Ethics in law enforcement

Ethics Issues in Criminal Justice

Is profiling always wrong?

In a sense, police conduct criminal "profiling" all the time, because they observe behavior for what they have learned to consider "indicators" of criminal intent and conduct (Schmalleger, 2008). Profiling is only wrong when it is based on characteristics that have nothing to do with behavior, particularly in connection with race, ethnicity, and social status. Unlike behavioral profiling, those characteristics are not reasonably related to conduct and they constitute unfair persecution of individuals based on minority status (Schmalleger, 2008).

Is it possible to do a bad thing so you can get a good outcome?

In isolated circumstances, it is frequently possible to achieve good results through unethical means (Delattre, 2006). Typical examples would include police conducting traffic stops and searches without complying with the requisite standards of constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures. However, in terms of establishing public policies that provide the maximum benefit to society without jeopardizing the rights of the innocent, some of the same police conduct that is effective in isolated situations causes unacceptable negative consequences for society more generally (Delattre, 2006).

Why do cops go bad and what can be done to stop the slide?

Generally, police "go bad" in two major ways: (1) purposeful corruption for personal gain, and (2) procedural violations committed for the purpose of circumventing procedural requirements that they perceive as interfering with their responsibilities to enforce the law (Delattre, 2006). Preventing the first type of misconduct and corruption is largely a matter of eliminating any bad influences already on the job within any police agency and imposing strict hiring standards in relation to ethical character. Preventing the second type of misconduct is mainly a function of effective training and establishing an agency-wide culture of absolute compliance with technical requirements of law and policy even at the expense of desirable outcomes (Delattre, 2006).

Does the end ever justify the means?

It depends on the specific nature of the ends at issue. Violating the law and public policy for the purpose of achieving successful prosecution is never justified. On the other hand, where the ends involve preventing harm to human beings, implementing means that violate the law and public policy may sometimes be justified. For example, conducting an illegal search and seizure for the purpose of solving or prosecuting past crimes is never justified. However, the same illegal search and seizure conducted for the purpose of saving human life may be morally justifiable notwithstanding constitutional requirements to the contrary (Zalman, 2008).

Is discretion ethical?

Not only is police discretion ethical, but it is absolutely essential if police are to be expected to perform their functions effectively. Without discretion, police would, for one example, be duty-bound to conduct a traffic stop of every vehicle that changes lanes without signaling and to issue a summons to every pedestrian who crosses the street against the light (Schmalleger, 2008). On the other hand, it has become common practice for police to misuse their discretion to enforce the law preferentially, especially in connection with traffic stops of off-duty officers (Schmalleger, 2008).

Define the differences between "grass eating" and "meat eating" among officers.

According to the Knapp Commission that coined the term, "grass-eaters" are officers who accept (or even solicit) gratuities in minor ways and largely as a function of learned institutional culture (Schmalleger, 2008). Meanwhile, "meat-eaters" are officers who actively pursue major corrupt initiatives and who expressly use their positions of authority to profit.

What is "noble cause corruption" and why is it easier to swallow for cops than other corruption?

"Noble cause corruption" is the use of illegal, unethical, or otherwise impermissible means to accomplish ends that are legitimate (Delattre, 2006). Typical examples would include lying under oath to ensure the conviction of a criminal defendant who is actually guilty but who might not be convicted if the officer testifies truthfully. Other typical examples would include the misrepresentation of facts and circumstances in relation to establishing probable cause to justify police procedures that would be impermissible under the actual factual circumstances but that result in the apprehension and arrest of a criminal (Delattre, 2006).