This paper presents a critical reflection on the opening chapters of Cyndi Banks's Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice (2008), supplemented by additional scholarly sources. The paper examines how ethics operates within criminal justice systems, exploring the tension between ethical absolutism and cultural relativism, the nature and discretion of policing, the blurring of military and civilian police roles in international contexts, and the persistent racial disparities embedded in the U.S. criminal justice system. The paper concludes that criminal justice systems are a necessary but imperfect social institution, whose ethical shortcomings must be actively acknowledged and addressed from within.
No serious-minded individual over the age of twelve actually believes that justice and the ethical issues involved in criminality are purely black-and-white, or clear-cut matters of good and bad. The first chapters of Cyndi Banks's (2008) Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice, however, make it clear that the issues of right and wrong in the criminal justice system are far more complex, specific, and subtle than one might have guessed — even when grand and overarching principles serve as the ultimate source for ethical considerations in a criminal justice case. Especially when supplemented by additional research regarding the workings of the criminal justice system and the application of ethics in criminal justice decisions and policies, the opening chapters of this book have a profound effect in shaping an awareness of such considerations.
One of the most profound impacts the first chapter of Banks (2008) has on the reader is its breakdown of the different ways of understanding ethics — some of which are at least in part mutually exclusive. Ethical absolutism does not take into account differences in cultural values or perspectives, and yet it is easy to see that there are significant differences in what is considered acceptable, wrong, or even criminal from society to society, and even among subcultures within a given society (Banks, 2008). Determining what is "fair" or "just" from an ethical perspective is not at all a simple task.
At the same time, public policy in a democratic society is ostensibly formed as the result of ethical considerations and determinations made by the public — typically through their elected representatives — and so one could argue that imposing the rules of criminal justice on a population that has itself created those rules falls within ethical bounds (Banks, 2008, p. 18). This leads, of course, to the problem of unethical laws, and to the problem of a majority imposing its will on a minority simply because it has the power to do so through legislation. Typically, however, this dynamic resolves potential ethical issues in the criminal justice system for those confronted with the immediate task of handling transgressions. More systemic societal problems that affect the criminal justice system, while certainly worthy of consideration and solutions, cannot be effectively approached from a criminal justice perspective alone, regardless of ethical stance.
With the eye-opening considerations introduced in the first chapter, it is hardly a surprise that Banks's (2008) second chapter also contains many ideas worthy of deep reflection. The notion that policing has a definable "nature" is not something many people would consider consciously or explicitly, and fewer still would examine what it means about a society that policing must exist at all (Banks, 2008, pp. 24–26). The application of discretion and the degree of personal ethical decision-making involved in policing reopen issues first addressed in the opening chapter, now complicated by new contextual factors (Banks, 2008, pp. 29–34).
Recent and ongoing global developments throughout the latter part of the twentieth century and into the present have raised additional questions about the ethics and justification of policing, as national and international military forces have been deployed both domestically and abroad in police-like roles — either to stabilize or to control civilian populations (Easton et al., 2010). Often, the difference between "controlling" and "stabilizing" is a matter of perspective. Even in international peacekeeping efforts that have garnered broad support and strong ethical justifications, unique problems arise when militaries must act as civilian police forces (Easton et al., 2010). These issues bear an interesting relationship to standard concerns in policing and criminal justice more generally — from cultural considerations to the simultaneous need for greater discretion and greater consistency (Banks, 2008; Easton et al., 2010).
"Racial disparity and systemic bias in U.S. justice"
Ultimately, as these chapters indicate, criminal justice systems must be viewed as something of a necessary evil. If everyone treated one another in an agreed-upon, ethically responsible manner, such justice systems would not be necessary. As it is — given the imperfection of human agreements and convictions — justice systems must strive to be as ethical as possible, and must not shy away from the known problems that exist within them. There are many broad and specific ethical concerns involved in being part of the criminal justice system in the United States, and confronting them honestly is the first step toward meaningful reform.
You’re 70% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.