week 1 discussions

Chapter 2 moral judgements. Choose any 2 to answer discussion

Consider the following ten situations:

1. Should a police officer enforce traffic laws equally on all violators, or is he or she justified under a twisted interpretation of police discretion to apply selective enforcement in accordance with his or her personal values relating to the race, sex, or status of the violator?

2. Should a subordinate in a probation department be recommended for promotion, or otherwise denied, on the basis of loyalty to the “person” of the boss or being a member of an active “good old boys” clique?

3. Should a parole supervisor “cover up” information pertinent to an upcoming budgetary decision if the release of such information would be financially injurious to the division or unit the supervisor served?

4. Should a correctional official in charge of scheduling assignments at a prison unit “give a break” to a popular worker and arrange her schedule in such a way that she can attend classes at a nearby university while denying the same “break” to others?

5. Should an instructor at a training academy waive certain academic requirements to a “buddy” who served with her in a prior capacity or shared in a private enterprise they operated while off duty?

6. Should inmate “snitches” or police informants who provide crucial testimony to assist prosecutors in putting others behind bars receive lenient treatment, and perhaps even money, as a quid pro quo for their dubious contribution?

7. Should police officers be forced to submit to random drug testing whenever the supervisor deems necessary, even if the supervisor is known to be a drug user?

8. Should officials in a drug enforcement unit lie in their reports or falsify the numbers they submit to higher authorities or to the media to gain the upper hand in their effort to win the war on drugs in the community they serve?

9. Should governmental rules against nepotism be continued in such a manner that when two highly productive employees in the same department decide to marry each other, one of them must quit the job?

10. Should professors in criminal justice departments be allowed to do consulting work at the price of neglecting their classes and ignoring the needs of the students at the academic institutions they serve?

2 discussions 250 word minimum

Discussion 1

In Chapter 2 , the authors provide ten moral judgments faced by criminal justice professionals. Select two scenarios of your choice and discuss how to resolve each moral judgment with both deontological and teleological theories.

In your responses, challenge your peers’ conclusions by discussing alternative results using both theories. Explain how each theory might lead to a different conclusion.

Discussion 2

Police Commissioner (PC) Bob is appointed by Mayor Tom, who is up for reelection in a close race. PC Bob is very popular with the department and the public but will likely lose his position if the mayor loses the election. State law prohibits the mayor from knowingly accepting campaign contributions from corporations or employees whom the corporation directly solicits. PC Bob and the president of a large local corporation decide to solicit employee contributions and not tell the mayor.  The mayor notices that he is receiving an abnormally large number of employee contributions.

Discuss the conduct of PC Bob in soliciting the contributions and the mayor in accepting the contributions in relation to the Edwin Meese Syndrome, the Ethics of Public Service and the Ethics of Professionalism. In what way is the conduct justified, and in what way is the conduct not justified under each of these three ethical theories?

Chapter 2 moral judgements. Choose any 2 to answer discussion

Consider the following ten situations:

1. Should a police officer enforce traffic laws equally on all violators, or is he or she justified under a twisted interpretation of police discretion to apply selective enforcement in accordance with his or her personal values relating to the race, sex, or status of the violator?

2. Should a subordinate in a probation department be recommended for promotion, or otherwise denied, on the basis of loyalty to the “person” of the boss or being a member of an active “good old boys” clique?

3. Should a parole supervisor “cover up” information pertinent to an upcoming budgetary decision if the release of such information would be financially injurious to the division or unit the supervisor served?

4. Should a correctional official in charge of scheduling assignments at a prison unit “give a break” to a popular worker and arrange her schedule in such a way that she can attend classes at a nearby university while denying the same “break” to others?

5. Should an instructor at a training academy waive certain academic requirements to a “buddy” who served with her in a prior capacity or shared in a private enterprise they operated while off duty?

6. Should inmate “snitches” or police informants who provide crucial testimony to assist prosecutors in putting others behind bars receive lenient treatment, and perhaps even money, as a quid pro quo for their dubious contribution?

7. Should police officers be forced to submit to random drug testing whenever the supervisor deems necessary, even if the supervisor is known to be a drug user?

8. Should officials in a drug enforcement unit lie in their reports or falsify the numbers they submit to higher authorities or to the media to gain the upper hand in their effort to win the war on drugs in the community they serve?

9. Should governmental rules against nepotism be continued in such a manner that when two highly productive employees in the same department decide to marry each other, one of them must quit the job?

10. Should professors in criminal justice departments be allowed to do consulting work at the price of neglecting their classes and ignoring the needs of the students at the academic institutions they serve?