Code of ethics: principles and applications

Corrections Ethics

First, I would not allow the employee to resign yet. The employee clearly shows remorse and is aware that his actions were related more to the stress in his personal life than to an ongoing problem in the workplace. After seven years of dedicated work, this employee deserves a second chance. The severity of the ethical infraction is low, meaning that the employee can remain with the county jail system. Moreover, the ethical codes of corrections officers are often relatively loose. For example, American Jail Association (2012) corrections officers pledge to maintain "a positive demeanor when confronted with stressful situations of scorn, ridicule, danger, and/or chaos." A "positive demeanor" can be interpreted in a number of ways. However, in this case, our officer did not maintain a positive demeanor and can be proven to have violated the code. The same officer upheld his oath to report "either in writing or by word of mouth to the proper authorities those things which should be reported," (American Jail Association, 2012). For this reason, it might be a good idea to transfer the employee to another institution, for his safety as well as for the morale of the inmates. This action is preferable to firing or letting go of a good employee.

Although the employee clearly crossed the line when he struck the inmate, the ethical codes of the corrections institution does permit a certain degree of leeway among correctional administrators in dealing with a situation of this type. The employee has proven himself to be exemplary and is well liked by peers. Allowing -- or even encouraging -- the officer to remain on the force also sends a good message. His example can be used to create an organizational culture whereby other corrections officers are willing and encouraged to come forward when they commit ethical infractions. If we want our correctional institutions to operate better, with greater accordance with our ethical goals, then the best thing to do is use this example as an opportunity for structural and normative change. We all know that corrections institutions are not run in strict accordance with ethical guidelines, which are often flagrantly disregarded in favor of a power structure that often infringes on inmate rights. Corrections officers cannot expect inmates to behave in ethical ways when officers themselves do not behave in accordance with our own ethical tenets.

According to the American Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (2000), the procedure under which I operate allows for a thorough review and encourages that the victim (in this case, the inmate) be taken into consideration. Therefore, proceedings might include respect for the inmate who was violated. His point-of-view should be taken into account. We must be careful not to discriminate by dehumanizing our inmates. Just because the individual is serving a term does not mean that his point-of-view should not be taken into account. If the inmate's testimony corroborates that of the employee's colleagues regarding his typical work ethic, then it is more likely we will keep on the employee. The inmate might even suggest that an apology would lead to forgiveness. However, the inmate might not substantiate the officer's stellar record, in which case a more thorough review might be in order.