• 26 DEC 20
    • 0

    writing need help please

    Police Ethics and Police Rights

    Write a response to the following prompt:

    • Describe the vital role of police leaders, especially first-line supervisors, in preventing and addressing problems of patrol officer ethics.
    • What are the specific rights that police officers possess, and what are the areas in which they have limitations placed on their behavior and activity according to court decisions and legislation? Do you think these limitations are necessary? Why or why not?

    Our discussion listed above

    Individuals response below

    Jacqueline Police Ethics and Police Rights

    • Ethics, such a complicated word. Is there a time when it should not matter? Are there situations when our ethics are allowed to take a backseat? In the world of law enforcement this word is more difficult to define when its use is a must, or simply assume to be used. For law enforcement world the concept that ethics is a constant should be reinforced by leaders on a daily basis because ethics are affected by three factors: growing temptation from the illicit drug trade, the compromising nature of police culture – loyalty over integrity, and the challenges from being decentralized – the decision process becoming more of a first – line offer process. 

    • These factors tend to test ethics on a daily basis, but two types of ethics still bring questions into play: absolute ethics (good or bad) are the backbone of the legal system, relative ethics (which are situational and can have varying shades of grey to them) take aspects into account that create possible corruption situations (Peak et al, 2010, p. 218).

    • For leaders and supervisors, the concept of deontological ethics, or ethics based on ones duty to act, is important to instill (Peak et al, 2010, p. 217).  Basically the idea that, you, as an officer of the law, have an obligation to help do the right thing when you see any illegal act being committed. Sergeants especially are the first line of supervisors to any patrol officer. This first level of supervisor is extremely important and can be a defining role for it shows the sergeants perspective and ideals when it comes to ethics. 

    • Do you guide your officers under an ‘absolute ethics’ perspective which says there is only good and bad; or do you allow your officers the ability to determine on their own what is good or bad, or simply ok, this would be a ‘relative ethics’ perspective.  This perspective allows for the possibilities of corruption if the officer does not see what might be obvious or inherent evils in their encounters, it also can allow an officer to see a situation and determine if someone needs help with their situation, or simply needs to sleep a drunk off in the local booking office.

    • The concept that a patrol officer has the ability to say ‘you’re drunk but you’re not really dangerous’, and yet at a different time pursue a dangerous offender through to apprehension is a very big ethically challenging job. Giving this right to an officer one might think that officers have rights or abilities above and beyond those of any normal citizen, this would be a false assumption. 

    • Although police officers have unions and supervisors to protect them and to assist them in their time of need, some of the most basic rights that the average citizen hold dear, officers are not afforded. Other than the Peace Officer’s Bill of Right’s police officers have no ‘above and beyond’ rights.

    • Although a police officer is the employee of an agency, they are technically employed by the state, and the state therefore has certain rights to limit certain rights that regular citizens regularly have, such as limiting freedom of speech (the state can: limit what an officer on duty can say in regards to on – going investigations, can apply punishment to an officer that verbally degrades their own agency, can punish a supervisor for insisting that lower level officers support any particular political candidate, uphold any appearance statute (uniforms, grooming – mustaches and sideburns) (Peak et al, 2010, 248); limiting freedom for search and seizure ( the state can ‘compel’ officers to comply with search and seizure orders, and can force them to stand in a line up, a ‘seizure’ of their person) (Peak et al, 2010, p. 248); limiting right to self – incrimination (the state can force an officer to forego their right to self – incrimination as long as it is known that the information will not be used for any future proceedings) (Peak et al, 2010, p. 249); limiting freedom to religious practices (the state does not have to accommodate with any religious practices of any individual officer and can order said officer to work their given schedule despite any known or obvious religious obligations or preferences) (Peak et al, 2010, p. 249).

    • Many other rights that the average everyday citizen would take for granted, law enforcement officers simply do not have the conveniences of, and the state will not simply oblige to them.  It seems a bit unreasonable that rights that afforded someone who does not work to protect their community, are not afford to someone that does. It seems a bit unconstitutional if you ask me.

    • References:

    • Peak, K., Gaines, L. & Glensor, R. (2010). Police supervision and management in an era of community policing (3rd ed.) Upper saddle, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN: 9780135154663

    Need to tell the bad and good of pot list references thanks

    "Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
    Use the following coupon

    Order Now
    Leave a reply →


"Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us"
Use the following coupon

Order Now

Hi there! Click one of our representatives below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

Chat with us on WhatsApp