Ethics In Criminal Justice

Ethics in Criminal Justice

Introduction

The criminal justice system is a major organization with several units that perform its operations and have to execute several ethical issues. The police department, for instance, is a law enforcement agency that presents myriads of ethical concerns such as the use of undercover agents who also break the legislation to bring criminals to justice later. Similarly, the judiciary provides the justice angle of it but faces the ethics of fairness when it comes to mediations and forgiveness of offenders (Ginkowski, 2011). Moreover, the use of technology among the law enforcement units, especially in surveillance, and the use of third-party data present the ethics of breach of privacy as well as the confidentiality of the civilians (Peny, 2012). Apart from the mentioned ethical concerns, suppressed issues such as racial profiling in enforcing the criminal laws also matter. Still, organizational culture in the dispensation of justice and equity in preventing illegal activities while promoting community partnerships also emerges (Martin, 2011). Finally, the moral viewpoints on the psychological set of the law enforcement personnel concerning self-legitimacy also appear as a dangerous aspect of ethics in the criminal justice system. Therefore, people in charge have to focus on the various ethical issues within the criminal justice system to explore the known factors while uncovering the least obvious ones as well. Since the workers of criminal justice often violate its ethics themselves, it is extremely significant to discover ways of eradicating this issue to sustain the level of social trust in legislative organs.

Discussion and Critical Analysis

Ethics of technology use in the law enforcement systems to tap personal information and exploit it for litigation purposes remains the primary concern for the criminal justice system in recent times. Technology use in the surveillance of civilians as part of the intelligence network needed to identify threats to security and public order becomes a problem considering the breach of privacy of the citizens involved (Young, 2011). The result is a lack of integrity as confidential data is exposed to third parties in the criminal justice departments. It matters that the third parties may use the information incorrectly in discriminating, incriminating, or victimizing the owners of these data. A necessary balance must find the point of transparency and due diligence in the tapping and use of third-party data. The best approach to this ethical dilemma is to ensure that the parties concerned are aware and willing to allow using their private information to enforce law and order. For instance, all buyers of cell phones should have agreed to terms that include surveillance of their activities through the gadget to safeguard the public from insecurity and criminal acts (Peny, 2012). This precaution would reduce the amount of fear placed on the wiretapping and use of private data for intelligence purposes. As a result, the public and the criminal justice system would work amicably to combat terror and other insecurity elements in society.

The criminal justice system also battles the ethical issue of using its agents undercover to gather information about suspected lawbreakers thereby enforcing justice by arresting them. Intelligence departments justify this point under the difficulty of gathering data about some serious offenders such as drug lords and their rackets. However, the public view is that the officers assigned to the undercover duties also participate in activities that break the law (Joh, 2009). The rationale for the use of secret agents in the criminal justice system only focuses on the final result of arresting the suspects and taking them through the judicial process. However, authorities place little emphasis on the ability of the agents to collaborate with the offenders to even break the laws intentionally (Martin, 2011). Moreover, the impact of the officers’ activities as undercover agents on the affected persons is significant. For example, the drug addicts and victims of organized crime such as fraud remain unexplored. To the criminal justice system on this issue, therefore, the end justifies the means. Consequently, it is crucial to evaluate a critical balance in the use of the police as undercover agents before any officer deploys such actions. For instance, where the costs surpass the possible outcomes such as in the case of sending agents to act as part of a drug racket, the law enforcement authorities must avoid the methodology. The target is to prevent the risk of promoting the crime from increasing in the short term with the hope of abating it for good.

Go to our website

Choose a type of paper you need

Indicate additional requirements for your essay

Pay for the order

Get your flawless paper on time

Another major ethical issue in the judiciary, which is part of the criminal justice system, is the use of forgiveness within the court process as well as the moderated method such as arbitration and mediation. Forgiveness in the judiciary comes as a result of an intense argument between the prosecution team and the defendants without involving the actual victims of the act of crime under the court process (Ginkowski, 2011). As a result, the ability to adequately overcome the negative emotional viewpoints of the victims remains uncertain. Thus, the system fails in delivering fairness in solving such cases. Moreover, forgiveness in the judiciary means that the repercussion for the type of crime in question is less severe. Therefore, promoting it among the audience should discourage offenses in their areas of jurisdiction (Joh, 2009). There should be no reason at all for forgiveness under the law if consistency, authenticity, and justice remain the core values of any judicial system. Then, arbitration and mediation also amount to unreasonable intercessions that leave one party unjustly compensated for crimes committed by the other. The processes always come as a win-win situation for either party but result in reducing justice for one party to terminate a stalemate (Ginkowski, 2011). As a result, the full view of fairness remains questionable. Therefore, the criminal justice system must strike a critical balance in using mediation and arbitration while eliminating any room for forgiveness to be a trustworthy organ.

Organizational culture represents another major ethical dilemma for the criminal justice system. It manifests upon the employees of the system in two ways, namely having a just culture and instilling ethics in its leadership. There is no doubt that many criminal justice system personnel have been involved in unethical practices and intentional bending of the rules in many instances. These issues create the public perception that the system in itself is evil. This fact reduces the level of confidence that any criminal organ can solve the problems of injustice in society (Zuidema & Duff Jr., 2009). The lack of a just culture in dealing with the employees and their work-related issues such as work overload and denial of deserved promotions amount to unfairness and lead to a situation of distrust towards the officers. As a result, the practice of fairness and justice for everyone changes to use the same vices against their people. Therefore, the public views the system as rotten and undeserving the respect, trust, and faith that it can solve its problems. The situation is even worse when it comes to considering the lack of ethical practice among the leaders in the criminal justice system (Zuidema & Duff Jr., 2009). The problem emerges when the leadership of courts such as the attorney general, the head of the criminal investigation, and other concerned units resort to immoral acts such as providing misleading or inaccurate information and engaging in the bipartisan enforcement of the law (Martin, 2011). The organizational culture that promotes the ethical style of leadership is, hence, vital for any criminal justice system. As a result, the systems must strive to propagate the active elements of culture that promote ethical dealings to improve public attitude and trust towards legislative institutions.

Self-legitimacy also presents a psychological issue that amounts to an ethical dilemma for the criminal justice system. While the law enforcement agencies may deem self-legitimacy and go beyond their reasonable mandates to maintain law and order, the public views these acts as violations of the same laws that the officers intend to protect (Ginkowski, 2011). For instance, police misconduct such as the use of force to arrest a suspect may appear as overuse of power; in some cases, it is, indeed, acceptable to the officers under the umbrella of self-legitimacy. In another example, the police may use unlawful means such as blackmailing to capture a suspect. Therefore, the issue remains controversial as the ultimate authority is sometimes necessary while the public views it as an abuse of power (Martin, 2011). However, the issue is rather a psychological problem addressed through the use of proper interventions such as counseling and education on the importance of abiding by the code of ethics and conduct by the law enforcement agents. For instance, some police officers find it necessary to use self-legitimacy as the means of achieving justice, law, and order as part of the behavior. Therefore, behavior change solutions would reduce the tendency.

The issue of ethical competence in working with people from various cultures and ethnic groups also emerges as accusations of racial profiling that exist among the members of the public. Racial profiling translates into an ethical dilemma as it determines how the local communities relate to the law enforcement agencies. For instance, racial profiling manifests upon the delivery of justice, such as when the minority population often tops the list of given kinds of criminals, leads to the number of incarcerations, and appears to have more harsh court verdicts than the majority counterparts (Ginkowski, 2011). Conversely, the law enforcement agents may find it unreasonable to brand them racists when the majority of the offenders are of a given ethnicity (Martin, 2011). The balance in applying the laws of justice and fairness, therefore, remains out of the question as the officers have to enforce anti-crime activities without favor (Martin, 2011). Nevertheless, the criminal justice system must address the public perceptions adequately to reverse the thoughts on racial profiling by law enforcement agents. Otherwise, the problem may escalate to an unmanageable social injustice issue that can become difficult to control. Moreover, the law enforcement entities must instill justice and fairness in their personnel to ensure that every situation of the case ends with both parties fully satisfied.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the criminal justice system must adequately address every issue of ethical concern to remain a trustworthy, just, and integral institution in the eyes of the members of the public. The major ethical concerns include the use of surveillance technology and data capture gadgets from third parties as part of intelligence networking, engaging in illegal activities as undercover agents, and acceptance of forgiveness and mediation as another means of delivering justice. While these are the main recognized ethical issues, other uncommon perspectives exist. These underexplored ethical dilemmas include organizational culture, self-legitimacy as a psychological issue, and racial profiling. While striking the right balance is necessary in most cases, forgiveness and mediation serve no purpose in restoring ultimate justice. For instance, the issue of wiretapping requires a critical balance between the need for surveillance to meet the mandate of securing the public from any threats. In the same breath, the populace must ensure that their private information is safeguarded from landing on the wrong people who may even use it against them. Also, the methodology employed by the criminal justice system of the undercover agents hiding from the suspects to obtain the information required to act as evidence in the courts of law. Then, sound interventions such as behavior change can adequately address self-legitimacy and organizational culture.

Guarantees

Email delivery Your paper is uploaded to your account and you get a copy delivered by email.	Wide range of services Your get wide range of high quality services from our professional team.	Authentic papers All papers are written from scratch up to your instructions
Privacy guarantee No personal data is ever disclosed to any third parties.	Deadline meeting Any paper ordered will be delivered strictly according to the deadline.	Satisfaction guarantee All our customer are totally satisfied with their orders.
No plagiarism All papers you order are plagiarism free.	24/7 customer support Our Support Representatives are at your service 24/7 365 days a year.	Free revision Each customer has 48 hours after deadline expires to get paper revised.