We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

“Ethics in Policing” Essay

Essay Topic:

Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!

In The Ethics of Policing, John Kleinig presents a broad discussion of the ethical issues that overwhelmed existing police organization and individual police officers. This debate is set surrounded by others that bring in the reader to basic approaches at present in support among moral philosophers (social contract, neo-Kantian and utilitarian–though thought of the recent efforts to widen virtue-oriented ethical theories is regrettably absent) and to many of the significant questions posed in the swiftly growing subfield of practiced ethics (such as whether professional ethics are constant with or in clash with so-called “ordinary” ethics).

The discussions are consistently even-handed, broad and extraordinarily rich in detail. Kleinig sets out typologies of the kinds of force used by the police as well as variety of dishonesty in which they occasionally engage range of distort exercise, alternative actions for holding police responsible, and the like. He offers wide-ranging debate of the role and history of police codes of ethics, the changes made on the personal lives of police, and the challenges to police management facade by unionization and confirmatory action.

In short, this book is much more than a directory of police ethical issues with reference for their solution–it is that, of course, but it is also an beginning to professional ethics in general, a articulate staging of important existing moral theories, a outline of the key legal decisions affecting police work, and a rich representation, both understanding and essential of the police officer’s world.

Kleinig concentrates on his topic with a large idea of ethics, one that runs from meticulous problems (such as police judgment and use of force), through common problems (such as the ethics of misleading tactics and the nature of dishonesty), to deliberation of the effects of police work on police officers’ moral fiber (such as the regrettable inclination of police to distrust and hostility), all the way to organizational difficulty (such as those about the arrangement of answerability and the status of whistleblowers).

Right through his rich and caring conversation, it seems as if the difficulty of ethical policing is just that of how the police can morally carry out the job they are assigning and putting into effect the laws they are furnished to implement. Kleinig considers that many of the ethical problems facing the police have their cause in (or are at least supported and assisted by) the trend of police to appreciate their own role as that of law enforcers or “crime-fighters. ” This promotes over trust on the use of force, predominantly lethal force and enhances police officers’ sense of hostility from the society they are sworn to serve.

Furthermore, this self-image makes police doubtful of, hostile to, and commonly unhelpful with police administrations inspired programs such as “community policing”–that aim to redesign the police into a more comprehensible organization. Amusingly, the police self-image as “crime-fighters” continue in the face of practical studies showing that law enforcement per se, the engaging and catching of criminals, takes up only a small number of police officers’ work time. Much more time is in fact spent by the police doing things like crowd and traffic organizing, dispute resolution, dealing with medical tragedies, and the like.

Consider Kleinig’s argument of police dishonesty. Kleinig takes up Lawrence Sherman’s view that allowing police to agree to a free cup of coffee at a diner starts the officer on a slippery slope toward more serious graft because, deliberating he has accepted a free cup of coffee makes it difficult for the officer to stand firm when a bartender who is in action after legal closing hours presents him a drink–and this in turn will make it harder to resist yet more serious attempts to bribe the officer to not enforce the law.

Sherman then suggests that the only way to fight corruption is to get rid of the kinds of laws, first and foremost vice laws that provide the strongest lure to corruption of both police and criminals. In opposition to Sherman’s view, Kleinig believe sthat of Michael Feldberg, who argue that police can and do differentiates between minor gratuities and bribes. Kleinig consent. Kleinig takes corruption to be a topic of its motive (to misrepresent the carrying out of justice for personal or organizational gains) relatively than of particular manners.

This is a nice difference that allows Kleinig to detach corrupt practices from other ethically problematic practices, such as taking gratuities–of which the free cup of coffee is an example. Quoting Feldberg, Kleinig writes that “what makes a gift a gratuity is the reason it is given; what makes it corruption is the reason it is taken” (Kleining, 1996, 178). Gratuities are given with the hope that they will encourage the police to frequent the organization that give them, and certainly, the police will often stop at the diner that gives them a free cup of coffee.

Thus, Kleinig follows Feldberg in philosophy that recieving coffee is wrong because it will tend to draw police into the coffee-offering business and thus upset the democratic value of even-handed distribution of police protection. Kleinig takes up the question of entrapment by first allowing for the so-called subjective and objective advances to determining when it has occurred. On the subjective approach, entrapment has happened if the government has rooted the intention to commit the crime in the defendant’s mind.

So implicit, the defence of entrapment is overcome if the government can show that the defendant already had (at least) the outlook to perform the type of crime of which he is now blamed. On the objective approach, anything the intention or disposition of the real defendant, entrapment has arised if the government’s contribution is of such a character that it would have made a usually law-abiding person to commit a crime.

Kleinig condemns the subjective approach by indicating that the behaviour of a government cause that constitutes entrapment would not do so if it had been done by a classified citizen. Thus, the subjective approach fails to clarify why entrapment only relay to actions performed by government means. For this grounds, some turn to the objective approach with its stress on improper government action. However, as Kleinig skilfully shows, this approach experience from the problem of spelling out what the government must do to, so to converse, “create” a crime.

It cannot be that the government agent was the sine qua non of the crime since that would rule out lawful police does not entice operations; nor can it be that the government agent simply made the crime easier since that would rule out even undisruptive acts of providing public information. The objective approach seems based on no more than essentially controversial intuitive judgments about when police action is excessive or objectionable.

The reason is that this account is susceptible to the same opposition that Kleinig raised in opposition to the subjective approach–it fails to explain why entrapment only relates to actions carried out by a government agent. Certainly, the problem goes deeper because Kleinig’s account supposes that government action has a particular status. As Kleinig point to, the same actions done by a private citizen would not comprise entrapment. It follows that actions done by a government agent can dirty the evidentiary picture, while the same actions done by a private citizen would not.

But, then, we still need to know why entrapment refers only to actions carried out by government agents. To answer this, Kleinig must give more power to the objectivist approach than he does. When it does more s Kleinig notes but fails to integrate into his account–the government “becomes a tester of virtue rather than a detector of crime” (Kleining, 1996, 161). Indeed, much practical crime fighting is wrong because it does not so much fight crimes as it fights criminals, taking them as if they were an unseen enemy who need to be drawn out into the unwrap and take steps.

As with corruption, it seems to me that Kleinig has measured entrapment with active criminal justice practice taken as given and thus, by default, as not posing a confront to ethical policing. Kleinig suggests that as an alternative of law enforcers or crime-fighters, police ought to be consider and think of themselves–as “social peacekeepers,” only part of whose task is to put into effect the law, but whose larger task is to remove the obstruction to the even and pacific flow of social life. (Kleining, 1996, 27ff) Kleinig’s disagreement for significant the police role as social peacekeeping has three parts.

The first part is the gratitude that, while social agreement theories lead to the idea of the police as just law enforcers, the information is that we have (as I have already noted) always likely the police to play a larger role, taking care of a large diversity of the barrier to quiet social life. The second part of the quarrel is that the idea of the police as peacekeepers, in totaling to equivalent to what police essentially do, reverberates adequately with practice, in exacting with the idea of the “king’s peace,” the organization of which might be thought of as the predecessor of modem criminal justice tradition.

Kleinig thinks will flow from this preconceiving of the police role: a less confused, more helpful and pacifying relationship between the police and the society; a compact dependence on the use of force, particularly lethal force, to the point that force is sighted as only a last alternative among the many possessions accessible to the police for eliminating obstacles to social peace.

The very fact that police are armed (and dressed in military-style uniforms) for law enforcement makes it just about overwhelming that they will be used for crowd and traffic control. Subsequently, if a small group of persons is to keep a large, volatile and potentially dodgy group in line, it will surely help if the small group is armed and in distinguishing dress. As for the other jobs allocated to the police, it must be distinguished that these jobs are not generally executed by the police for the community as a whole.

Middle class and wealthier folks do not turn to the police for dispute resolution or help in medical emergencies. Ignored in this way, the poor call on the police when there is problem and reasonably so. The police are at all times there, they make house calls, and they do not charge. Practices that outcome from our negligent treatment of the poor should scarcely be lifted to normative position in the way that Kleinig in cause does by speaking of what “we” have allocated to the police.

Only some have had the authority to assign the police these additional jobs, and even those influential few seem more to have deserted the jobs on the police than considerately to have assigned them. Most significantly, however, distinguishing the police as peacekeepers has the trend to cover over what is still the most important truth about the police, the very thing that calls for extraordinary good reason and for particular answerability, namely, that the police have the ability to order us around and to use aggression to back those orders up.

For example, when Kleinig takes up the police arguments that they should be treated like proficiently and thus standardize themselves, Kleinig objects only on the position that “It is uncertain whether police can lay claim to such focused knowledge” not available to lay persons as renowned professions, such as medicine and law’ do. (Kleining, 1996, 40) Similarly, in explanation why police may correctly be focused to civilian review boards, Kleinig says that “the police provide a society service at a cost to the society” and thus ought to be answerable to the public they serve. (Kleining, 1996, 227)

The police are precisely subject to remote review to a level that the local authority company is not, and the grounds are the particular authority and authority the police have and the suitably tense relation involving that power, essential as it is, and the free public it both defend and threatens. Conceivably, after all, the cops are right in opinion of themselves as law enforcers and crime fighters.

Reading John Kleinig’s book is an extremely good way for anyone to learn just how uncomfortable that situation is. References Kleining, John (1996) The Ethics of Policing, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

How to cite this page

Choose cite format:

“Ethics in Policing”. (2017, Apr 28). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/ethics-in-policing-essay

We will write a custom sample essay on“Ethics in Policing”specifically for you

for only $16.38 $13.90/page
Order now

Our customer support team is available Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST. If you contact us after hours, we'll get back to you in 24 hours or less.

By clicking "Send Message", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
No results found for “ image
Try Our service
online

Hi, I am Sara from Studymoose

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Click to learn more https://goo.gl/CYf83b

online

Hi, I am Sara from Studymoose

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Click to learn more https://goo.gl/CYf83b

image

Your Answer is very helpful for Us
Thank you a lot!