This paper examines ethics in law enforcement through the lens of two philosophical frameworks: determinism and indeterminism. It begins by defining both concepts and tracing their roots before applying them to three domains within the criminal justice system — criminal behavior, police officer conduct, and the administration of justice. The paper discusses how the deterministic "Continuum of Compromise" explains the gradual ethical deterioration of otherwise principled officers, while acknowledging that indeterminism accounts for spontaneous, impulsive acts. The author ultimately argues that determinism provides the more robust framework for understanding ethical decision-making in policing and criminal justice.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
Ethics are what almost anyone would define as a person's determination between what is good or bad — or, more accurately, what is right or wrong. Although many of these attitudes can be a product of parenting or other factors in one's maturing environment, ethical decisions could also result from environmental factors outside of an individual's control. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact origins of a person's ethical code, but some professions demand a level of ethical conduct not required elsewhere.
One such profession is law enforcement. Officers of the law are called upon to "stand in harm's way — not so much against enemies with bullets, but against enemies skilled in every form of trickery, deceit, feigned ignorance, and deception" (Stevens, 2005). Because of the environment in which they must operate, police officers are constantly deciding whether to make the right decision or take the wrong course. An officer can rely on the ethics that the police department has instilled in them, but that may not always be enough.
A thorough understanding of policing ethics can be approached through many different ethical theories. This essay focuses on two particular theories — determinism and indeterminism — which will be defined, discussed, and then applied to specific ethical issues affecting law enforcement.
The two concepts, determinism and indeterminism, are not the polar opposites they might initially appear to be (Sanford, 2010). Nor do they have parallel definitions. The best way to examine the meaning of each is to look at the shared root word: determine (or, in common usage, determined). When scientists and philosophers discuss determinism, they refer to a view — whether ethical or scientific — in which outcomes are already pre-determined. A central idea within determinism is that there exists a definite chain of cause and effect (Russell, 1910). Indeterminism shares the same root but, with the prefix in-, shifts the meaning. However, as can be shown, indeterminism is not necessarily a complete contrast to determinism (Sanford, 2010).
The idea of determinism is most often applied in scientific contexts, where every action is understood as the cause of some other action. A chain of events causes something to happen, and without that chain of events, that outcome would not occur (Russell, 1910). When considered in ethical terms, determinism typically means that when an ethical dilemma presents itself, the person making a decision can only draw upon what they have already experienced and understood. Several important caveats follow from this framework.
A person draws upon their experiences to make moral decisions. If a person has never had the occasion to witness or otherwise understand a concept that bears on a moral decision, they cannot incorporate it into their reasoning. This means that in the eyes of another person, someone may appear to do something wrong — yet in their own view, what they did was perfectly right given the information available to them at the time (Russell, 1910). It can also be argued that, because every action is predetermined by what has come before, any action taken is, in some sense, right and inevitable. Determinism can thus be invoked to excuse even monstrous behavior, on the grounds that the person was only making the decision that was always going to be made.
Indeterminism challenges this stance and does not grant people the complete moral free pass that determinism can offer. A simple explanation might be that indeterminism is the direct opposite of determinism, but that characterization is too simplistic. An illustration helps clarify the concept. Imagine a person walking home who has three route options, each of which will eventually get them there. Setting aside the possibility that they might choose one based on mood, convenience, or any other reason that would introduce some deterministic element — the person is simply walking along and finds themselves on a path, and they then continue on that path toward home (Sanford, 2010). Proponents of indeterminism acknowledge that deterministic logic governs most human behavior, but they argue that there exist small points of genuine indeterminism — spontaneous happenings — that resist a strictly deterministic account. Strict determinists, however, deny that such points exist.
The central question for both of these philosophies is how they apply to ethics in law enforcement, which is addressed in the sections that follow.
Criminal behavior has consequences. Societies determine what their laws should be, then they employ people to enforce those laws, and the punishment phase is the final link in the criminal justice chain. Ethics applies to all three stages.
Criminals are those who act outside the law. They perceive an opportunity, weigh whether to abide by an existing law or exploit the situation to commit a crime, and then act. This decision-making process is largely predetermined by the environment in which a person matured. No person is a criminal from birth — although genetics does influence some behavior — but through accumulated experiences, a person arrives at a point where they can make the right or wrong choice, as defined by the society in which they live. Some acts that one society considers murder are accepted in others. Criminal activity is therefore not determined by some arbitrary set of principles but by a causal flow. A person who commits a crime may even subscribe to the deterministic principle that there is no truly right or wrong action — that the act committed, whatever society's judgment of it, was the one that had to occur given the chain of causation that preceded it.
Indeterminism looks at the act itself differently. Anyone can commit an act spontaneously. Road rage, for example, is often a flash reaction to another driver's behavior. This helps explain cases in which a person with a completely clean criminal record does something heinous. The indeterminist would argue that the person acted of their own free will — not because they were locked into a chain of events that had to end in that particular way.
"Ideal ethical policing standards and real-world challenges"
"Continuum of Compromise explained through both theories"
"Determinism and indeterminism in the court system"
Ethics in the criminal justice system can best be explained as deterministic. The evidence suggests that there is a causal chain underlying most outcomes, rather than pure free will and spontaneity. Indeterminism does play a role, but the greater part of ethical behavior is shaped by events that have already occurred. As the literature suggests, it would be impossible for a person to act in an ethically sound manner without having first developed that ethical foundation. Right and wrong are themselves defined by society, meaning that courts must also operate deterministically when reaching any verdict. Criminals, too, are products of their environments and of the norms they have come to accept. Indeterminism ultimately leaves too many explanatory gaps to serve as a reliable or comprehensive ethical philosophy for understanding conduct within the criminal justice system.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.