Abstract
The inverse of the fact that police officers, probation officers and prison guards are called on and given the authority to protect the public, and enhance the quality of life in the communities that they serve; is that they also have the power and authority to oppress, manipulate and corrupt the very same communities. One important way to ensure that police remain dedicated and focused on the more positive goals of their responsibilities is to implement a standard of professional responsibility and require that officers and guards follow a specific code of ethics. Ethical codes and standards of professional responsibility not only allow officers and guards to properly and effectively carry out their duties but they also help to generate and maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. That trust and confidence is vital and necessary to uphold and preserve public order.
As being one of the most noticeable public officials, police should at all times act in a manner that ensures their integrity and does not limit or harm the public’s confidence in law enforcement. Accordingly, the police department in the scenario should have an official policy requiring that its officers refuse to accept any and all goods, services, gifts, favors or gratuities for either doing work that they are required to do or simply as a showing of friendliness from the giver. It is important that officers adhere to this policy, because while the offer of a gift may be innocent it potentially could be interpreted by others as though the receiving officer is biased for giver. Additionally, accepting a gift may lead the giver to think that the officer will act on their behalf when necessary. It is vital that police officers and the public both need to understand that a police officer’s services cannot be bought.
Public corruption, no matter where it exists, not only adversely affects governance and a just process but also, when revealed, lowers the public’s trust and confidence in the system. This is even truer in regards to prison officers, because the incarcerated are the most vulnerable within the criminal justice system. Accordingly, prison guards need to carry on their duties objectively. Accordingly, the prison in the second scenario should have an official policy that requires all prison guards to do their job impartially without favoring others on account of friendship, family or political beliefs. Moreover, the policy should require that prison guards treat everyone equally and apply or enforce the rules and procedures of the prison the same to everyone regardless of their race, gender or ethnicity. To be sure, the policy should specifically require prison guards avoid being influenced by their family, classmates, friends or colleagues in carrying out their duties.
The Fourth Amendment states in relevant part the people are protected from “unreasonable searches and seizure” by government officials. A police officer’s search of a probationer’s house without probable cause, reasonable suspicions or exigent circumstances would violate the Fourth Amendment and so should not be performed. This is true even though a probation officer may have the right, via a probationer’s condition of release to conduct a suspicionless, warrantless search of a house while the person is on probation or parole. The difference between the police officer and the parole officer is that the police officer in investigating the commission of a new crime must still respect the probationer’s rights under the Constitution. On the other hand, under the probation officer’s duty to limit recidivism and supervise the probationer, he must be given relatively free access to the probationer’s activities. The two duties are not the same and the law provides for the differentiation of duties.
Because the use of force is one of the fundamental tools that police can employ to complete their duties; one of the primary ethical and professional practice questions for a police officer is: what is the right amount of force that can be used? In 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court was asked just how much force was reasonable for an officer to use against a fleeing suspect. In Garner, a police officer, who shot a fleeing suspect in the back of the head even though the officer thought he was unarmed, said he was authorized to do so by the law. In determining that the law was unconstitutional, the Court said that deadly force can only be used it is necessary to prevent an escape and that the officer believed the suspect is a threat to the community. Accordingly, based on Garner, if police are not allows to se deadly for if the suspect is not armed or otherwise a threat to the community.
Based on the ethical and professional practices, all three branches have similar ethical and professional responsibilities that they must perform. The limited exception seems to be that the probation officer is legally given more protection in how he chooses to implement his ethical responsibilities. Accordingly, from a ethical and professional practice point of view, I would be satisfied to have a career in any of the three.
References
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Retrieved from http://www.caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/1.html
