Ethical Dilemmas And Ethics In Criminal Justice

Natural law is the idea that principles of morals and rights are inherit tent in nature and not human-made such laws are discovered by reason but exist apart from humankind. Which means that laws are made by morals and principles of nature and not by mankind.

Natural law is a concept with a long history dating back to the Greco-Roman philosophers. Despite some variations among philosophers one point of agreement was understood as “that process in nature by which human beings, through the use of sound reason, were able to perceive what was morally right

• Integrity: each police officer is presumed to do the right thing, at all times, regardless of the matter at hand, those involved and any other influences. Officers are held to a higher lever of integrity and expected to perform above all else, at all times (Baker, 2011).

“Ethical issues regarding corruption and off-duty behavior have become an increasing challenge in criminal justice” (Writing, 1999-2013). Within the criminal justice system, ethics can be complicated by the moral implications of actions. Differences in cultures and different circumstances can affect the individual moral compass. However, all departments of criminal justice operate by a certain code of ethics and by certain standards. But those standards and ethics often become challenged due to issues relating to police brutality, off duty conduct and corruption that we hear about all of the time through the media.

The relationship among ethics and professional behavior in the direction of criminal justice is one, which is very vital. The point of the matter is that these individuals who are in places of power entails that he or she must equalize a balanced of business professionalism in accordance with the laws alongside a code of ethics that live inside and for the law along with their individual private morals and ethics. Numerous could dispute the battle among the ethics of a lawyer on behalf of somebody that they know to be guilty and they would have a usable disagreement in regard to what way ethical it is. A lawyer has the decision to not defend an individual if they feel so motivated to do so. Still, in this state one has rules in one’s laws that

In order to answer this scenario, I need to look at the underlying ethical system and the moral rules leading to my judgment. As in many scenarios, there are conflicting moral rules that could justify different judgments. While police officers are supposed to enforce laws, they are also primarily expected to protect life and property (Nakate, 2011). Public safety is the primary concern of police officers. Therefore, unless a law involves mandatory reporting, then an officer is expected to exercise some discretion involving those laws. The theory behind requiring permits in order to hold a rally is that some rallies can lead to dangers for the public. Therefore, in this scenario, I would have to determine whether there was a reasonable likelihood that the rally might become violent. It is important to realize that even if the sponsoring group would not advocate violence, any rally about a controversial issue has the ability to become violent. Whether or not the tipster is providing accurate information is not of critical importance, because planning to hold a rally without a permit is not illegal; holding a rally without a permit is not illegal. As a police officer, I could ethically respond to the tip by going to the head of the group and ask if they were planning to hold a rally the next day and remind him of the permit requirement. I could do this without neglecting my

No matter what job you have in the criminal justice system there will always be ethical dilemmas that arise. As a person who’s job is to enforce the law there is always a way to step over the boundaries whether it be unfair treatment to citizens, inmates or agencies. There is always areas of the career to consider and in order to make everyone happy there are steps that need to be taken. From the police officer on the street to the parole board there is always something that could come up which could have consequences for either decision so which is the right one?

Common law is created from the customs and precedents set in the country rather than statutes created by Congress. Common law allowed more discretion on behalf of the judges originally, but less room for change down the line. Natural law is the basis for human contact and does not waiver on moral principles. Natural rights are less vague than the law; meaning, natural rights are part of a person. You cannot be a person if you give up your natural rights, these rights are inalienable, and are the rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence. Legal positivism emphasizes the belief that law is synonymous with positive norms. The norms of legal positivism are created through common law. Legal positivism also argues that the legality of an issue does not settle the morality of issues; legality is always separate from

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

Since the 19th century, plea bargaining has become an important part of the criminal justice system. This is because prosecutors have often been overwhelmed with a tremendous amount of cases. At the same time, the cost and time involved with conducting a trial can become an added burden. To address these challenges, most district attorneys will use plea bargaining as way to dispense justice and reduce their backlog in cases. (Fisher, 2004, pp. 40 62)

Natural law- the idea that principles of morals and rights are inherent in nature and not human made; such laws are discovered by reason but exist apart from humankind. Positive law-human made law.

This belief would greatly influence the case of R. v. Pushpanathan from a moral standpoint. A judge who is set in the philosophy of natural law would most likely deny Pushpanathan refugee status because of the circumstances in the case. Pushpanathan’s actions would never be seen as morally correct. Had Pushpanathan carried out his plans to traffic $10 million worth of heroin he would have caused tremendous damage to society. This damage would come in many forms such as: economic, civilian, and property. For example, the trafficking of heroin could lead to the loss of employment for hundreds of people which would in turn harm the economy. Trafficking heroin would also lead to the deaths of many people due to overdose and violent confrontations over the drug, as well as thousands of dollars in property damage caused by uncontrollable outbursts when those addicted to the drug begin to suffer from withdrawal because they lack the means necessary to obtain any of the substance. The action of trafficking drugs is seen by most as morally wrong because of the damage it causes to society. From this, one can safely assume that the law that is in place to deter people from trafficking dangerous substances such as heroin is seen as morally correct by those who reflect the values of the natural law philosophy because it protects society from what most people see as morally wrong. Moreover, a judge who is set in the philosophy of natural law would see the lack of morality in Pushpanathan’s actions and the moral reasoning behind the law that punishes those who traffic dangerous substances such as heroin. From this information, the judge would likely make the decision to deny Pushpanathan refugee

different from natural law because ‘ it calls for a certain measure of regularity of observance for without this feature, it would hardly be entitled to rank as law at all. A natural law on the other hand may stll be held to be valid even if it is never or scarcely even observed.’7 Legal positivism will only work in a community where it is widely accepted. Hart suggested that the legal system is a ‘closed’ logical system where decisions may be deduced by logic. For

Every professional in the criminal justice system is held to a much higher standard compared to employees in other businesses in the United States. It is important that anyone within the criminal justice system has a strong moral code, has ethical conduct, and always makes ethical decisions. Police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and correctional officers are faced with making extremely tough decisions with very little time to think about the situation at hand. Having sound judgment and the ability to make ethical decisions is a key factor for that professional to be successful in their career. Ethics are the backbone of the criminal justice system, which can make or break the system.

Natural law theorists believe that all law must be morally justified if it can be legitimised as law at all. Legal positivism means the simple contention that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have otherwise done so. (Hart, DATE)