Ethics in the Criminal Justice System

¶ … Queen v. Dudley, a group of sailors were hired to captain a yacht from Essex, England to Sydney, Australia. Dudley was the captain, and Stephens, Brooks, and Parker were his mates and seamen. When The Mignonette capsized, the four men climbed aboard the lifeboat dinghy but had no water or supplies. Several weeks into the ordeal, Captain Dudley suggested that one of the men be sacrificed as a food source for the others so that at least three of them might remain alive rather than having them all die.

Dudley first suggested they draw straws to see who would be chosen, but then decided that Parker, one of the seamen aboard, showed signs of sickness and would make an ideal candidate for sacrifice. Dudley killed Parker and the three other men ate Parker's body until they were rescued several days later. When the men returned home to England, they were treated like heroes and criminals at the same time. The Crown pressed charges of murder.

Parker's eldest brother openly shook hands with Dudley to show signs of support, and the jury seemed set to yield a verdict of not guilty. That was when the Crown intervened by invoking arcane rules of the court. The Queen v. Dudley case of 1884 shows how prosecutorial and judicial discretion can be abused.

In this case, "by way of a highly unorthodox procedure," a trial by jury was replaced by trial by tribunal, in which case five (obviously biased) judges meted out a decision contrary to that which the jury trial would have provided the defense. Lord Chief Justice Lord Coleridge used the Dudley case as his own political platform and moral pulpit, to espouse his views on whether killing Parker was a matter of self-preservation or not.

In the interests of promoting his own personal moral beliefs, Lord Chief Justice Lord Coleridge overstepped the boundaries of the law in a democratic system. It would have been interesting to know whether or not Coleridge would have overtaken the case had the jury been leaning towards a guilty verdict. Would Coleridge still have wanted his day in the limelight? Interestingly, the case closed with the defense being pardoned.

Coleridge was less interested in preserving the integrity of the system than he was in using the system to promote his own sense of moral righteousness. In the This American Life episode "Right to Remain Silent," Ira Glass discusses two separate cases. The first is that of Joe Lipari, a stand-up comedian who had an annoying experience at the Apple Store and who posted to Facebook about it. His speaking out led to a surreal militaristic response one would not typically associate with American values.

The second case is similar in the out-of-proportion response to Schoolcraft's whistleblowing-like activities in the police force. Ira Glass chose to discuss these two different cases together because they both refer to the ways that Constitutional rights like freedom of speech are not taken seriously. In both of these cases, the people involved were not overstepping the boundaries of the First Amendment. They were not using hate speech or anything that would have caused danger, although the issue with Joe Lipari was framed in such a way.

Lipari essentially "cried fire in a theater," which is one of the few ways that freedom of speech may be legitimately curtailed because is believed that false alarms can be extremely disruptive and an infringement on people's rights. In this case, Lipari posted what he believed to be a joke on Facebook. Lipari even quoted from a famous movie (The Fight Club) but no one involved in the case seemed to get the joke.

Because he was sarcastic and did not defer to intimidation by the cops, Lipari underwent months of traumatic ordeals with the justice system. The police never offered Lipari the benefit of the doubt, and even after they searched his apartment, deemed him to be a threat. This case illustrates "noble cause corruption," in which the police force perhaps did have a noble cause in preventing a madman from opening fire in an Apple Store, but did not use due diligence in examining the facts of the case.

Corruption is the result. The Schoolcraft case is just as appalling because the subject was an officer of the law who wanted to eliminate corruption in the police force. He recognized the illegal practice of arrest quotas, but had few allies willing to help him create meaningful change. Instead, he started to see that a culture of corruption had become part of the workplace. When it became apparent Schoolcraft was speaking with the Department of Internal Affairs, he was severely punished instead of creating a dialogue about police corruption.

The police were less interested in fighting crime than they were about making their numbers. Both this case and the case involving Lipari show how discretion in law enforcement is a power that can be abused. Law enforcement officials -- the people who make the decisions and who create the organizational culture -- abuse their power for political reasons. The scenario reflects "learning how to justify unethical conduct." Cops are rewarded for unethical behavior like making false arrests, and punished for ethical behavior like refusing to make false arrests.

From the values learned perspective, the issue of organizational culture in law enforcement is salient. Furthermore, the case shows how most law enforcement officers may be "predisposed" to the organizational culture. The predispositional perspective shows how Schoolcraft did not fit the organizational culture, wanted to change it for the betterment of society, and failed. The Michael Morton case is just as disturbing because it shows how prosecutorial discretion can be abused. In this case, the prosecution broke the law, committing prosecutorial misconduct by withholding evidence.

If the defense had been caught withholding evidence, there would have been serious consequences. Yet the prosecutor enjoys immunity, something that creates ethical conundrums like the one showcased in the Morton case. Morton spent an astonishing 25 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit, and which the prosecution knew he did not commit, simply because they wanted an easy arrest and conviction. The prosecutor violated many ethical standards: by lying and withholding evidence, as well as completely overlooking the consequences of their actions.

Moreover, the prosecutor's actions led to another person being killed by the actual murderer who went free initially. The only way to prevent such a thing from happening is by ensuring that all members of the prosecutorial team have some oversight, because evidence should not be so easy to withhold. The prosecutor should most certainly spend the rest of his life in jail.