The Parole Board
Ethical Situation
The pressure on releasing inmates into community sentences is evident. The Governor’s fears are not implausible. However, releasing recidivism-prone inmates will increase the burden on the society and reduce their safety dramatically. Despite spending almost a trillion dollars on correctional facilities, the prisons are overflowing. A vast majority of these inmates are serving sentences for drug related charges. They will definitely get back to their former livelihoods the moment they step out of prison.
However, retaining them in prison under inhumane conditions is a violation of human rights. Since the US has the largest prison population in the world, the consequences are much worse. Furthermore, legal action will indefinitely release all inmates including those serving sentences for violent crimes such as rape and murder. The consequences of releasing sexual predators into the society are far more dangerous than the releasing of burglars and purse-snatchers.
Motivation and consequences
The motivation for the chair of the parole board is that the Governor wants to help. He will back any decision that will keep the violent felons behind bars and away from society. However, he needs a concrete plan to back. The prison population needs reduction to make the environment suitable for correctional reforms. The choices before Robert are difficult ones. The first choice is to release felons that are more likely to indulge in criminal activity after release. The other choice is refrain from releasing anyone and force a federal judge to release the entire population into the community.
Robert’s first choice is to reduce the criteria for releasing inmates into the community-sentencing program. The logic behind this program is to seek family cooperation to facilitate an inmate’s rehabilitation. The program allows an inmate to return home and serve the remainder of the sentence with family. The studies conducted in the last two decades indicate that when inmates have interaction with family members on a regular basis, they are highly unlikely to break the law again. These studies are the basis for the community sentence program. The program accompanies a variety of conditions for the released inmate. They include frequent visits by the parole officer, regular reporting to the parole officer, not contacting former associates, avoiding indulgence in substance abuse, holding a regular job, not leaving the city or confined neighborhood without prior approval, joining a rehabilitation program and completing it successfully within a stipulated timeframe, and avoiding any unlawful activity.
This sentence allows an opportunity for the inmate to realign priorities with the society and support the economy of the nation. These factors constitute to a normal life. The rehabilitation possibilities are immense and they also promise hope for the next generation. When a single parent brings up a child, the chances of taking up a life of crime become a reality. Recent studies indicate that a home without a father present increases the child’s choosing a life of crime by seventy percent. School districts report that children whose fathers are at home tend to outperform children brought up by single mothers by sixty percent. These studies are not indicative of any particular community. The finding is applicable for broken families worldwide. Hence, an opportunity to return a father back to the household not only allows the inmate to reform, it ensures that the child will refrain from criminal activity.
The second choice before Robert is to allow a federal judge to intervene and release all prisoners from the correctional facility. Indecision on the community-sentencing program will result in the second option becoming a reality. This scenario presents dangerous consequences for the society that might not end with financial loss. Kenneth Allen McDuff was a serial offender and violent criminal. Released early from a twelve-year prison sentence, he resumed his career in crime. The aftermath was the deaths of fourteen young people and many of his female victims raped. This is not an isolated case. Dangerous criminals released from prison wreak havoc on society.
Dorothea Puente, Charles Albright, Rodney Alcala, Howard Allen, Arthur Gary Bishop, Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris (Toolbox Killers), William Bonin, and Gary Ray Bowles are American Serial Killers. All these killers have three things in common. First, all of them come from broken or dysfunctional families. Second, all of them had prior sentencing for criminal activity. Third, all of them are recipients of early release. The early parole from prison gives these dangerous criminals an assurance that the letter of the law is flexible and provides encouragement to indulge in criminal escalations (Newton, 2006).
Decision
Robert’s decision is to release all felons serving sentences for terms less than twenty years subject to two conditions. The first condition is that the inmates should not have a combination of burglary, arson, and assault charges against them. This is the combination shared by ninety percent of serial killers in their early criminal cases. The second condition is that they should have reliable family foundations. There is no point in releasing inmates without family support into the community. This choice ensures rehabilitation for the majority of prison population and their departure from the prison complex will ease the environment for the remaining population (Gudrais, 2013).
Ethical reasoning for decision
Unilateral release of inmates into the community will derail the concept of Criminal Justice. Apparently, it is time to revise sentencing at the Courts and allow Judges to subject defendants to pursue their sentence within the confines of the community. The release of repeat offenders will encourage their criminal behavior and their perception of the law disintegrates significantly. These reasons will infuse a false sense of security and motivate the former inmate to escalate criminal activity. Sexual predators will assume that the law is not severe and will begin pursuing their dark fantasies.
Serial killers in the past who had this opportunity killed freely and without remorse. The combination of the charges is prevalent in the characteristics of a serial killer along with a background of a dysfunctional family. The research conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the area of serial offenders suggests that inmates with this combination will engage in serial killings, and sexual assault sixty percent of the time upon early parole (FBI, 2008). While it is imperative to release at least fifty percent of the prisoners, it is also important that sexual predators and future serial killers are not among them. The problem of prison overcrowding is not a good enough reason to endanger the public. Hence, the conditional release will be a mutually beneficial decision.
The Warden
Ethical Situation
The situation is critical in this case. The choices are not encouraging or ignorable at the same time. The chance of risking a community based service for the prisoners against the threat of losing correctional staff. William’s decision will hinge on the reason for the correctional facility’s existence. The chance of felons escaping the off prison shelter is a real threat to anyone in the vicinity. Prison escapees are desperate men who will not hesitate to harm the public to make their getaway. If the situation persists, the inmates will eventually overrun the guards, take control of the complex, kill correctional staff, and even invade the surrounding communities.
Motivation and consequences
The primary motivation for William is that there is a chance to avoid losing members of his staff. The reason for that is the community service program. Although it is not tested, it can bring the much-needed relief. The studies on prisoner behavior and recidivism conclude that the first-time offenders and first-time inmates have the greatest chance of rehabilitation. In addition, if there is an option to serve the community during the prison term, it enables prisoners to rediscover themselves. A successful prison in Norway uses this technique for any type of criminals they get. The stay at the facility improves their chances of rehabilitation and the recidivism rate for this prison is almost nonexistent. The complex, Bastoy Prison houses minimal guards and a variety of activities for the inmates. This environment encourages rehabilitation (Sutter, 2012). Hence, it will be mutually beneficial to adopt a similar model with the new community service program.
The choice of retaining the inmates within the confines of the prison might not be the safest. The increasing prisoner population and shrinking correctional staff numbers culminate to a larger problem. The threat of injury or death within the prison complex becomes very real for both prisoners and staff. In the worst-case scenario, a riot or mass break out will further worsen the situation since the escaping convicts will engage in criminal activity to facilitate their escape.
Decision
William decides to use the community service program for all first-time offenders, inmates who have regular visitation by family, and those convicted for nonviolent offences. The option is available for the prisoners from the new conviction drive also. This decision allows the prison to evaluate the program for its security concerns and check for results. The primary responsibility for a correctional facility is not to lock up criminals. It is rehabilitation of the criminal elements and enables them to re-enter the society successfully.
Ethical reasoning for decision
The ethical reasons for the decision involve rehabilitation, and safety of staff. The research into community based sentencing or community service during sentencing allows the opportunity for the inmates to interact with the community. This exercise will progress into a successful re-entry initiative. The untested community service option will be subject to evaluation and utilized if the initiative is successful. Inmates with regular family visitation, nonviolent criminal charges, and those who are in prison for the first time have the best chance for rehabilitation. The new initiative, if successful will ensure the transition from leading a life of crime to leading a legitimate life. Hence, this decision is the ethical choice and will prove its worth when recidivism rates plummet in a few years (Benson, 2003).
The District Attorney
Ethical Situation
The ethical situation for Martha is a tough call. The scope of reelection, political backing, and support from the police all depend on prosecuting a group of individuals with criminal priors. The situation will not be difficult if there was probable cause or reason for grounds to argue that the police acted on good faith. However, arresting a bunch of men only because of their previous arrests is not a valid reason to prosecute.
Motivation and consequences
Martha’s career as a District Attorney is at stake and it is the most powerful motivator in this case. Her stance on plea bargains and reduced sentences during the election campaign will also be part of the test. However, these are not reasons for convicting a group of men with no physical evidence to support the claims of the police. If Martha proceeds with an aggressive prosecution to convict these men, and not based on evidence, there are chances of convicting innocent people. A criminal history is insufficient to determine whether or not an individual is in the process of rehabilitation.
The United States houses the largest prison population and the largest number of wrongly convicted people. Six out of ten convicted inmates are innocent. The primary reason for wrongful convictions is prosecution misconduct (Dolan, 2015). A decision against prosecuting the arrested criminals will send the wrong signals to the criminal fraternity and discourage police officers. In addition, it will mean that the mayor will fail and the anger from the public is also on the cards. Studies indicate that repeat drug offenders seldom reform to lead legitimate lives. Recidivism is highest among such individuals.
Decision
Martha decides not to prosecute anyone without sufficient evidence. If the police require time to gather the evidence, she will attempt to delay the trials to avail some time for subsequent investigations. Martha is against releasing any of the arrested individuals unless there are genuine signs of rehabilitation. These signs include the presence of a family, relocation, not associating with former gang members, holding a steady job, taking up basic or higher education, enrollment in deaddiction centers, and not breaking the law in any aspect.
Ethical reasoning for decision
There is hope for criminal elements. They will rehabilitate and enrich the society they once terrorized under certain conditions. Martha’s conditions for release are specific signals that the individual is denouncing crime. This individual needs encouragement and not another meaningless prison sentence. In addition, allowing the prosecution of cases with insufficient evidence will not limit themselves to this specific operation. Over a period of time, prosecutors will feel the pressure to use the same strategy against an innocent person accused of a crime.
The Mayor’s cause is to clean up the city of all the gun-yielding criminals, not for discouraging rehabilitation and convicting innocent people. There are certain safeguards within the Criminal Justice system and the US Constitution on due process. Violating these safeguards for the sake of acquiring a false sense of security for the society is unacceptable especially from someone like a District Attorney. Martha is not in a position to compromise the tenets of the law and the Bill of Rights to support an improper initiative. She is not against convicting hardened criminals however; she is against misconduct in her offices (Johnson, 2013).
The Officer
Ethical Situation
The situation for Officer Linda is complex. The suspect might be a lookout for a large drug operation and the subsequent investigation can rid the community of a potential threat. The other aspect of the situation is the impending indignation of the watch commandant and other police officers in the precinct if she chooses not to serve as the backup in the burglary situation. The ethical situation in this case is whether to set the suspect loose and pursue the backup situation. The consequence of letting the suspect leave will send the wrong signals to the drug dealers in the neighborhood. The criminal elements might even setup burglaries or set off alarms while commissioning drug transactions if Officer Linda allows the suspect to leave. On the other hand, burglars are not unsophisticated anymore. The majority of them carries some type of weapon on person and over three hundred police officers die each year while attempting to arrest a fleeing suspect.
Motivation and consequences
The motivation for Officer Linda in this case is responding to her instincts as a police officer. The prospect of allowing a burglar to get away or putting a fellow officer in harm’s way against exterminating a drug gang that negatively influences the neighborhood is a difficult choice. A Police Officer’s duty to the society is a stressful one. They conduct routine duties while keeping an eye out for criminal activity. They are empowered overseers of the society who ensure the maintenance of peace. However, their duties alienate them from having a normal life (Dempsey and Forst, 2011).
Rarely will police officers have friends outside their professional careers and they will not find support or encouragement away from their jobs. The stress levels on the police force are the highest in the country today. Their budgets are reduce consistently, and their staff laid off routinely to accommodate operational costs. The equipment that police officers carry are obsolete or of inferior quality due to budget constraints. Any arrests that they make involving minorities result in undue outrage against the arresting officers. Every year four hundred police officers die in the line of duty (Swanson, Territo, and Taylor, 2012). There is a meager pension for the family of the officer and indifference from the government.
There are also a growing number of suicides of police officers. They are unable to cope up with the increasing crime rate with shrinking budgets. The critical aspect of police suicides is that the victims are not rookies. They are decorated veterans. The reality for police officers is that no one outside the law enforcement fraternity will recognize the problem. Their only strength is amongst themselves. Police officers always strive to back each other in any dangerous situation. The dreaded call that any police officer wants to hear over the radio is the death of a fellow officer. “Officer down” brings the reality of the risk alive in every police officer and it increases his or her resolve to capture the assailant (Dempsey and Forst, 2011).
Officer Linda has a situation where this call might become a reality. The only consequence that she has to decide is whether setting loose a small-time drug dealer who might have a nexus to the local drug lords will vindicate her legality to provide backup for a fellow officer. She is well aware of the situation in the prisons and the state of case backlogs in the District Attorney’s office. Furthermore, she knows how fellow officers in her precinct will react if she persists with the suspect and does not make herself available for backup.
Decision
Officer Linda informs the dispatcher that she will be available to provide backup for the police officer pursuing a burglar. She lets go of the suspect by giving him a verbal warning. There is no reason to put an officer’s life at risk for the sake of trying to arrest a drug peddler with no identification and possibly no evidence. In addition, there is no merit for Officer Linda to linger in the neighborhood in an attempt to procure evidence. A majority of police officer killings are due to drug related crimes. Since, she is unlikely to receive any backup for her minor drug lookout, she must offer assistance in the pursuit of the burglar (Dempsey and Forst, 2011).
Ethical reasoning for decision
Officer Linda is not in a position to conduct an identification of the suspect. This means, there is no possibility to determine whether the suspect is a lookout or a minor drug dealer. Moreover, the suspect only has cash on his person and no contraband. Although there are vials, there is no case when they are empty. If Linda chooses to book the suspect despite these problems, the case will not see a trial due to insufficient evidence against the perpetrator. Officer Linda also knows that the police department is facing a shortage of personnel due to shrinking budgets.
Officer Linda chooses to let go of the suspect and provide backup for her colleague since it might endanger the officer if support does not make it in time. Her duty to her fellow officer outweighs the drug dealer who does not have any item for use as evidence in a case. If she arrests the dealer, she will still lose the case during the trial or there are chances that the District Attorney might not choose to prosecute (Swanson et al, 2012). However, the situation involving the fellow police officer is real. The burglar is on the move and the pursuing officer requires assistance. Hence, responding to the backup call is the ethical decision in this scenario.
References
Benson, E (2003). Rehabilitate or punish? Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab.aspx
Bright, C. (2016). Community Service. Retrieved from: http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-3-programs/community-service/
Dempsey, J. S., and Forst, L. S. (2011). Police 2010-2011. Cengage Learning. Clifton Park: NY. Pp. 67-96.
Dolan, M. (2015). U.S. judges see 'epidemic' of prosecutorial misconduct in state. Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-lying-prosecutors-20150201-story.html
FBI Staff (2008). Serial Murder. Retrieved from: https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-july-2008-pdf
Gudrais, E (2013). The Prison Problem. Retrieved from: http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/03/the-prison-problem
Johnson, J. P. (2013). Study Reveals 10 Factors in Wrongful Conviction Cases. Retrieved from: http://www.american.edu/media/news/SPA_News_Wrongful-Convictions-Study.cfm
Newton, M. (2006). The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers. Infobase Publishing. New York City: NY. Pp. 308-435.
Sutter, J. D. (2012). Welcome to the world's nicest prison. Retrieved from: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/
Swanson, C. R., Chamelin, N. C., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. W. (2012). Criminal Investigation. McGraw-Hill. New York: NY. Pp. 546-585.
Swanson, C. R., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. W. (2012). Police administration: Structures, processes, and behavior. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River: NJ. Pp. 542-580.
