Cooper's Ethical Decision-Making at Corcoran State Prison

The Situation at Corcoran State Prison

The situation at Corcoran State Prison was one in which prison authorities staged gladiatorial-type combats between prisoners, baiting inmates by exploiting poor race relations and sending them into the "yard" during the recreation hour (Dryburgh, 2009, p. 162). Rival gangs were deliberately placed in the yard at the same time 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 crowds of inmates in order to break up fights that they themselves had helped to instigate. Guards were then pressured by colleagues to falsify reports in order to cover up any wrongdoing.

It was in this context that inmate Preston Tate was shot in the head and killed by guards following one of these staged fights in 1994. Guards claimed he had failed to heed warnings to stop; however, surveillance footage showed that Tate was not the aggressor in the fight (Dryburgh, 2009, p. 163). Two guards, Steve Rigg and Richard Caruso, regarded the death as the last straw and came forward to the FBI to testify. They went to the FBI because they believed the Department of Corrections "was covering up the true level of violence in the prison as well as dangerous conduct by the guards" — and it was in this way that they became whistleblowers (Dryburgh, 2009, p. 163).

Possible Courses of Action

The possible courses of action open to the two whistleblowers were: (a) to do nothing and allow the situation to continue; (b) to attempt reform from within without exposing the corruption to higher or outside authorities; or (c) to quit and find employment elsewhere, leaving others to handle the situation. None of these options were particularly appealing. To do nothing would have made each of them as culpable as the guards violating the ethical code, and the corruption would have persisted. To attempt reform from within would have been equally unsatisfying, as Rigg's own experience had already demonstrated: the institutional culture of the prison was not conducive to reform, since authorities within had no desire to change policy. To quit and find work elsewhere would have amounted to the same as ignoring the situation and allowing it to continue unchecked.

Why They Blew the Whistle

It was for these reasons that Rigg and Caruso blew the whistle on the activities at the prison: they felt there was no other path to positive action. They could not allow the negligent abuse to continue — not after it had cost an inmate his life. After the authorities within the prison refused to act, the two officers concluded that they had to seek help from outside. The situation was analogous to one in which 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 act. By going to the FBI, they were essentially appealing to the highest authority in the land with an interest in investigating criminal activity. The two whistleblowers wanted to stop the wrongdoing, and this was the only means they could see of ending it.

Positive and Negative Consequences of Each Course of Action

The negative consequences of blowing the whistle — at least in the immediate term — were that the guards were removed from their positions by the authorities and reassigned to inferior roles, such as kitchen duty. Additionally, the prison itself acquired a reputation as the most dangerous in the country, which was damaging to its institutional image.

The positive consequences of whistleblowing were that the violent conduct 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 clearly negative outcome; the guards would likely have been able to retain their positions and avoid notoriety (a short-term positive for them personally); and by attempting to reform from within, the guards might eventually have found some success (a positive), but the process could have taken a very long time, during which additional lives might have been lost (a significant negative).