The episode of Law and Order illustrates a situation, which is hardly consistent with the law, but which is justified from the point of justice. Indeed, there is a strong prohibition to exercise psychological duress over the witnesses or suspects. However, the practice demonstrates that in many cases it is the only way to achieve the triumph of justice (Scheffler, 1998). Thus, one of the most fundamental ethical dilemma in the criminal justice practice is whether the law enforcement officers should be authorized to ‘employ any means necessary’ to investigate a crime.
A popular opinion of the theoretical world in this regard is that it is impossible to answer this question unequivocally. In other words, each case should be evaluated individually, and an investigator or an attorney should decide whether infringing upon the rights of a citizen is justified in a particular case or not (Chatterjee, 2011). Yet, many notable commentators agreed on the statement that a common algorithm may be applied in all cases, and a law enforcement practitioner will be thus enabled to infer whether his unlawful activities are substantiated or not.
The crux of this algorithm lies in the penumbras of legal consequentialism. To be more specific, when a legal practitioner faces a complicated dilemma, and the shortest way to resolve it crosses the boundaries of the basic human rights, this professional should try to anticipate the consequences of his actions. If his actions are likely to lead to a conviction of a guilty person or acquittal of a falsely incriminated citizen, then the social value of these outcomes is definitely higher than violation of some individual human rights (Scheffler, 1988). However, if the final outcome of his actions is not evident, or a criminal justice practitioner attempts to substitute legitimate procedural actions with their alternatives of questionable legal rectitude, than he should forbear from encroaching upon the law.
In general, applying this principle the legal community can uphold the balance of basic individual human and constitutional rights, while demonstrating effective practical performance.
References
Chatterjee, D. (2011). Encyclopedia of global justice. Dordrecht New York: Springer.
Law and Order Series. Episode. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoN7ZJIv-pk
Scheffler, S. (1988). Consequentialism and its critics. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
