Whistleblowing and Its Effect on Policy

Cooper's Ethical Decision-Making And The Case Of Corcoran State Prison The Situation The situation at Corcoran State Prison was one in which prison authorities were staging gladiatorial type combats between prisoners, baiting prisoners by exploiting poor race relations and tossing them into the "yard" during the recreation hour at the prison (Dryburgh, 2009, p. 162). Rival gangs were put into the yard at the same time on purpose so that "matches" could be held by the guards. Guard Steve Rigg attempted to stop this policy but was unsuccessful.

Moreover, guards were needlessly firing into the crowd of inmates in order to break up fights that they themselves helped to instigate. Guards were then prompted by other guards to falsify reports in order to cover-up any wrongdoing. It was in this situation that the inmate Preston Tate was shot in the head accidentally by guards following one of these fights among prisoners in 1994.

Tate was killed and guards claimed he failed to heed warnings to stop; surveillance footage showed that Tate was not the aggressor in the fight (Dryburgh, 2009, p. 163). Two guards, Steve Rigg and Richard Caruso, felt the death was the last straw and came forward to the FBI to testify.

They went to the FBI because it was their opinion that the Department of Corrections "was covering up the true level of violence in the prison as well as dangerous conduct by the guards" -- and thus it was that they became whistleblowers (Dryburgh, 2009, p. 163).

Possible Courses of Action Possible courses of action open to the two whistleblowers were: a) to do nothing and let the process go on; b) attempt to reform from within without exposing the corruption to higher/outside authorities; c) quit and find employment elsewhere and leave others to handle the situation. None of these options were particularly appealing for the guards. To do nothing would have made each of them as culpable as the guards violating their ethical code and the corruption would have persisted.

To attempt to reform from within would have been as equally unsatisfying, as Rigg's experience already showed him: the environmental culture of the prison was not conducive to reform as authorities within did not wish to have policy changed. To quit and find work elsewhere would have been the same as ignoring the situation and allowing it to go on.

Why They Blew the Whistle Thus it was that Rigg and Caruso blew the whistle on the activities at the prison: they felt there was no other recourse to positive action. They could not allow the negligent abuse to go on -- not after it cost an inmate his life. After the authorities within the prison refused to do anything about it, the two saw that they had to seek help from outside. It was a situation like wherein a school's principal was complicit in the school's disorder.

Going to the school board would be the only option -- or to the state if the school board also chose not to do anything about it. By going to the FBI, they were essentially appealing to the highest authority in the land interested in investigating criminal activity. The two whistleblowers wanted to stop the wrongdoing and this was the only way they could see ending it.

Positive and Negative Consequences for Possible Courses of Action The negative consequences for blowing the whistle (at least in the immediate term) was that the guards were removed from their positions by the authorities and placed in different positions that were inferior -- such as kitchen duty. Also, the prison itself took on a reputation for being most dangerous in the country and this was not good for its image.

Positive consequences of whistleblowing were that the violent antics of the guards was investigated and stopped and the law intervened to end the practices.

With regard to the other possible courses of action: doing nothing would have allowed the violence to continue, which would have been a negative outcome; the guards would have likely been able to keep their positions and escape notoriety (which would have been positive for them); and by attempting to reform from within, the guards might have eventually found success (which would have been positive) but it might have taken a long time in which case more lives might have been lost (a negative).

Resolution of the Ethical Dilemma and Its.