Ethical Systems
Crime Control
Discretion and Law Enforcement
Discretion and Corruption
The discussion assignment provides a forum for discussing relevant topics for this week on the basis of the course competencies covered.
Apply the concepts reviewed in this course to the law enforcement function. For this week’s discussion, consider the following questions, with the ethical systems in mind.
Is it ethical for detectives to deliberately use deception during an interrogation? The Supreme Court has ruled that deceptions are legal, but are they ethical? If so, identify under which ethical system police would be permitted to use deception as an interrogation technique.
All police agencies make use of informants. Larger departments even pay their informants and keep track of their contributions to cases. Discuss the ethical problems of using informants to assist with investigations.
You have read about a concept known as “accepted lies” in police work. Give an example of an “accepted lie” and show how it is ethically permissible.
Sample Solution
It depends on the situation. In an ethical system such as utilitarianism, police may be justified in using deception during interrogations if it is for the greater good of society; however, this also comes with a certain level of risk that must be weighed carefully before making any decision. For example, deceiving suspects might lead to false confessions or other legal consequences and could ultimately do more harm than good. Alternatively, from a deontological perspective, deception could be considered unethical because it involves manipulating another person’s trust and violating their consent. Therefore, police should consider carefully all possible consequences when deciding whether or not to use deception during an interrogation.
Sample Solution
It depends on the situation. In an ethical system such as utilitarianism, police may be justified in using deception during interrogations if it is for the greater good of society; however, this also comes with a certain level of risk that must be weighed carefully before making any decision. For example, deceiving suspects might lead to false confessions or other legal consequences and could ultimately do more harm than good. Alternatively, from a deontological perspective, deception could be considered unethical because it involves manipulating another person’s trust and violating their consent. Therefore, police should consider carefully all possible consequences when deciding whether or not to use deception during an interrogation.
irst, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
