Making Ethical Choices
| __a7501terrorism_1.pptx |
Use of the word “war” indicates a national effort of special scope, such as the war on drugs, war on crime, etc. Using the word “war” indicates that extreme action is justified. There are two types of law that allow war: natural law allows for war to defend the state and respond to invasion or injury imposed by another. Man-made (“positivist”) law allows war when sanctioned by an international body such as the United Nations.
The utilitarian ethical system allows for war if the results of the fighting will be some “good” that outweighs the negatives of conducting the war. Ethical formalism allows for war, assuming the motivation for conducting it is moral. Ethical formalism would support an armed action to end the atrocities in Dharfur, for instance. Of course, the categorical imperative disallows the use of torture.
In response to 9/11, our criminal justice and military efforts were transformed. Law enforcement agencies were expanded and their missions revamped. The PATRIOT Act modified long-standing rules of civil procedure and allowed such tactics as wiretapping. Overseas, activities such as detainments, rendition, and even torture during interrogations were taking place. By referring to captured subjects as “enemy combatants” and keeping them beyond the borders of the United States, the military and intelligence organizations expected to be able to limit their due process rights. It took Supreme Court decisions to compel the government to extend basic due process rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Traditionally, wars have been fought between sovereign nations, and the “rules” and standards of war (including the Geneva Conventions) have always reflected this fact. Due to the transnational, non-sovereign nature of groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda, tactics must be rewritten and the “rules” must be reconsidered.
The concept of crime control versus serving the public was first discussed in Chapter 5. It is reiterated here to illustrate how the police function has been re-tooled in the wake of 9/11. Support for community policing programs has been reduced, and the role of law enforcement expanded. Utilitarianism justifies these changes, and Cohen suggests an approach to apply utilitarianism to police action: (1) The end itself must be good (2) the means must be a plausible way to achieve the end (3) there must be no alternative, better means to achieve the same end, and (4) the means must not undermine some other, greater end.
By contrast, the human rights (public service) approach is governed by deontological ethics, which would not permit reducing civil liberties, no matter how desirable or moral the end result would be.
The current “war on terror” illustrates the role of ethics in facing dilemmas and making choices. Our ethical systems influence how we face and resolve dilemmas. When facing a dilemma, the questions to ask are (1) is there relevant law, (2) is there relevant policy, and (3) what do the ethical systems require? Also, the author’s “front-page” test is useful. It is important to remember that ethical issues that criminal justices professionals must consider when doing their jobs. The majority of the individuals in the field of criminal justice are good people with high levels of character
The utilitarian ethical system allows for war if the results of the fighting will be some “good” that outweighs the negatives of conducting the war. Ethical formalism allows for war, assuming the motivation for conducting it is moral. Ethical formalism would support an armed action to end the atrocities in Dharfur, for instance. Of course, the categorical imperative disallows the use of torture.
In response to 9/11, our criminal justice and military efforts were transformed. Law enforcement agencies were expanded and their missions revamped. The PATRIOT Act modified long-standing rules of civil procedure and allowed such tactics as wiretapping. Overseas, activities such as detainments, rendition, and even torture during interrogations were taking place. By referring to captured subjects as “enemy combatants” and keeping them beyond the borders of the United States, the military and intelligence organizations expected to be able to limit their due process rights. It took Supreme Court decisions to compel the government to extend basic due process rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Traditionally, wars have been fought between sovereign nations, and the “rules” and standards of war (including the Geneva Conventions) have always reflected this fact. Due to the transnational, non-sovereign nature of groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda, tactics must be rewritten and the “rules” must be reconsidered.
The concept of crime control versus serving the public was first discussed in Chapter 5. It is reiterated here to illustrate how the police function has been re-tooled in the wake of 9/11. Support for community policing programs has been reduced, and the role of law enforcement expanded. Utilitarianism justifies these changes, and Cohen suggests an approach to apply utilitarianism to police action: (1) The end itself must be good (2) the means must be a plausible way to achieve the end (3) there must be no alternative, better means to achieve the same end, and (4) the means must not undermine some other, greater end.
By contrast, the human rights (public service) approach is governed by deontological ethics, which would not permit reducing civil liberties, no matter how desirable or moral the end result would be.
The current “war on terror” illustrates the role of ethics in facing dilemmas and making choices. Our ethical systems influence how we face and resolve dilemmas. When facing a dilemma, the questions to ask are (1) is there relevant law, (2) is there relevant policy, and (3) what do the ethical systems require? Also, the author’s “front-page” test is useful. It is important to remember that ethical issues that criminal justices professionals must consider when doing their jobs. The majority of the individuals in the field of criminal justice are good people with high levels of character
| pollock_ethics_8e_ch14.ppt |
