The article related how Brentwood officers and the police higher-ups once said that they have stopped covering up the corruption cases against the police officials. There was massive corruption that was found in the police department in Brentwood and in order to save their own fact, the department top hierarchy decided to cover up the level of corruption in the police at that time.
However, there were two ethical sides to this dilemma. The stakeholders of this ethical dilemma were the general public, the government and the police force itself. However, the higher ups of the police department decide to hide and obscure the charges of corruption in order to protect their own department. It is very true that they have a duty towards their department and it’s well-being. They thought that hiding these charges would save their department from deep humiliation. However, they should have also remembered that they also have a great responsibility towards the government and the general public. By hiding or covering up the facts, they have encouraged the outlaws to break the law further at the expense of the general public.
The officials of the police department should have weighed their options using the utilitarianism approach. The approach says that all those actions that give more positive than negative are justified irrespectively of the decision itself. So, if covering up the corruption in the police department was beneficial for the society as a whole, then this action is justified according to the ethical framework of utilitarianism.
Work Cited:
Davies, Dai. "We Were Told that Police Had Stopped Covering up Corruption. I am After It Was
All a Sham , Say Former Met Chief." Daily Mail[London] 25 Mar 2014, Daily n. pag.
Print. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2588520/We-told-police-stopped-covering-corruption-I-fear-sham-says-former-Met-Police-chief.html>.
