mind, of tolerance, and of understanding. One
way of resolving this disagreement about relative and absolute ethical standards
is the notion of ethical pluralism.
Ethical Pluralism
Ethical pluralism argues that in most situations there are many truths rather
than one single truth. Lawrence Hinman (1998: 67–68 ) contends that ethical
pluralism allows us to adopt four principles to resolve conflicts between
differing ethical standards. These principles are:
a. The Principle of Understanding: This requires that we fully understand
and appreciate the meaning of ethical standards found in another culture
from the perspective of that culture. For example, before making any
judgment about an issue such as female circumcision, we should possess
a full understanding of the history and cultural context of this practice as
it applies in the many societies in which it is performed. We should
recognize that a Western response to an issue of this nature is shaped
and constructed by our own cultural values.
b. The Principle of Tolerance: This means accepting the existence of
differences as opposed to denying any diversity in ethical standards.
This principle therefore rules out an approach based on ethical
absolutism.
c. The Principle of Standing Up Against Evil: Hinman argues that
understanding and tolerance ought not to lead us to a position where
“anything goes,” as the ethical relativists argue, but rather, we should be
prepared to stand up against what he calls “egregio us moral
wrongdoing,” especially when such conduct affects t he powerless and
the marginalized of the world. An example of this kind of moral
wrongdoing would be the crime of genocide, which is internationally
recognized as a crime against humanity.
d. The Principle of Fallibility: This principle argues in favor of our own
fallibility. We should always be prepared to learn from other cultures
and to have our own moral shortcomings exposed. Most countries have
prohibited capital punishment for children. However, in the United
States, the Supreme Court has declared that states have the right to
execute those as young as 16 years of age. The principle of fallibility
would argue that the United States and its Court may not have chosen
the correct ethical position on the issue of capital punishment and should
be prepared to listen to the reasoning and experience of the rest of the
world, which has outlawed it.
Other philosophers seem to agree with an approach that emphasizes ethical
pluralism, which Kane (1996: 14–16) calls “openness .” He stresses that a
pluralistic point of view only suggests the possibility that other views are correct,
but does not demonstrate that they are in fact correct. Pluralism challenges
absolute values, but does not rule out their possibility. We can be open and
tolerant to other points of view while still believing that some are better than
others, even while we believe that only one is correct. Openness does not imply
indifference; it only indicates recognition that we do not possess the truth and are
willing to learn from others and to search for truths beyond our own limited point
of view. Kane advocates an approach that assumes an attitude of openness to other
points of view to allow others to prove themselves right or wrong. Cook (1999:
169) suggests an approach that sets aside an argument based on tolerance and that
instead advocates taking cases one by one and examining them in light of the
details of each particular case. He therefore suggests that the question of whether
we ought to interfere with the practices of another culture is not a philosophical
question but a practical moral one. The examination of a particular case means
understanding the nature of the problem, what considerations would be relevant to
a solution, and what a “right solution” would be. This seems to parallel Hinman’s
point that there must be a full understanding of the cultural context of a particular
case before any attempt is made to resolve conflicts among differing ethical
standards.
Self Assessment Exercise
a. How is ethics defined?
b. Why is it important for criminal justice professionals to study ethics?
c. Explain how applying ethical approaches helps criminal justice
professionals make appropriate and “correct” decisi ons.
4.0 Conclusion
Ethics no doubt gives a broad perspective of human existence and diversity. It
broadens the minds provides professionals in security studies better understand
of how best to make moral choices when one is uncertain about what to do in a
situation involving moral issues. A firm grip of ethics is therefore necessary not
only in criminal investigation but also in law enforcement.
5.0 Summary
The focus of this unit is on normative and applied ethics, particularly
definitions, branches and values of ethics as a vital component in dispensing
judgement and for professionals in the criminal justice system. It examines
Normative Ethics as fundamental to ethical decision making with a central
notion that one’s conduct must take into account several moral issues; that is,
one should act morally, using reason to decide the proper way of conducting
oneself. It is in this view that one should expect that fundamentals differ from
persons and cultures. This brings about the concept of Ethical Relativism on
one hand and others such as the concepts of ethical Absolutism and pluralism
showing that there exists an eternal and unchanging moral law, the same for all
people, at all times and places vis-à-vis Ethical P luralists argument that in
most situations there are many truths rather than one single truth about morality
which should form the basis of life and decision making. .
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
Discuss the concept of Normative Ethics in relation with:
a. Ethical Pluralism
b. Ethical Absolutism
c. Ethical Relativism
7.0 References/ Further Reading
Arrington, R. 1983. “A Defence of Ethical Relativis m.” Metaphilosophy 14:
225–239.
Bunting, Harry. 1996. “A Single True Morality? The Challenge of Relativism.”
Pp. 73–85 in Philosophy and Pluralism, edited by David Archard. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cook, John. 1999. Morality and Cultural Differences. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Death Watch. 2002. “New Orleans: Recent History 199 6.” Retrieved January
28, 2002 (www. hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo93.htm).
CSS 442 Professional Ethics in Law Enforcement and Security Management
Felkenes, G. 1987. “Ethics in the Graduate Criminal Justice Curriculum.”
Teaching Philosophy 10(1): 23–26.
Glover, Jonathan. 1999. “Capital Punishment.” Pp. 2 45–253 in The Right
Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy (2nd ed.), edited by J.
Rachels. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Hare, R. M. 1987. “Moral Conflicts.” Pp. 205–238 in Moral Dilemmas, edited
by C. Gowans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hinman, L. 1998. Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt
Brace. Holmes, Robert. 1998. Basic Moral Philosophy (4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Kane, R. 1996. Through the Moral Maze: Searching for Absolute Values in a
Pluralistic World. Armonk, NY: North Castle Books.
Ladd, John. 1973. Ethical Relativism. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. “92nd death
row inmate freed since ’73: Louisiana.” January 5, 2001. New York
Times. Retrieved January 2002 (www.truthinjustice. org/no92.htm).
Rachels, J. 1991. “Subjectivism.” Pp. 432–441 in A Companion to Ethics,
edited by P. Singers. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Press.
Singer, Peter. 1995. How Are We to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Womack, Mari. 1995. “Studying Up and the Issue of C ultural
Relativism.” NAPA Bulletin 16: 48.
