Individual Project
Abstract
This paper evaluates the ethical aspects of the workings of the police and the moral issues surrounding the police accepting freebies in the course of performing their duties. In particular, this paper looks at the legal aspects regarding the acceptance of gratuities by the police on-duty and off-duty. Accordingly, he paper will be considering the pros and cons relating to the law enforcement officers accepting and not accepting free meals from a local restaurant. Further, the paper considers the conduct among the law enforcement officers as well as whether a higher standard of conduct should apply to them. Consequently, the paper evaluates whether it is possible for civilians and other entities to sue the police department because of the police accepting free lunches. In this regard, the paper also considers other common reasons that people use to sue the police in State and federal courts. Ultimately, the paper looks at the harm that occurs when people sue police departments.
Accepting Unlawful Gratuities
It is of utmost important for the police, individually and severally to pay for their meals and to avoid taking free meals from civilians. While police officers are not part of an elite group but rather a group that is drawn from the larger society, they serve a thin line separating order from chaos. In this regard, the police officers have to bear the enormous duty of maintaining stability within the society. The police are the agency that people turn to when they feel that their rights have been infringed and they expect a response that is not biased. As such, people must be able to perceive police officers as fair and neutral in order to trust that the officers will perform their responsibilities effectively and be efficient agents of justice. It is important to note that the responsibilities of the police often depend on the perception that people have towards the law enforcement agents. For the public to perceive the police as fair and unbiased, they should not owe their services to any person, business, or any special interests. As such, all conducts that may undermine the perception of the police as fair and just must be discouraged and prohibited. Although it may be innocent to provide gifts to police officers including free meals, people are likely to misconstrue the gifts as though they were bribes. Such an instance may arise when a civilian has a complaint against the civilian-owned restaurant that provides free meals to police officers. In this regard, the civilian may become uncomfortable reporting the restaurant to the same officers it offers free meals, and this becomes a sign of a highly corrupt society. Ultimately, being aware that the police officers receive free meals from the restaurant would eliminate the perceptions of fairness and neutrality in the handling of the matter by the same police officers and the department from which they serve. As such, one can rightly conclude that it is not ethical for a police officer to accept free meals from the civilian-owned restaurant.
Standards of Conduct
Police officers should be held to a higher standard than the people in other professions should. Although there are many professions that demand high ethical standards for their members, people expect the law enforcement agents to have higher level of dedication and observe the highest ethical standards, both on and off duty. Notably, the public examines the conduct of police officers more than people who work in other professions, either because they are suspicious of enforcement agents or because they are hopeful of observing the traits of strong leaders from the police force. The scrutiny of the police by the public leads to considerable focus on the excessive use of force and misuse of authority by individual police officers whose unethical conducts threaten to destroy the reputation of the entire force (Delattre, 2006). For instance, in the case where a few officers in a department accept free meals from a civilian-owned restaurant, if the perception of the public towards these officers is such that they are corrupt, it is easy for the society to conclude that the entire department from which they serve is corrupt. The public expects the police officers to be a good example to the society and be role models to the young people, and if the people are not able to perceive the police officers as model citizens then it will be very hard for the police to enforce law and order (Gleason, 2006). As such, if the police fail to maintain high standards in their conducts then there is a genuine risk of the society disintegrating to lawlessness.
Civil Liability
The police department cannot be sued for accepting free lunches. Some of the more common reasons that people use to sue police departments include misuse of authority and excessive use of force. Misuse of authority is a situation whereby a police officer uses its authority to violate the rights and freedoms of individuals without sufficient reason, in which case the aggrieved civilian can sue the officer responsible along with the entire department. With regard to excessive use of force, the accusation arises when the police use a level of force that is too much in a bid to compel citizens to comply with lawful orders (Alpert, 2004). For instance, beating an accused person in a bid to extract a confession is considered to be excessive use of force by the police. The victims of police misconduct can sue the police and the department in federal or state courts. The federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction if the misconduct by the police arises from their violation of federal civil rights statute, which authorizes persons who were arrested unlawfully to file lawsuits for civil damages against police officers. Accordingly, the State and the U.S. Constitutions grant and limit the jurisdiction of both State and Federal courts. The harm caused when someone sues a police department is both financial and perceptive (Hess, 2015). Financial harm occurs when the government has to use public resources to defend the department because it is a government agency, while perceptive harm is usually in relation to the opinion of the public towards the conduct of department and individual officers.
Conclusion
A police department can reduce its civil liability by ensuring that the officers serving within it uphold high ethical standards. This includes, but is not limited to, refusing to accept free meals from civilians and civilian entities. Ultimately, the perception of the public towards the police is dependent on the manner in which individual officers interact with the civilian members of the society. While there is no law that prohibits police from receiving gratuities, their responsibilities demand that they remain impartial and fair in dispensing their services. When they accept freebies from the members of the public, they risk losing the trust and confidence that the society accords law enforcement agents and agencies.
References
Alpert, G., and Roger, D. (2004). Understanding Police Use of Force: Officers, Suspects, and
Reciprocity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Delattre, E. J. (2006). Character and Cops: Ethics in Policing, 5th Ed. Washington, D.C.: AEI
Press.
Gleason, T. (2006). “Ethics Training for Police”. International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1054&issue_id=112006
Hess, K., Orthmann, C. and Cho, H. (2015). Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice, 11th Edition. Boston: Cengage Learning.
