Police ethics and terrorism

Law Enforcement: Ethics, Stigmas, and Anti-Terrorism Roles

The police mission inside the U.S. has been completely transformed and redefined by terrorism and the threat of domestic terror attacks. Police have an important anti-terrorism role to play. The post 9/11 world looks very different from the world before the World Trade Center Attacks from a law enforcement as well as an ethical standpoint. The balance between maintaining order and security and maintaining the civil liberties guaranteed by the U.S. government and founding fathers is a very fragile one, and one that exists within a give and take model of enforcement. For each leap forward in security, often a part of the fabric of America's hard fought civil and social landscape must be relinquished, sometimes forever. Te role of the police officer is changing yet the training methods need to still be updated to reflect a renewed focus on cultural sensitivity and humility.

Social stigmas are everywhere, not just in law enforcement. The idea that a law enforcement official should strictly adhere to a specific, non-biased ode of ethics and conduct seems nearly universal throughout the United States, yet this assumption is often based upon people's expectations and idealistic tendencies. The truth is far less appealing than most people hope for. In fact, social stigmas abound in police work, and when terrorism is involved, and people's reactionary and often extremely judgmental thoughts and feelings are catalyzed, the role of the police officer as officer of the peace, and a person who keeps the peace is often put to the test (Clarke and Newman, 2007, pp. 15). The 9/11 terrorist attacks were perpetrated by fundamentalist Muslims. Many ignorant people believe that all Muslims or all people of certain ethnic backgrounds are more dangerous than those of other backgrounds. Racial profiling exists nearly everywhere, yet the idea of racial profiling goes against every word in the constitution. If all men (and women) were created equal, then a democratic society shouldn't tolerate racial profiling. If the law enforcement officers use this tactic to weed out suspected terrorists, then the entire system built upon equal rights for all people crumbles to the ground.

Police officers face pressure from all sides to racially or religiously profile people (Clarke and Newman, 2007, pp. 13). While it is easy to dismiss those who are against racial profiling, it is very difficult to justify racial or religious profiling as not being a violation of the basic premise that all people are equal and that racial and social stigmas are a negative facet of society and law enforcement work (Baker, 2006, pp. 116). It is often those police officers who feel personally responsible for hunting down and carrying out profiling missions and attitudes who end up making mistakes when it comes to cultural sensitivity and understanding as well as abuse of power. When an officer understands that every person within a population should be treated with the same respect, he or she is far less likely to hold negative racial or religious stereotypes against a particular group of people or person (Banks, 2009). Even the perception of authority by the general public can be negative in nature, as many police officers can attest.

Police corruption and the ethical forces behind it are many. It is impossible to assign just one or two motivations behind the corruption, but the ethical reasoning associated with it can often lead to other ethical issues. Police corruption furthers the interests of those in power, those who are corrupted at the highest levels. Abuses of force are sometimes associated with corruption, but these two issues should be treated as separate. Police corruption typically occurs because of a specific goal or set of values (Banks, 2009). There would be no need for corruption if the officers involved did not have an agenda separate from the norms, values, and social stigmas held by the rest of the force and by society at large (Baker, 2006, pp. 116). Therefore, the corruption exists to an end. These ends, whether monetary, power-related, or simply existing because of greed or racism should be identified and eliminated. It is impossible to have a police force in the U.S. that is not at some level corrupt, by definition, but by removing the potentials for motivation of these corrupt groups and individuals, and eliminating the rewards for corruption while at the same time socially discouraging it, the phenomenon can be minimized and countered quite effectively.

The issue of abuse of force is one that is often touched upon when discussing law enforcement ethics. All human beings are susceptible to abusing their own powers or authority, and law enforcement officials are no exception. However, society holds police officers accountable for their actions above others, and the ethical dilemma associated with this topic often exists in gray areas. That is to say, it's not always black and white where the line between authority and abuse exists (Westmarland, 2005, pp. 150). The justification for abusing one's authority can often be associated with national security and the question of how much authority and force a police force needs to possess in order to keep a population safe. Many people have argued for the reduction of civil liberties in favor of increased security. But the law enforcement official should not act as the judge of this balance, and needs to follow the laws and policies enacted by their own government. Law enforcement officials are not supposed to be making decisions based on their own moral assumptions, and need to exercise their own judgment when it comes to this issue and its relationship with the subject of terrorism.

Individual decisions based upon conscience is another gray area in law enforcement. A person's conscience is subjective by nature, and therefore vulnerable to outside influences (Caldero and Crank, 2004). But in understanding one's role as a police officer or law enforcement official, people should begin to see their role not as an exercise in conscience but as an exercise in good judgment and sound decision-making. Police assignments often call for quick decisions and the ability for an officer to be honest and trustworthy in certain crisis situations. Some officers have a tendency to see themselves as a superhero, or the defenders of the public interest, but these egotistical and often dangerous attitudes should be avoided (Westmarland, 2005, pp. 149).

A sound police force starts with a good foundation in training and applicable skills development (Clarke and Newman, 2007, pp. 12). In order to fight terrorism both at home and abroad, police officers need to understand their own role as motivators and enforcement officers, and not as decision or policy makers when it comes to racial or religious profiling and prejudices. Cultural sensitivity, no matter how unpopular this topic is in certain circles or places in the country needs to be at the forefront of the training materials in any good law enforcement group. By understanding the unique and often idiosyncratic nature of many unfamiliar cultures, societies, and religions, officers are better equipped to be both understanding and insightful in certain situations, particularly when it comes to the stereotypical terrorist attack situations or threats. Officers that have been exposed to different cultures and ideas find themselves far more comfortable in the field when a situation arises involving these cultures or beliefs (Caldero and Crank, 2004). A well-informed officer has far less potential to use his or her own predisposed notions and prejudices against others when they feel like these "others" are people they can relate to in the same way they can relate to their neighbors, friends, and family.