Ethics and Code of Conduct for Correctional Officers

Introduction

The importance of ethics in the criminal justice field cannot be overstated. All participants must portray acceptable moral conduct for positive criminal justice outcomes to be achieved (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2008). This is particularly true for correctional institutions, a major component of the criminal justice system. Correctional authorities play a crucial role in rehabilitating offenders and facilitating their transition back into society, a role that places significant ethical demands on correctional personnel. This paper outlines the ethical requirements for correctional officers. First, a comprehensive job description is offered, along with the key stakeholders correctional officers work with in fulfilling their day-to-day duties. Next, several practical work scenarios requiring ethical decision making are highlighted, with an evaluation of the relevance of theoretical perspectives to each scenario. Finally, a code of ethics and best-practices checklist for correctional officers is presented, demonstrating how the code will positively impact all relevant stakeholders.

Job Description

Correctional authorities are generally involved in rehabilitating offenders, and correctional personnel play a crucial role in achieving this end. Their responsibilities include admitting inmates, delivering meals, maintaining law and order within correctional facilities, upholding accepted standards within those facilities, supervising inmates and monitoring their conduct, enforcing sanctions, and assisting in inmate counselling. Correctional officers are also involved in scheduling work assignments and educational opportunities for inmates, monitoring inmate mail and visitors, and escorting inmates to courts, other correctional facilities, and medical facilities.

Stakeholders

Correctional officers work with a number of stakeholders in the fulfilment of their everyday roles. In addition to other members of staff, they work with or alongside law enforcement officers and courts (Joyce, 2013). Correctional facilities are used to hold both convicted individuals and those awaiting trial. These individuals may engage in further deviant behavior while in custody — coordinating criminal activities, possessing contraband, or assaulting fellow inmates and staff members. Law enforcement personnel and courts can rely on information gathered by correctional officers to convict individuals awaiting trial. Without the assistance of correctional officers, investigations and prosecutions may not succeed.

Counselors, educators, and the general public are also important stakeholders (Joyce, 2013). Counselors provide behavioral therapy to inmates and require the support of correctional officers to do so effectively. By maintaining security within the facility and monitoring inmate behavior, correctional officers create a productive working environment for counselors. Educators constitute crucial stakeholders because inmates may participate in educational programs that require a great deal of assistance from correctional officers. The public is an important stakeholder as well, since correctional work is a public service. Correctional authorities, in conjunction with other elements of the criminal justice system, ensure that justice is served to victims of criminal behavior, making public confidence in correctional authorities vital. In essence, the work of correctional officers has significant implications for both internal and external stakeholders.

Ethical Decision Making in Practice and Theoretical Perspectives

The fulfilment of the above duties requires ethical decision making. One practical scenario where moral action is required relates to the supervision and monitoring of inmates. Correctional officers constantly observe inmates to ensure they remain where they are supposed to be at any given time. Nonetheless, instances of inmates escaping from prison or custody are not uncommon. While escapes may often be the result of inmates' own ingenuity, they sometimes involve collaboration with correctional officers. Outsiders associated with an inmate may approach a correctional officer with the intention of bribing them. Allowing oneself to be compromised demonstrates utter disregard for the grave consequences an escaped inmate can cause. Some inmates may be dangerous, meaning that an escape represents a direct threat to public safety. Correctional officers may also be bribed to allow inmates to smuggle illegal objects — such as drugs and weapons — into the facility, endangering the safety of other inmates and corrections staff alike. Correctional officers must therefore always act in the interest of public welfare (Pollock, 2014).

Another practical scenario for ethical decision making in corrections relates to equality. Racial disparity in correctional facilities remains prevalent, with correctional officers often showing preferential treatment to inmates from their own racial background (Carlson & Garrett, 2008). When enforcing discipline, a correctional officer may treat inmates unequally: for the same offense, a Caucasian officer may recommend disciplinary action against an African-American or Latino inmate while allowing a Caucasian inmate to go unpunished. In other words, officers may overlook offenses committed by inmates from their own racial group while perceiving inmates from minority backgrounds as more deviant.

Ethical decision making also extends to correctional officers' lives outside the work environment. Like any citizen, correctional officers engage in ordinary activities such as visiting grocery stores, driving, and socializing. While off duty, an officer may visit a bar for drinks. As the night advances, the officer may attempt to drive home while intoxicated. If pulled over by police and found to have exceeded the legal alcohol limit, the officer may identify himself as a correctional officer in an attempt to avoid arrest. A responsible police officer will proceed with the arrest regardless, because the law applies to everyone. The arrest may lead to conviction and even dismissal from work. Correctional officers must therefore be ethically conscious, whether on duty or not.

These scenarios illustrate the concept of utilitarianism, which asserts that the right action is the one that produces the greatest benefit for everyone, irrespective of constraints such as the law (Birsch, 2014). For instance, killing a thief might be viewed by some as ethically right if it results in public wellbeing. In the context of correctional work, an officer should consider the associated consequences before committing any action. Allowing an inmate to escape from prison endangers public safety and is therefore ethically wrong under this framework. A major disadvantage of utilitarianism, however, is that it shows little or no regard for the means used to achieve a given outcome. As long as the outcome maximizes utility for everyone, the mechanisms used to achieve it may be considered irrelevant. For example, using excessive force on a violent inmate might maximize safety for everyone in the facility — yet the law places clear limits on the extent to which correctional officers may use force on inmates.

The need to adhere to rules is captured by the deontological perspective, which asserts that what is ethically right is what complies with the law (Birsch, 2014). Under this view, correctional officers are obliged to follow the law regardless of the underlying circumstances. A major limitation of this perspective, however, is that adherence to the law may not always result in the maximum benefit for everyone involved.

Conclusion

For correctional authorities to effectively achieve their goals and objectives, correctional officers must consistently uphold ethical conduct. They must demonstrate professionalism as well as transparency and accountability. Ethical conduct on the part of correctional officers has critical implications for stakeholders both within and outside correctional institutions.

Banks, C. (2013). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.

Birsch, D. (2014). Introduction to ethical theories: A procedural approach. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Braswell, M., McCarthy, B., & McCarthy, B. (2008). Justice, crime, and ethics (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Carlson, P., & Garrett, J. (2008). Prison and jail administration (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Joyce, P. (2013). Criminal justice: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Kleinig, J. (2008). Ethics and criminal justice: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pollock, J. (2014). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Souryal, S. (2011). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth (5th ed.). Burlington: Elsevier.