Philosophical and Practical Approach for Balancing Issues in Criminal Justice - Essay Sample

Introduction

Complex situations in criminal justice require each working in the criminal justice to bear good ethical standards of conduct that will aid in decision making and guiding the choices in such particular scenarios. Also, personal moral philosophy is imperative since criminal justice professionals have direct interaction with the offenders and criminals and are subject to the emergence of conflict of interest as well as conflicts arising from the ethical principles in their areas of work. This paper illustrates the philosophical and practical approach of balancing issues such as rights of an individual and the protection of the public, balance in the use of unethical means in achieving the desired objectives, reward and punishment balancing and the recommending the different ways to deploy ethics in decision making aligned with some criminal justice issues.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Individual Rights and Public Protection

Criminal justice professionals should maintain a standard way to ensure a balance in social order and protecting the public. Criminal justice professionals are tasked with the responsibility of establishing a balance in social order and public protection with the rights of an individual and the liberties (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2017). Therefore, this ethical philosophy is based on a combination of deontology and utilitarian approaches. The established common good and law over the rights of an individual in crucial situations account for the basis of the social existence. Therefore, promotion of common welfare can result in the limitation of individual rights which is aimed at citizen protection and facilitating social order. The utilitarian approach provides a solution for ambiguous situations which are not clear on the common good and the social order. The utilitarian approach identifies the balance in the positive and negative consequences of the positions with regards to the extent of limiting particular rights of an individual as well as highlighting the following effect illuminated for the common good (Braswell et al. 2017). In case an individual engages in actions that promote terrorist acts, or expose the society to terrorist attack, it is justifiable to limit the rights of that individual and also stop or alter the actions with the motive of protecting the public from the potential terrorist activity.

Use of Reward and Punishment in Criminal Justice

Different ethical views exist with regards to rewards and punishment in criminal justice. Two approaches of utilitarian and justice are considered for rewards. Utilitarian advocates for rewards based on the results targeted or achieved while justice advocates for rewards based on the efforts input. Punishment utilizes two approaches which involve utilitarian punishment and retributive punishment. Utilitarian punishment focuses on deterring potential offenders from crime commitment and restitution-based punishment. This punishment is executed as a compensatory to the victims for their losses as well as suffering. Retributive punishment offers punishment to the offender to the capacity of the crime committed (Olsen, Payne & Reiter, 2010). Limiting the choice for a theory of application for reward or punishment is difficult as the choice of reward and punishment is influenced by multiple factors which cannot be limited to a particular theory. Rewarding for results can be affected by successful undertaking while the reward for the input efforts can be advanced with regards to the notable alterations resulting from unforeseen external forces. The approach motivates achievement of expected results and also allows for the filtration of window-dressing cases. However, in addressing punishment, the utilitarian view can be embraced in deterring potential lawbreakers from committing a crime.

Legal philosophers exhibit interest in the philosophical problems emerging from different practices. These include the constitutional law, criminal punishment theories, liability theories, contract law and the justification of the judicial review (Arrigo, 2015). Human rights philosophy examines the interaction of human rights with the philosophical, legal problems in diverse practices.

Use of Unethical Means in Obtaining Positive Results

One of the ethical concerns in criminal justice is the way things get done. The "Dirty Harry Problem" is a vivid moral concern in criminal justice. Dirty Harry problem is defined as the use of immoral strategies by criminal justice professionals in achieving desirable results (Reiman, 2013). Most cases are difficult to resolve by the use of proper procedures, and therefore the criminal justice professionals resort to using of lies, bribes or sham in preventing crimes as well as stopping the offenders. According to Reiman (2013), it is ineffective to resist criminals by resorting to ethical means only. Criminal justice professionals have to deploy immoral means in opposing the criminals. However, this classifies the relevant authorities in the same line as the criminals. In addressing this ethical dilemma, it is admissible using immoral means in attaining the required results if the results obtained are desirable and failure to achieve the results is undesirable. In this case, regardless of the moral factors deployed, the end should yield unquestionably beneficial results. However, failure of the immoral means should impact on undesirable effects. On the other hand, the unethical methods can be used to arrive at the desired end when there is no other practical, ethical way to address the issue. Additionally, there should exist some urgency in the end that all available means are triggered to arrive at the end and the effective mots means turning to be immoral. The conditions as mentioned earlier limit the use of unethical methods to leading and essential conclusions. They rely mainly on deontological and utilitarian ideologies.

Application of Ethics in Decision-Making

Ethical decision-making in criminal justice can be enhanced by the critical normative ethical theories such as virtue ethics, utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and justice ethics. Various recommendations can be outlined with respect to ethical decision-making in criminal justice. In decision-making, deontological values such as the primacy of law, the need for protecting social order and the common good. The deontological principles are handy in events where personal rights conflict with the desire to protect the public. Utilitarian approach can be deployed in circumstances where other relevant approaches fail to establish a solution to the prevailing situation or offer inefficient decisions. Mainly, the utilitarian approach assesses the application of immoral means in achieving desirable ends in case the person involved establishes a secure link based on sufficient information obtained and be able to develop the consequences of their actions.

Additionally, the utilitarian approach is suited in decision-making on the reward and punishment as well as maintaining a balance between the reward and the punishment. Utilitarian principles allow for crime determent and reduced crime probability. Therefore, it is possible to target future crimes.

On the other hand, other approaches address crimes that already committed and lack influence on future crime trend. Utilitarian approach is useful in designing suitable rewards for individuals and increase the motivation in motivated individuals. Criminal justice can apply the utilitarian approach in decision making in the event of an ethical dilemma.

References

Arrigo, B. A. (2015). Psychological jurisprudence, normative philosophy, and trans-desistance theory. Criminal justice and behavior, 42(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0093854814550023

Braswell, M. C., McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (2017). Justice, crime, and ethics. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315455853

Reiman, J. (2013). Criminal justice ethics. International Encyclopedia of Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee042

Olsen, T. D., Payne, L. A., & Reiter, A. G. (2010). The justice balance: When transitional justice improves human rights and democracy. HuM. RTs. Q., 32, 980. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2010.0021