Utilitarianism: Police Misconduct

"Proper use of discretion is probably the most important measure of a police officer or department." -- Rich Kinsey (retired police detective)

Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.

After reading all the material regarding Jeffery Bell, Darryl Forrest and Dustin Sillings all 3 whom were members of the Kansas City Police special unit known as (SCORE) Selective, Crime, Occurrence, Reduction Enforcement unit. I came up with several unethical behaviors throughout the course of the year from January 2010 to January 2011. One, all 3 officers violated the victims constitutional rights. Rights that were taken away were the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and not to have their property taken without due process under the law. (The Criminal Indictment: United States of America v. Jeffrey M. Bell, Darryl M. Forrest, and Dustin Sillings) Each officer took it upon themselves to steal various items including money from

• 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).

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

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

With the past and current issues our country is having with law enforcement officials the ethical deliberations about corruptions is constantly examining the foundations of police ethics. The reasoning following public corruption indicates an underlying social institutional structure that our country has created. In 2006, Louis Eppolito and Stephen Caracappa were convicted of racketeering, extortion, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and murder charges. Louis and Stephen worked in the NYPD police department; however, they were actually working for the Lucchese crime family mafia. In 2001, Joseph Miedzianowski worked as both a police officer and a drug kingpin; therefore, he used his knowledge from both sides of his work to shake down drug dealers. From 1972 until 1991, Jon Burge oversaw the torture of hundreds of African American men with radiators, cigarettes, and electrocuted their testicles; therefore, in order to assure Chicago police department could get their confessions. During Hurricane Katrina Robert Gisevius, Kenneth Bowen, and Anthony Villavaso members of the New Orleans police department murdered an innocent sixteen-year-old James Brissette under a bridge. Situations like these are highly publicized and often lead the public to doubt our countries police department members. Corruption of ethics and morals within a police department is destructive, and can have a crippling effect on the police department’s organization. When an organization experiences a

Police executives have always had different issues within the police department. Most police executives try to find a quick fix in order to solve the issue of police misconduct. Police misconduct is defined as inappropriate action taken by police officers in relation with their official duties (Police Misconduct Law & Legal Definition, n.d.). In order to solve this issue, one must acknowledge their different challenges, overcome the “code of silence”, and find out the role of organizational culture.

These cases pose great difficulties for the Utilitarian. (Many (if not all?)have to do with what Jonathan Glover calls THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS DOCTRINE; this states that `in certain contexts, failure to perform an act, with certain foreseen bad consequences of that failure, is morally less bad than to perform a different act which has identical foreseen bad consequences.'(Thus it is worse to KILL someone than merely to LET SOMEONE DIE (or to let someone else kill them. Thus some Catholics would justify the bombing of military targets in The Second World War even when such bombing was bound to cause civilian casualties). The Utilitarian is committed to REJECTING The Acts and Omissions Doctrine; but this seems unacceptable. (Failing to send money to the starving is wrong, but it is not as wrong as sending the starving poisoned food – Philippa Foot).

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that seeks to define right and wrong actions based solely on the consequences they produce. By utilitarian standards, an act is determined to be right if and

This situation is similar to the one above. My reasoning, is that they have a “what if” aspect to them. That is one of the problems of utilitarianism, predicting what the outcome could be is highly unlikely. Nine out of ten times, citizens would respond that the officer should pull over and investigate what is indeed happening. Even I believe that he should pull over and teach the rookie cop how to handle the situation. I view it being beneficial for the rookie cop to learn something. Simultaneously, it could also be beneficial for the teenagers and lead them to generate exceptional decisions, for instance, not smoking pot in the open. When it comes to the utilitarianism approach, it is based on what people perceive as right or wrong. Were

Utilitarians believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the consequences it produces. An act that results in at least as much pleasure or well being as other alternative acts is right, and vice versa. In other words, any act that does not maximize pleasure is morally wrong. Even though utilitarian ethics often clashes with conventional norms, the conflict has no direct moral relevance to the action.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it

What are the standards in Police Ethics? By definition it is the Rules of conduct recognized in respect to police actions when dealing with a class of people, person or a particular group, culture, etc. In all the research I have done, books, articles and research papers I have read, I am hard pressed to find an ethicist without a political agenda or pure racist opinion, who believes that the policies should stand as written.

Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.