Scenario Analysis

Scenario Analysis

Fuller (1975) observes that “Even if a man is answerable to his conscience, he will answer more responsibly if he is compelled to articulate principles on which he acts”. Fuller’s Principle is a very important doctrine that can be applied to real-life scenarios regarding ethical decision making particularly in the field of criminal justice and policing.

Scenario 1 – Drugs at a Friend’s House

1. Is there a moral problem presented in the scenario? If so, what is it?

The moral problem presented in this scenario is with regard to the influence of friendships on the decisions of a police officer on his duty to protect the public. It is morally wrong for a police officer to allow personal friendships compromise with his duty to protect the public.

2. Does policy or law dictate an appropriate response, or does it require that professional discretion be applied?

The Police Code of Ethics dictates that they should “never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence their decisions”. A police officer is required to enforce the law in courteous and appropriate manner, without ill-will or malice, fear or favor (Delattre, p.34). Due to the fact that there are many life circumstances which require police intervention, the police are granted discretion since no set of policies or laws can give a comprehensive prescription of what to do in every possible situation (Withrow & Dailey, 2004).
3. What criteria (considerations), principles, and consequences should guide your decision?

Since handling narcotics is harmful to the public, I should not entertain the drug-dealers simply because they are friends to my friend. In most instances, police officers are often tipped off to keep silent on the issue. The professional code of conduct expects police officers to perform their duty diligently without fear or favor, ill-will or malice (Delattre, 2011). Though police officers are also human beings and would want to belong in a social status, they should not allow such preferences take priority because their main duty is to protect the public (Delattre, 2011). Therefore, I would be guided by these views in evaluating the consequences of my actions.
4. What would you do? Articulate, justify, and defend your position.

I would take relevant steps to ensure that the dealers in narcotics are arrested. This is because it is not morally right to favor certain individuals and allow them to perpetrate crime simply because they are my friends. It is more expensive to entertain the friends than arrest them and deter the crime. Taking a tip off to keep silent on the matter will only increase the harm caused by narcotics to the public (Delattre, 2011).

Scenario 2 – Accepting a Gift

1. Is there a moral problem presented in the scenario? If so, what is it?

The moral problem presented in this scenario is the influence of gratuities on the decisions of a police officer with regard to appropriate and courteous performance of his duty. Acceptance of small gifts such as a fruit basket may lead to moral decay because a police officer may eventually commit more serious corruption crimes.
2. Does policy or law dictate an appropriate response, or does it require that professional discretion be applied?

The Code of Ethics prohibits police officers from accepting gratuities (Delattre, 2011). However, there are some police departments which compromise by permitting police officers to accept free gifts such as meals and drinks in their assigned districts. Delattre (2011) points out that though not all people who accept gratuities enter into a slippery slope which leads to more serious corruption; most of them do. Using professional discretion involves personal ethics. If a police wants the status of a professional, then he must view gifts as a threat (Withrow & Dailey, 2004). This is because professionals do not accept gratuities. Accordingly, all police officers must perceive gratuities as totally unacceptable (Delattre, 2011).
3. What criteria (considerations), principles, and consequences should guide your decision?

While considering whether to take the gratuity or not, the policemen should have it mind that accepting a gratuity is equivalent to “taking title to it for life”. This is because the moment he allows his hands to be tainted, he will no longer be able to “assert his authority with dignity” (Delattre, 2011). The principles that should the decision of a police officer when confronted with such a decision include discipline and accountability. A police officer should appreciate the fact that he is accountable to the whole public and by accepting a gratuity, it will imply that he is jeopardizing his authority (Withrow & Dailey, 2004). A police officer should also appreciate the nature of his work requires discipline because being swayed by such small gifts may result into more serious incidences of corruption (Delattre, 2011).
4. What would you do? Articulate, justify, and defend your position.

I would not accept the gifts because it is against the professional code of conduct. As a police officer, I am empowered with the authority to protect all citizens; my loyalty is intended for all people and not to one individual. Since it has been proven that corruption starts from acceptance of small gifts and grows into more grievous demands, I would rather not accept the deal because it would incapacitate me from properly performing my duties. Gratuities undermine public respect and result into resentment, a cost that police generally must pay. In essence, the free fruit basket and the gift certificate are much too expensive. I would rather accept nothing but my compensation to avoid later encounters with questions about how far to go.

Scenario 3 – Homosexual Partner

1. Is there a moral problem presented in the scenario? If so, what is it?

The moral problem in this scenario is in relation to how bigotry and conscience can negatively influence the decisions of an officer. Bigotry refers to the treatment of another person with intolerance, contempt or hatred as a result of prejudices on the basis of sexual orientation or other characteristics. It is morally wrong to prejudice others on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, color, sexual orientation or any other characteristic because it would imply a failure to look beyond “that universality of human feeling and yearning within each one of us” (Delattre, 2011). According to Delattre (2011), “behavior motivated by bigotry and hate is endemic to the law enforcement profession”.
2. Does policy or law dictate an appropriate response, or does it require that professional discretion be applied?

Delattre (2011) observes police departments have an obligation to control and reduce bigotry. They are supposed to do everything in their authority to ensure that it is rooted out. Bigotry in police departments should not be allowed to be prevalent as to undermine public confidence and the morale of the departments. In addition, a police officer should not allow his conscience to override the respect for rights of other police officers. It would be morally wrong to refuse to work with another officer simply because the officer is a homosexual.
3. What criteria (considerations), principles, and consequences should guide your decision?

Though there are some police leaders who root out bigotry on grounds of their preoccupation with human frailty, Delattre (2011) notes that he has encountered some leaders who are determined to eliminate bigotry, corruption and brutality due to their esteem for public service and dignity. Delattre (2011) points out that police are capable of ensuring that policing and law enforcement do not tolerate bigotry at institutional and individual levels. Every police officer is empowered to resist bigotry through his thoughts, speech and actions. Accordingly, a police officer who cannot stand such temptations should not be regarded as professional because of his disregard to human dignity.
4. What would you do? Articulate, justify, and defend your position.

As a police leader, I am supposed to ensure that the thoughts, words and actions of every police officer, irrespective of ethnicity, gender, color and sexual orientation do not have reflections of prejudice and the bad habits that follow. There is need to promote a culture of equality and respect for other people’s sexual orientation. In this regard, I will try to reason out with Officer Ted Jones to avoid temptations of bigotry. It will not be morally fair to discriminate against Officer James Davis simply because of his sexual orientation since this would amount to disregard of his dignity. According to Delattre (2011), “the intellectual and moral standards of policing as a profession demand no less” than elimination of elements of bigotry in thoughts, words and actions of every police officer.

 References

Delattre, E. J. (2011). Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing, 6^th ed. AEI Press.

Fuller, L. L., (1975). The Morality of Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Withrow, B. L., & Dailey, J. D. (2004). A Model of Circumstantial Corruptibility. Police Quarterly, 7:159.

 

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]