Ethical Decision Making in Law

Ethical Decision Making in Law Enforcement Management

In general, ethical decision making in public policy and law enforcement involves right-versus-right decisions rather than right-versus-wrong decisions because all of the stakeholders involved represent valid and just objectives. In many respects, that makes public policy and law enforcement decisions more difficult than other types of decisions because ignoring a right is much more difficult than ignoring a right. Typically, these types of decisions must consider the interests and concerns of employees, citizens, and publicly elected officials.

Right-versus-Right Analyses

In principle, right-versus-right analyses incorporate four types of questions. First, the approach must consider the various identifiable consequences of every decision option, including the different types of consequences that affect different classes of individuals (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). In that respect, the second area of inquiry in right-versus-right analyses requires comparing the respective importance and magnitude of the full spectrum of conceivable outcomes associated with all possible corresponding decisions. That level of inquiry requires anticipating how the respective concerns and welfare of every stakeholder can be addressed within the framework of any given decision. The third element of right-versus-right decision making involves establishing a message capable of communicating the values that an organization hopes to represent, inspire, and emulate. The fourth and final element of right-versus-right decision making is an analysis of effectiveness in relation to stated strategic objectives (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

Employees

Within law enforcement, the most valuable commodity are the individuals who actually devote their lives to public service in a capacity that requires significant sacrifice and that often entails exposure to tremendously dangerous situations and circumstances. Naturally, right-versus-right decision making in connection with employees in law enforcement typically includes considerations of the safety of personnel as paramount in relative importance. However, in many instances, decisions that provide optimal (or maximal) personnel safety may not necessarily be the most practical decisions.

For one example, there is no question that two-man patrol vehicles provide a much higher level of safety for police officers in the field than single-occupancy patrol vehicles (Schmalleger, 2010). On the other hand, not every police agency is fortunate enough to have the necessary resources (including manpower, vehicles, and budget) to field a fleet of two-officer vehicles. They may have to balance the right of officer safety with the right of being able to fulfill the agency mission for the entire community served by and reliant on the agency for police services. Unfortunately, in those types of situations, the right of agency mission and obligations to the community outweighs the right of providing maximum security and safety for officers in the field and often requires those agencies to rely on single-officer patrol vehicles or to field such a small number of officers in the field at any given time that backup is often too far away to provide the level of security that would be desirable and optimal. Obviously, both concerns are right: it is right to provide the maximum safety for officers in the field and it is right to ensure that agencies can fulfill their missions to their entire dependent communities with their available budgets.

Citizens

Right-versus-right ethical analyses also frequently apply to issues involving citizens in myriad ways. In the last decade, the so-called "war on terrorism" in the United States in particular has generated intense debate in exactly that regard. The most common controversy that typically triggers right-versus-right ethical analysis in contemporary law enforcement is the balance between public safety on one hand and civil liberties on the other hand (Zalman, 2008). For example, virtually every element of heightened security measures necessitates a corresponding reduction in certain kinds of liberties that American citizens have come to expect in a free society. Both concerns represent rights: it is right to implement measures intended to protect the general public by thwarting potential terrorists; likewise, it is equally right to seek to preserve individual liberties in a society that has been built on valuing those liberties. Erring on the side of the former necessarily entails interfering with personal liberties. Erring on the side of the latter could very well result in the failure to protect the public from terrorism.

More generally, administrating police services involves continuously weighing right-versus-right issues. For another example, many police agencies have had to consider the relative value and importance of pursuing fleeing vehicles against the value and importance of public safety in relation to the risks to the public posed by high-speed vehicle chases on public streets (Schmalleger, 2010). Both interests are rights: it is right to pursue criminals fleeing from traffic stops and crimes; it is also right to avoid placing the public at risk of high-speed crashes. Many agencies have decided to limit chases to felony pursuits or to situations approved by supervisors precisely to try to accommodate both rights in some capacity that addresses both rights simultaneously (Schmalleger, 2010).

Politicians

In the proverbial perfect world, politicians would never have to choose between personal integrity and achieving their principal objectives. Ideally, they would be able to campaign based on expressing their beliefs without any equivocation or misrepresentation in any respect. While there are obviously numerous exceptions throughout recorded history as well as in contemporary politics, individuals who aspire to public office generally have beneficent motives. That is certainly a right. On the other hand, even the most benevolently-minded aspiring politician cannot hope to achieve any of his or her goals without getting elected. That is also a right.