Dnrc Scenario Conflicting Loyalties Ethics

DNRC Scenario

CONFLICTING LOYALTIES

Ethics or moral philosophy is about what is right or wrong, the basis of the choice we make each day and how we ought to live (Banks, 2004). Specifically, there is a need for a system of clear ground rules and principles to guide in making difficult decisions in moral issues and situations. Otherwise, these decisions will be drawn from emotion, instinct or personal values, which cannot adequately fare along in dealing with moral dilemmas. These dilemmas include the use of discretion, force, and the due process involved in rendering the correct and moral judgment on a situation. Ethics also sensitizes one to matters of right and wrong and the right way to behave as well as helps in identifying actions, which have moral shades. Although ethical standards are not concretely written down in the form of laws, they implicitly incorporate society's collective experience and expectations as regards behavior and choices with moral consequences. This is especially so when confronting a personal ethical dilemma when confronting ethical issues or situations. And this is especially pertinent to the criminal justice system, which confronts these issues and dilemma quite frequently (Banks).

Ethics and Undercover Investigation

Undercover investigation is a technique in which a detective assumes a role or performs surveillance (Gunter & Hertig, 2005). It is popularly known as secret service work, which aims at securing a close view of the closed social network of a criminal activity or organization. It is today used in workplace crime or street-level drug dealing and poses a problem when applied on concerted, organized criminal activity. Criminals can easily check the background of suspected detectives. These organizations also require formal or informal rites of passage, which require the commission of crimes by those being investigated. Undercover agents or detectives, with their training on the law and ethical principles, will not be able to comply with these requirements. They must always hide their identity and "live a lie." This stressful condition prevents them from working as underground agents for long and they thus fail to gain enough experience and expertise in the job (Gunter & Hertig).

The risks of undercover work are not the only concerns ingrained in it but also ethical conflicts (Heibutzki, 2013). Undercover detectives or agents must eventually destroy the friendships they initially build. Officers make friends with suspects only to witness against them in the courtroom. They also face the danger of succumbing to the corrupt practices of the organization under surveillance. And there too is the risk of losing one's identity and integrity through continued pretenses and impersonations (Heibutzki).

Authorized Criminality

Undercover investigation is secret or deceptive, covert policing (Joh, 2009). Oftentimes, the undercover detectives or police are led to participate in the criminal activities of the organization or network under surveillance. They do so in order to gather evidence or keep their secret identities. In such cases, their activities are not considered crimes but are a justifiable, if not also necessary, aspect of their undercover work. This practice of authorized criminality is a secret one and is unaccountable and opposed to certain democratic and ethical principles and premises. Authorized criminality permits police officers or detectives to engage in acts or conduct otherwise considered criminal outside of the investigation parameters. In covert operations such as undercover investigations, the detectives or police assigned are immune from prosecution as long as his actions and conduct fall within the pre-stated scope of their assignment. They are shielded from criminal liability by the legal justification called "the public authority defense (Joh)."

In answer to questions 1 and 2, therefore, detectives Underwood and Freeman may be allowed to commit necessary misdemeanors or felonies in order to keep their undercover status from being revealed and compromised by invoking authorized criminality.

Undercover police or detectives must engage in authorized crimes for two major reasons: to provide the suspects the change to engage in the target crime and to maintain a false identity or enhance access to the suspect (Joh, 2009). They may engage in the crime as long as their conduct fulfills or enhances the operations' objectives. The opportunities they provide are often crimes themselves if the authorization to commit them has not been previously given. The detectives provide opportunities by pretending to be drug users or illegal gun buyers in search of a willing seller. They participate in the organization's crime in order to maintain their status by convincing the criminals of their willingness to engage in the criminals' crime. It may not always calm suspicions but authorized criminality is only one of the tools available to undercover officers in their surveillance task (Joh).

Question number 3 asks if the undercover officers should be compelled to intervene in order to prevent crimes already known to them. Undercover operations are normally used as a first course of action instead of as a means when other courses fail (Joh, 2009). Sociologist and leading scholar of undercover policing Gary Marx enumerated the three different types of undercover investigations as surveillance as the most passive, preventive as the more active, and the facilitative as the most active and involving the police. The second type, prevention, seeks to stop or prevent an offense or make it difficult. The undercover agent will diffuse the crowd by arguing for non-violence, for example, or strengthening victims (Joh). This is more active than the first type, surveillance, which is the assignment given to the 2 undercover detectives. They are, thus, not compelled to intervene.