Discretion and Law Enforcement
Discretion and Corruption
Managing an ethical police department can be a difficult challenge. As you have seen, the criminal justice field often presents situations that would appear to be governed by competing ethical systems. The very nature of police work presents officers with ethical challenges not found in other occupations.
For this assignment, you have been contracted to assist an urban police department improve its ethical performance. Your task is to provide police leadership with background and guidance on the following topics. Prepare a report in Microsoft Word that addresses each of these points:
Describe how organizations can become corrupt, using Trautman’s “corruption continuum” as a guide.
Explain the “continuum of compromise” as it relates to individual police misconduct, including how it might help supervisors recognize warning signs. Include the concept of “means–end” thinking in your review.
Describe Bandura’s definition of self-regulation and describe how aspects of the law enforcement job can cause one to turn away from self-regulation.
Last, considering that police agencies are nearly evenly-split on the topic of gratuities, determine whether you would recommend a policy that forbids patrol officers from accepting gratuities. Support your position with reasoning and research.
Sample Solution
Organizational Corruption: Trautman’s “Corruption Continuum”
Organizations can become corrupt when individual members within that organization make decisions and take actions that are motivated by personal gain, rather than the fulfillment of their duties and responsibilities. To better understand this process, criminologist Frederic Trautman developed what he calls a “corruption continuum” which outlines how organizations can move from traditional forms of crime control to more modern forms of corruption.
Sample Solution
Organizational Corruption: Trautman’s “Corruption Continuum”
Organizations can become corrupt when individual members within that organization make decisions and take actions that are motivated by personal gain, rather than the fulfillment of their duties and responsibilities. To better understand this process, criminologist Frederic Trautman developed what he calls a “corruption continuum” which outlines how organizations can move from traditional forms of crime control to more modern forms of corruption.
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).’
