<div>Abstract</div><div>Our keepers of the peace and enforcers of the law are surrounded by
crime and criminals, but something separates them from criminality. The
criminal justice system is complex, but one thing grounds it’s
practitioners: a foundation of ethics. According to Peak (2012),
“ethics involves doing what is right or correct and is generally used
to refer to how people should behave in a professional capacity” (p.
278). This paper will explore the role that ethics plays in the three
facets of justice: law enforcement, the courts, and corrections.
Additionally, this paper will look at the results that ethical criminal
justice practitioners have on the criminal justice system, as well as
examine what results when ethics are replaced by selfishness and
corruption. Ethics are foundational to the criminal justice system and
to the achievement of it’s overarching goals: preservation of peace and
fulfillment of justice. Without ethics, peace and justice are
improbabilities and corruption is a foregone conclusion.</div><div><i>Keywords</i> : morals, deontological, absolute, relative, noble cause,
corruption</div><div></div><div></div><div>Ethics in the Criminal Justice System</div><div>A thin line separates order from chaos. Criminal justice professionals
walk that line, and hold it. The criminal justice system is the complex
interworking of law enforcement, courts, and corrections. The common
denominator among honest and productive criminal justice professionals
is a foundation of ethics on which they build everything that they do.
Ethics are far from simple, however; they are as complex as the criminal
justice system itself, and the lack of ethics are detrimental to the pursuit of justice. Ethical rules of conduct are infinitely important to
the successful operation of a criminal justice organization and the
successful achievement of the criminal justice system’s overarching
goals.</div><div></div><div><b>Ethics</b></div><div>Ethics are defined by Merriam-Webster (n.d.) as “the discipline dealing
with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.” Ethics
are far from simple, however; the main concern being <i>whose</i> ethics
or <i>which</i> ethics we’re talking about. Any discussion of ethics
demands further definitions. There are two subcategories of ethics,
absolute ethics and relative ethics.</div><div>Absolute ethics refer to issues where there is either good or bad, right
or wrong. These kinds of ethics seem to be sewn into the fabric of our
very being, and are nearly universally accepted within a specific
society. Examples of absolute ethics include: murder is wrong, extortion
is wrong, honesty is good, loyalty is good.</div><div>Relative ethics, on the other hand, are much more complicated and would
be best described as issues that have several shades of grey, rather
than being black-and-white. As Khan (2006) wisely says, “ethics can be
taught” and continues by saying that ethics must be examined critically
in order to fully understand (para. 2). Additionally, Eastvedt (2008)
shares, “Without a doubt, there are some philosophical problems when
considering ethical concepts … [S]ome people may charge that
what may be ethical to one person, may not be considered ethical to
others.” Some examples of relative ethical decisions include: the best
way to handle homelessness issues within a community and how we can
limit the number of drug overdoses. The right or good answer to these
questions is mind-dependant.</div><div>Deontological ethics must also be examined, as it is commonplace within
the criminal justice system. Peak (2012) describes deontological ethics
as the kind of decision “which does not consider consequences, but
instead examines one’s duty to act” (p. 278). Rather than the outcomes
motivating the action, it is a sense of duty that drives the action.
Criminal justice practitioners are often driven to make ethical
decisions out of a sense of duty rather than out of an internal sense of
right or wrong. In this case, duty determines right and wrong.</div><div></div><div><b>Ethics in Law Enforcement</b></div><div>Ethics is foundational to law enforcement and its importance is
highlighted in the intense search for honest, moral, and ethical law
enforcement candidates. The average law enforcement hiring process takes
between six and eight months and includes a highly invasive background
check, a lengthy interview, followed by a polygraph to check for
accuracy. Law enforcement organizations expect complete honesty
throughout all parts of the application process and demand that honesty
to continue through all aspects of the job. Honesty, integrity, and
ethical officers are the backbone of any law enforcement organization.
Several topics within law enforcement fall into what could be called
relative ethical topics and should be explored. Additionally, there are
several solutions that will ensure ethicality within criminal justice
organizations.</div><div>Deception, or lying, is in some ways an essential part of the policing
process but can also be taken too far into criminality. Accepted lying
refers to deception that is generally considered part of the job and can
include all kinds of trickery used to apprehend or entrap suspects
(Peak, 2012). Deviant lying, however, is described by Peak (2012) as
“officers committing perjury to convict suspects or being deceptive
about some activity that is illegal or unacceptable” (p. 281). Eastvedt
(2008) lists “lying or dishonesty” as “ways for people in the
criminal justice community to seriously damage and destroy their
integrity” (p. 66). Deception is a curious topic when discussing
ethics, but it is clear that the often-debated line must not be crossed.</div><div>Gratuities is another grey area of ethics. Like deception, minor
gratuities are a normal part of a law enforcement officer’s day, but
gratuities in excess is synonymous with corruption. Peak (2012) cites
the Knapp Commission’s terminology of “grass-eaters” or
“meat-eaters” to describe police officers’ relationship to gratuities.
A grass-eater is described as on officer who accepts gratuities that are
given voluntarily and will sometimes solicit minor gratuities.
Meat-eaters, on the other hand, are officers who regularly, and even
aggressively, solicit gratuities and search out situations where they
can exploit people for person gain. Gratuities are surely a slippery
slope that can result in officers sliding into all types of corruption
(Peak, 2012).</div><div>Gratuities have the potential to be the start of a slippery slope to
greed, of which there is temptation abound in the criminal justice
field. Law enforcement officers are in a seemingly endless cycle of
temptation and they are surrounded my crimes and criminality. The
temptation to greed can motivate officers to a myriad of types of
corruption including crimes relating to drugs, bribes, prostetution, and
other abuses of power.</div><div>Several solutions, or partial solutions, exist for law enforcement
organizations when it comes to hiring and maintaining an ethical
workforce. As previously mentioned, strict expectations on hiring the
right people cannot be overstated. Additionally, proper ongoing ethics
training, including regular training on policy and procedure, is
necessary. Chilton (1998) asserts that standardization is necessary in
ethics training in order to avoid what he calls “the ‘Pinocchio Theory’
problem of personal, idiosyncratic moral judgments in the administration
of criminal justice” (p. 40). Law enforcement organizations would also
be wise to set strong organizational values in an attempt to “shape the
standards of professional behavior”(Peak, 2012, 285). An organization’s
culture is often perpetrated by it’s public organizational values.</div><div></div><div><b>Ethics in the Courts</b></div><div>The Delaware Judiciary (n.d.) describes one of their core visions as to
“insure equal application of the judicial process to all cases, which
are fairly decided based upon legally relevant factors.” This equal
application and fair decision must be rooted in an ethical foundation.
“Because an understanding of judicial ethics is part and parcel of a
true appreciation for the core values of the judiciary-judicial
independence, integrity, and impartiality-this cannot be an optional
project” (Rosenblum, 2007, p. 403). Several standards of conduct exist
that relates to ethics in the courtroom, including the Model Code of
Judicial Conduct, the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, and the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989. Judges, who preside over a court, and attorneys, who
battle each other in court, are both held to high ethical standards.</div><div>Judges are sworn to administer justice within their courtroom. Judges
swear to do this without respect to the people involved but with respect
to the Constitution and the laws of the United States (Legal Information
Institute, n.d.). This would imply that a judge should not import their
emotions, opinions, convictions, or biases into their courtroom
decisions. However, this is not the case as judges are human like the
rest of us. Ethical behavior by a judge would eliminate favoritism,
bias, and impropriety, and carry over into their personal conduct.
Appleby &amp; Blackham (2018) assert that there is a current trend toward
the “transparent ethical regulation for serving judges” which is said
to “promote public confidence in the judicial institution” (p. 506).
These ethical codes are independent and do not - can not - eliminate a
judge’s personality or emotions to bleed over into their decision
making. This is another case of relative ethics, in which there is no
specific line between ethical and unethical actions.</div><div>Attorneys, both on the prosecution and defense side of the courtroom,
are also faced with challenges of ethics. Attorneys “must be legally
and morally bound to ethical principles as agents of the courts” (Peak,
2012, p. 288). Attorneys are ethically bound to put justice over
winning, which unfortunately is rarely the case in today’s court
proceedings. Ethical principles also prohibit misconduct such as
deception or lying, bribery, concealment of evidence, among other
things.</div><div></div><div><b>Ethics in Corrections</b></div><div>On a large scale, there are several ethical issues spanning the
correctional system. Albanese (as cited in Khan, 2006) “scrutinizes the
moral and ethical ramifications of correctional philosophies, such as
retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation and
sentencing methods” (p. 49). These large scale issues are one of the
most heavily debated topics in current politics ad media.</div><div>On a more personal level, correctional officers are subject to most of
the same ethical standards as law enforcement officers. Deception plays
a very similar role in the day-to-day functioning of a correctional
officer. Additionally, several norms exist for correctional officers
that function as a sort of code of conduct. These norms include:
“always go to the aid of an officer in distress, do not ‘rat,’ never
make another officer look back in front of inmates” (Peak, 2012, p.
289), among others. While these norms are important and necessary, it is
important for correctional officers to not elevate their code of conduct
over absolute ethics.</div><div>Contraband is a significant facet of how correctional facilities
operate, and poses similarly significant ethical issues for correctional
officers. Everything from drugs to weapons to cell phones are smuggled
into prisons, sometimes at the knowledge of officers or even by officers
themselves. This creates numerous opportunities for corruption, greed,
and other unethical behavior.</div><div>Eastvedt (2008) declares that unethical behavior by correctional
officers can have significant effects on the organization as a whole:</div><blockquote><div>Granted, it may be true that unethical behaviors occurring behind the
walls of correctional facilities rarely hit the 6 o’clock news or the
front page of the newspaper. However, when it does happen, everyone
within the organization is seriously affected. Administrators are held
accountable, and staff may be discredited. Morale among the troops can
plummet dramatically. Inmates may use the incident to question and
challenge line officer authority, making it increasingly difficult for
correctional staff to do their jobs. Maintaining security within the
jail or prison becomes, at least for a time, a more challenging and
daunting task and increases risk to staff and inmates alike. (p. 62)</div></blockquote><div>Unethical behavior has a significant negative effect on the entire
organization, but that correlation is not limited to just corrections,
but extends into all facets of the criminal justice system. Unethical
behavior does not just impact the individual, but it sheds negative
light on the system as a whole. A single unethical person can be the
proverbial bad apple that spoils the whole bunch.</div><div></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div>It is clear that ethical criminal justice practitioners have an
infinitely positive impact on the criminal justice system and that
justice crumbles when ethics are replaced by selfishness and corruption.
The lack of ethics creates an untrustworthy system, which is not
supported by the public. Upholding ethics within the criminal justice
system will not only result in justice, but it will also ensure
cooperation with the public. Ethics are foundational to the criminal
justice system and to the achievement of it’s overarching goals:
preservation of peace and fulfillment of justice. Without ethics, peace
and justice are improbabilities and corruption is a foregone conclusion.</div><div></div><div></div><div>References</div><div>Appleby, G., &amp; Blackham, A. (2018). The Shadow Of The Court: The
Growing Imperative To Reform Ethical Regulation Of Former Judges.<i>International and Comparative Law Quarterly</i> , <i>67</i> (3),
505–546. doi: 10.1017/s0020589318000143</div><div>Chilton, B. S. (1998). Constitutional conscience: Criminal justice and
public interest ethics. <i>Criminal Justice Ethics</i> , <i>17</i> (2),
33–41. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.libraryresources.waldorf.edu/docview/209772011?accountid=40957</div><div>Eastvedt, S. R. (2008). Criminal Justice Ethics: A View From the Top.<i>American Jails</i> , <i>22</i> (5), 61–62,65-67. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.libraryresources.waldorf.edu/docview/222222387?accountid=40957</div><div>Khan, E. (2006). Professional Ethics in Criminal Justice: Being Ethical
When No One is Looking. <i>Corrections Compendium</i> , <i>31</i> (5),
48–49. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.libraryresources.waldorf.edu/docview/211858471?accountid=40957</div><div>Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). 28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of
justices and judges. Retrieved from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453.</div><div>Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Ethic. Retrieved from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic.</div><div>Peak, K. J. (2012). <i>Justice administration: Police, courts, and
corrections management</i> (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.</div><div>Rosenblum, E. F. (2007). Judicial Ethics For All: An Expansive Approach
to Judicial Ethics Education. <i>Justice System Journal</i> ,<i>28</i> (3), 394–404. Retrieved from
https://search-proquest-com.libraryresources.waldorf.edu/docview/194780465?accountid=40957</div><div>The Delaware Judiciary. (n.d.). Mission, Vision &amp; Goals. Retrieved from
https://courts.delaware.gov/jpcourt/mission.aspx.</div>