Understanding that ethics is extremely vital in public safety is something that many are not aware of or don not recognizing the significance. Ethics in public safety should be considered deeply especially when organizations are planning operation. However, some think that some polices that are recognized in the public safety sector, promotes and permits unprincipled behavior; for instance the USA Patriot Act. This act was approved by Congress as a reply to the terrible terrorist attack that took place on September 11, 2001. Research shows that this act permits federal officials bigger authority in intercepting and tracking communications, both for foreign intelligence gathering and purposes of law enforcement. It provides the Secretary of the Treasury controlling powers to battle dishonesty of US financial organizations for foreign money-laundering determinations; it more aggressively works to block the borders to foreign extremists and to remove and detain those inside our borders; it starts new penalties, new crimes, and new procedural methods for use against international and domestic terrorists (2001).
The USA Patriot Act has become a vital part in the intelligence gathering and criminal inquiry process. But because of the offensive attitude that our nation is in, many believe that the USA Patriot Act has been able to assist law enforcement agencies resort to utilizing practices that are unethical such as harassment and racial profiling so as to seek out and get rid of the threat of terrorism. According to the ACLU, “a lot of the parts of these sweeping law making take away checks on law enforcement and them threaten the very freedom and rights that people are struggling to protect. For instance, without a probable cause and warrant, the FBI now has the control to get entrance into a person’s most private medical information, their library records, and also things like their student records and can stop anyone from telling that it had been done” (2003). This lawmaking gives the police the power to do whatever they want such as encroach upon an individual’s civil right which has been afforded to everyone by the 4th Amendment which makes the point; wrong “The privilege of the individual to be protected in their houses, papers, persons, and effects, against irrational seizures, and searches shall not be dishonored; and no Warrants intend to issue but upon cause that is probable which is supported by affirmation, or oath and mainly telling the place to be examined, and the individuals or things to be detained”.
This USA Patriot Act also permits for law enforcement to be very choosy when aiming at individuals; this has made racial profiling go up among Muslim and Arab communities in Americans. Research shows that racial profiling is “a way of discrimination by where the law is responsible because the police utilize an individual’s being’s cultural or racial background as the main aim to suspect that the person has broken the law” (Pham, 2012). In an article that had been printed by the ACLU, it made the point that on April 26, 2004, Federal Bureau Investigation Administrator Robert Mueller made the announcement that the Federal Bureau Investigation would take off a new round of national interviews in communities that were Muslim. Despite the fact that neither official delivered specifics, CBS News gave a report on May 28 that the inside Justice Department sources established that 5,000 Arabs and Muslims will be directed for inquiring founded on ethnicity and religion, and not on adapted suspicion of a criminal (2004).
The terrorist primary goals of those who performed the attacks on 9/11, plans were to make people change their way of life, and basically have people live in dread, and to bring some kind of harm to the nation. Researchers make the point that if people start resorting to racial profiling, aggravation, and then violate the rights of citizens' in order to do away with terrorism, people would only be assisting them get to their goals. Experts after 9/11 mentioned how people need to remain focused and be determined to defend our nation from violence, nonetheless likewise stay keen on our lawful rights in addition to the rights of others.
Search for Evidence – Requirements for Warrant
For the duration of the meeting of intelligence, being able to find some kind of evidence can be the hardest obstacle for some investigators. This is because of the fact that most of the time the material that they have already gotten throughout their collecting procedure may not be enough to be able to accomplish the warrant necessities that are being set in action by the Fourth Amendment, to perform some kind of search. However, Fenske makes the point that “warrants give just peripheral privacy-defense benefits while enforcing real values on domestic intelligence collecting— described as intelligence gathering calculated to frustrate threats with no foreign influences” (2009). Fenske goes on to mention that “reasonableness integrally includes the weighing of frequent interests on both sides of an matter and can as a result take into consideration the waning and waxing of threats posed contrary to the United States. Therefore, an intrusive search proposed to stop a terrorist attack could be practical, but then again the same search utilizing the same means exclusively to examine a crime that has by now been committed could possibly be difficult.
Whenever the Fourth Amendment relates to a certain seizure or search, the next question as something to do if whether not a warrant is even required. The Supreme Court has been able to rule that the Constitution is what shows a partiality for seizures, arrests and searches, and directed pursuant to a legally implemented (Pham, 2012). A warrant is described as a written order which has been signed by a court that allows a law-enforcement officer to lead a search, arrest or seizure. Seizures, searches, and arrests which are done without a legal warrant are believed presumptively unacceptable, and any evidence detained without a warrant will be inhibited except a court discovers that the search was sensible under the situations.
A request for a warrant will need to be reinforced by a sworn, thorough statement made by a police force officer coming before a magistrate or neutral judge. The Supreme Court has mentioned the probable cause which goes on when the circumstances and facts that are within the police officer's knowledge offer a rationally trustworthy foundation for a man of reasonable attention to rely on that a criminal offense has been done or is about to occur (Wachter, 2011). Probable cause can be recognized by statements out-of-court made by trustworthy police informers, although those statements cannot be tested by the judge. On the other hand, probable cause will not lie where the only evidence of criminal activity is an officer's affirmation of belief or suspicion (Mason, 2012). Then again, an officer's subjective aim for making an arrest does not need to be the same illegal offense for which the evidences shown. (Pham, 2012).
Surveillance and Wiretapping- Right to privacy
At least not in so many words, the right to privacy is not really a part of the Constitution. In the 9th Amendment, the right to privacy would best be seen, which essentially mentions that just for the reason that a privilege is not in the Constitution, does not essentially mean that it does not occur. The justices of the Supreme Court, in so many different cases over the past half century, have establish that a right to be private does even present in the Constitution, to a certain point. Patricia Morris wrote that “some have recommended getting rid the idea of confidentiality, having long grieved the death of the privacy issue; some radical theorists have made the argument that it was never born from the start” (Pham, 2012)
Similar as the seizures and searches and seizures, in theory, this form of intelligence-gathering type of activity will possible require that a warrant is needed. However, with the delivering of the USA Patriot Act, it was able to assist investigators with conducting this activity without having to get some kind of a warrant. However, The USA Patriot Act was put into practice by Congress because of the response to the terrorist attacks which took place on September 11, 2001. The USA Patriot Act permits federal officials larger power when it comes to intercepting and tracking communications, both for foreign intelligence gathering and purposes of law enforcement. It also provides the Secretary of the Treasury supervisory commands to battle dishonesty of US financial establishments for foreign money-laundering commitments; it more aggressively functions to close our borders to terrorists that are foreign and then to remove and detain those that are within our borders; it creates new crimes, new consequences and new practical techniques for use against international and domestic terrorists.
Ethics & Public Safety Issues Pondered In Press Reports
The surveillance system in New York City has been raising some privacy concerns for example; tech blog Johnson made a point by looking at the ethical effects of a new Microsoft surveillance system that New York City had rolled out. A network that has been able to link thousands of current security cameras, stores a month’s worth of a lot of footage at a time, and then permits police to trace movements and backtrack criminals in the minutes before an incident takes place. Whereas city officials are mentioning that the network will be utilized only for public safety functions that are legitimate , scanning through just public place areas where individuals have no prospect of privacy, human rights supporters contend that the system would need to be subject to audits that are external (Pham, 2012). Liberties Union associate of New York Civil legal director Christopher Dunn makes the following point: “We all completely support the police utilizing technology in order to combat terrorism and crime, however New Yorkers which are law-abiding people should not end up in a police folder every time they walk they go out of the house, go to the doctor or drive around the city.” (Wachter, 2011)
A reporter from the New York Times contributor poses a difficult and fascinating ethical question: If we are able to make it impossible to do a crime, do we need to be? Would such actions take away basic freedom from people? Michael Smalls, an Elon University law professor, mentions the idea of “perfect prevention” is not so mind-boggling, provided existing technologies for instance cars that screen a driver’s blood-alcohol level and will not begin if the diver is damaged or classy software that makes it difficult for most individuals to share copyrighted materials that are digital.
Smalls puts it as a right-versus-right dilemma with the following statement: “Such technologies are forcing people to reconcile two significant benefits. On one hand is society’s wish for security and safety (Wachter, 2011). On the other hand is the person’s right to act easily. Conventional crime stoppage is able to balance these interests by permitting people the freedom to do these crime, but then when they do them, they are punished. The perfect stopage of crime inquires us to reflect precisely how far individual freedom spreads. Is freedom suppose to include a ‘right’ for people to get out there and start driving drunk, for example? It is no easy to imagine that it does. However, what if the government were to start adding a drug to the water supply that suppressed antisocial urges and thereby reduced the murder rate? This would seem like an obvious violation of our freedom. We need a clear method of distinguishing such cases.”
USA Today has been reporting on an interesting trend that involves ethical and practical and implications for rescue workers and drivers: the fact that even though cars are being engineered so that car crashes are a whole lot safer, it is still more harder for first responders to remove victims when the wreck is over, and a lot new features in cars posing danger to liberate personnel. A reporter from USA Today‘s Chris Woodyard makes the following point when it comes to the situation:
“Automakers really do desire to assist in making rescues much easier however, they are in a bind: Consumers are now asking cars that are much lighter that are also have advanced powertrains that are able to get better fuel economy deprived of sacrificing safety. Designs that achieve those goals and include the most anticipated safety features likewise sometimes raises injury dangers for rescuers. They make it harder to remove victims and then have them transported to emergency rooms when it is during what is called the ‘golden hour,’ the critical 60 minutes that can decide life or death of a person.”
The report also makes the notation that new “hybrid” electrical cars are the ones that have these cables that are able to carry huge amounts of current and can electrocute rescuers which will be able to cut through mangled car units.
Police Departments
Over the years, the issue of ethics in the police department has been something that has been affecting the safety of the community. When police officers do not follow their ethics, it can be a huge factor in the lives of those is the society, especially since they play a huge role in the community. Public trust in law enforcement organizations to accomplish their everyday jobs in an ethical manner is vital to community policing and effective crime control (Pham, 2012). Ethical law enforcement organizations are more effective, for the reason that the application of community policing is what assists in building shared respect and trust that goes on among citizens and police. Integrity and ethics and community policing are features of the high-performing, prosperous law enforcement organization.
Experts agree that effective crime control really does require some form of a collaborative working relationship that goes on among the communities and law enforcement that they are sworn to protect and serve. Research shows that a culture of police integrity is something that is very necessary when it comes to building trust and respect and, then in turn, mutual respect and trust that is among citizens and police is vital to crime fighting that is effective. Local law enforcement agencies are trying to operate inside of their legal authority, in agreement with recognized police practices, and in an ethical manner that would dependable with the expectations of the community, is the heart of police integrity. Police integrity and ethics are important to real policing and community regulating and cut across a gathering of issues which includes but not restricted to use-of-force, recruitment, criminal examinations, biased-based policing, traffic stop data, intervention systems, racial profiling, hiring and retention, internal affairs, citizen complaint investigations, mediation, and procedural justice (Pham, 2012).
Conclusion
It is clear that ethics in public safety is an issue that has been taken lightly by people simply because they are not aware of the importance of it. However, it is obvious that some states like New York are starting to recognize the impact that it has on the safety of the community when ethics are not looked at. The government since 9/11 has been trying to beef of the ethics in public safety in order to make sure that the nation is safe from terrorist attacks, but their appears to be some cracks in everyday places such as using the surveillance cameras to monitor the neighborhoods. Are they as effective as the would like? Probably not but it is going to take more people speaking up to address ethics in public safety.
References:
Mason, S. A. (2012). Ethics and public policy: A philosophical inquiry. Choice, 21(9), 45-56.
Pham, M. T. (2012). Food Safety Issues and Information Needs: An Online Survey of Public Health Inspectors. Journal of Environmental Health, 13(7), 22-29.
Wachter, J. K. (2011). Ethics: The absurd yet preferred approach to safety management. Professional Safety,, 56(6), 50-57.
