Deception by Law Enforcement Officers

Deception has been utilized as one of the most valuable tools in investigative processes by law enforcement officers. This tool has been utilized in the criminal justice field for more than a century because of the view that its useful in helping investigative officers in uncovering the truth. As a result, investigative officers commonly utilize deception to conduct investigations, interrogations and in the testimonial process to help uncover the truth relating to the case/issue being investigated. However, the use of deception by investigating officers during investigation, interrogation and in the testimonial process has generated significant ethical concerns. Actually, this practice has generated two juxtaposing ethical behaviors that are characterized with significant ethical concerns in the criminal justice field. Investigative officers are encouraged and allowed to use deception and lie when carrying out investigations and interrogations in order to uncover the truth and eventually seek justice. This paper examines the ethics of deception by investigating officers with respect to the difference between deontological and ontological ethics.

Ethics of Lying
The use of deception by investigative officers during investigations, interrogations, and testimonial processes is an age-old practice in the criminal justice field. These officers are permitted and encouraged to use deception and lie in order to uncover the truth that will help in delivery of justice by the criminal justice system. This practice obtained significant relevance in the United States in 1969 in the Supreme court’s ruling in Frazier v. Cupp, a case that involved the interrogation of a homicide suspect. During the interrogation, the investigative officer lied to the homicide suspect that an accomplice has already implicated him in the murder. Due to the lie, the suspect was convinced to confess to the homicide (John E. Reid & Associates, n.d.). In its ruling in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of deceit and trickery by investigative officers during investigations and interrogations is permissible as long as it does not shock the court’s or community’s conscience. Moreover, the Court ruled that such trickery and deceit is allowed based on the totality of the surrounding circumstances and events. In the modern criminal justice system, investigative officers are not permitted by courts to use deception and lie, but are also trained to do that. Modern investigative officers can engage in deception to obtain the truth through using various techniques like undercover agents, wiretaps, and informants.
Even though the use of deception and lying remains an age-old practice in the criminal justice system, it has raised numerous ethical concerns. The major ethical issue/concern surrounding this practice is whether it’s ethical to lie or use deception to obtain the truth and whether the end justifies the means in that case. The ethical approach adopted by many people in the society is absolute moral rules in which lying is considered as unethical and unacceptable. However, absolute moral rules are not applicable in all situations because such rules could be utilized to harm others. For instance, if telling the truth would cause severe injury or death of another, lying could be considered acceptable because it would help save a life. Absolute moral rules are based on deontological ethics, which is based on the belief that why and how you do something is more important than its results (Bayley, 2010). In this regard, it would be unethical to lie to obtain the truth since lying is morally wrong and unacceptable.
However, ontological ethics provides a different perspective since its based on unity between the real and the ideal. In this regard, ethical decisions are made based on reason and to unite the real and ideal. In this scenario, the ideal thing would be for investigative officers not to lie or use deception. However, the real scenario is that the use of deception or lie by these officers help in obtaining the truth and ensuring justice is delivered. Therefore, it is ethical for investigation officers to use deception or lie in order to obtain the truth. This is the most suitable solution to this ethical issue because it provides the most suitable unity between the real and the ideal. The use of deception or lie by investigative officers should be limited to the purposes of obtaining the truth and delivering justice in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Frazier v. Cupp (1969). In essence, these officers are permitted to engage in excusable lies and justifiable lies that help towards obtaining the truth and deliver justice. Excusable lies are acts of deception that are not intended to cause harm or will generate little harm while justifiable lies are those that are geared towards obtaining the truth for justice purposes (Alpert & Noble, 2008).
Conflict Between Code of Conduct and How Law Enforcement is Conducted
Judicial acceptance of the use of deception by investigative officers generates questions on whether there is conflict between code of conduct and how law enforcement is usually conducted. The concerns on the likelihood of such a conflict is attributable to the ethical concerns associated with the judicial acceptance of deception and lies. In accordance with ontological ethics, there is no conflict between code of conduct and how law enforcement is carried out today. The role of law enforcement is to enforce the law and protect individuals and the community from potential harm brought by criminal activities. In this regard, police officers need to conduct their duties and responsibilities in a manner that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the society. Therefore, police officers utilize acceptable means that would help in achieving their objective of enforcing law and maintaining order.
One of the measures law enforcement officers utilize to achieve this goal is deception or lies for the purpose of justice and obtaining the truth. As previously shown, absolute moral rules may not be applicable in all scenarios, especially when the greater good of all is put into consideration. Therefore, there is no conflict between code of conduct and how law enforcement is conducted as long as measures undertaken by these officers focus on promoting the greater good of all through enforcing the law and maintaining order in the society. According to Ciske (2008), there are cases or situations where law enforcement officers are morally obligated to lie or use deception. The nature of law enforcement training and work requires them to utilize intellectual and moral abilities when conducting their work. This requirement implies that there is no conflict between code of conduct and how law enforcement is carried out today.
Physical Behavior and Nonverbal Communication in Detecting Deception
During investigation, interrogation and the testimonial process, investigative officers utilize various measures to obtain the truth in order to promote the delivery of justice. These measures include examining various issues including the suspect’s physical behavior and nonverbal communication. Physical behavior and nonverbal communication act as clues to deception and help in uncovering the truth. In this case, the investigator examines whether what’s being said is consistent with the physical behavior and nonverbal communication. As a result, physical behavior and nonverbal communication act as clues to deception or lying.
In conclusion, the use of deception and lies by investigative and other law enforcement officers is an age-old practice in the law enforcement and criminal justice field. These officers are permitted and even encouraged to utilize deception and lies in order to obtain the truth and help in delivery of justice. However, the issue has raised ethical concerns and questions, which has also contributed to concerns on whether there is a conflict between code of conduct and how law enforcement is really conducted. Based on ontological ethics, it’s quite clear that it is ethical to utilize lying or deception in order to obtain the truth and the end justifies the means, which implies that there is conflict between code of ethics and how law enforcement is conducted.
References
Alpert, G.P. & Noble, J.J. (2008, November 17). Lies, True Lies, and Conscious Deception. Police Quarterly, 1-18. Retrieved from https://www.nlg-npap.org/sites/default/files/AlpertandNobleLies.pdf
Bayley, B. (2010, February 12). Noble Cause Corruption: Do the Ends Justify the Means? Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/2003646-Noble-cause-corruption-Do-the-ends-justify-the-means/
Ciske, M. (2009, June 27). The Ethics of Police Deception. Retrieved from The Institute of Applied & Professional Ethics – Ohio University website: https://www.ohio.edu/ethics/1999-conferences/the-ethics-of-police-deception/index.html
John E. Reid & Associates. (n.d.). Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go? Retrieved November 10, 2017, from http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/1911-lying-to-a-suspect-how-far-can-an-investigator-go