Introduction
Research has found that criminal justice agencies are constantly developing new strategies to fight unethical behavior among employees. Employees are both sworn (licensed law enforcement officers) and non-sworn (civilian employees) who face an uphill battle everyday with doing what is right. Both agency and employees alike must be constantly aware that the disingenuous behavior of one operative can affect the public image of the many officers who work or are associated with the agency. The dilemma becomes one of ethics and ethical values. According to Botes (2000) ethical thinking is divided into stages. Each stage elevates itself above the preceding stage. Botes (2000) posited that people if given an ideal setting would be more logical in their thinking. However decisions are made by people who often suffer from a lack of sufficient time to always make the right decision (Boles, 2000).
Rational Choice Theory
According to Akers & See (2004), the Rational Choice Theory along with the other mentioned theories in this report address how and why people behave within a public safety organization and within their personal lives. Rational Choice Theory places emphasis on the expectation of a reward for criminal behavior. The basis of the theory is that people engage in crime because they perceive a benefit either directly or indirectly. The lack of thought about doing what is right at all times, suffering consequences for unethical behavior, or just living a life based on values and ethics, does not play a part in their decision. The bottom line is that the actors are not worried about their actions in the moment of execution, and public safety organizations must be prepared to deal swiftly with the unethical behavior of their employees. It would be better if the organization can impart and instill values and ethics to their employees who in turn will practice ethical values in their daily duties.
Each stage of the thinking process is different. Because the levels of ethical thinking are different, each stage of thinking causes the individual to stop and rationalize their actions. According to Stojkovic, Kalinich, & Klofas (2008), motivating employees is important is getting and keeping good employees. The organization must not only recruit the best and brightest candidates for the job, the organization must also work on retaining those employees. Kohlberg (2008) believes that because individuals lack logical thinking, unethical behaviors abound. Therefore, organizations must constantly strive to improve their methods of reducing opportunities for their employees to engage in unethical behavior. Employees must be instructed to live by the code of right and wrong, ethical and unethical conduct. Employers must continue to motivate employees to do what is right, no matter the situation or the consequence. Employees must know the difference between the two behaviors. One is the accepted standard of behavior and the other is any activity that is not accepted by the organization.
Deontological Theory
Deontological theory looks at what a person is doing and then tries to determine why the action was taken. The theory never accepts the premise that the end justifies the means. The theory believes that some actions taken by others cannot be justified no matter how good an effort is made to justify the action. An example would be to try to justify shooting and killing an engaged child molester in the middle of such action. However, if the molester is just sitting in a park and not touching children, there is no justification for taking that life. All human beings have a duty to follow the rules. Deontological theory is in place to ensure that employees follow those rules.
Most parents and institutions instill in young children the rules of good and evil. Kant (2004), the great philosopher, purports that there are certain tenets in life that must be followed regardless of the circumstances. Those persons who follow a strict moral code often follow the foundations established by the Ten Commandments. These deontological rules hold that certain rules of ethical behavior when established must not be broken regardless of the circumstances. Kant (2004) purports that man must always do the right thing even though the outcome might not be as intended.
At most American law enforcement agencies, there are ethical principles established as guidelines by which the sworn (police officers) and non-sworn (civilian) employees are governed. It is very important that both sets of employees understand that there are established rules and protocols by which they must operate and will be held accountable for any inactions as it relates to their official duty to act. Sworn and No-Sworn employees are also directed to govern themselves in such a manner off-duty that does not reflect negatively on the reputation of the agency. Based on a deontological perspective, it is imperative that employees follow the rules and understand that there must not be any deviation from the rules that govern right or wrong.
Utilitarianism
Another fact of ethical behavior that guides most law enforcement agencies is the philosophy of utilitarianism. This ethical theory is also called consequentialism. Consequential outcomes are based on the commitment of an act that has an outcome that might be or not be predicted but it has to be done for the greater good. One might ask for whose greater good?
The decision to act on behalf of the greater good of the community must be always be paramount. Society will accept the philosophy of the greater good if it benefits them. Many law enforcement agencies on a daily basis make decisions that are for the greater good for all involved. Picture a police officer patrolling the streets and there is a car driving erratically by cutting off vehicles going in the same direction and also following vehicles too closely. It is evident based on the actions of the driver, and the past experience of the officer, that people driving in such a manner can cause a crash. Such a crash might cause injury to persons who are abiding by the law and driving in a safe and prudent manner.
It is the duty of the police officer to intervene for the greater good of the community and the motoring public and initiate a traffic stop. The police officer has the duty, based on the ethical theory of utilitarianism, to protect the motoring public by doing the right thing in order to prevent injury to the motorist and the general public. Another example of the greater good would be a Special Weapons And Tactical (SWAT) situation where a citizen has produced a firearm during a robbery and is running from the police. The police encounter the suspect who has indicated that the life of innocent civilians hold no value and has randomly discharged the firearm into the open environment causing the police to retreat and take cover. Because the actions of the gunman has indicated that there is no regard for the sanctity of human life, the police officers have a sworn duty to save lives and must use all force necessary to do so. This duty to act also includes the taking of one life to protect many.
Utilitarianism also called consequentialism notes that there is a consequence for actions or inactions. An encounter with the gunman will yield one of two outcomes. The gunman will yield to authority and live or fail to yield and be wounded or killed. Those are the consequences associated with this episode. Would the police officers be in default of ethical practices for taking such action? No, utilitarianism permits this behavior and justifies the action for the greater good of the community. Doing the right thing can be applied in any occupation (McGee, 2009).
Police Officers are a part of the law enforcement hierarchy of their jurisdiction. As law enforcement officers they are held to a higher standard. Police Officers must constantly be aware of their actions and their inactions especially in the view of the citizen. There is no justification under this theory for doing what is wrong. Police Officers are encouraged to act in a manner that will always produce the best long-term benefits to themselves and the agency. Whether a police officer is bound by ethical, personal, or impersonal egoism, the officer should always act in their best long-term interest while being cognizant of the interest of the agency.
Police Officers choosing to take bribes might be acting in their best interest of personal financial gain, but the greater good of the agency will be violated because the action of one violates the integrity of the many. However, the agency can attempt to regain its reputation by publicly reprimanding the one, to regain the integrity of the many. Internal investigations and integrity checks can be implemented to reduce the opportunity for officers to engage in unethical behaviors. The public would support the agency conducting such integrity checks and such internal investigations because it increase the confidence in the public that the agency is serving the greater good by removing those who would violate the ethical sanctity of the agency. The greater good is being placed in the proper context of rooting out bad and suppressing evil for the benefit of the greater good.
Virtue Theory
In the early 2000's there was a new rage in the youth community aimed at increasing the morals of the young people in our society. There was and still is a moral decline in the country. Someone came up with a novel idea that displayed four letters on a wristband that said, "WWJD." What Would Jesus Do? The onus of virtue ethics is on the acts of the person. A person acting in a virtuous manner is in between the decision to do the right thing and the decision not to take a stand. It is the ethical thing to do when one has a duty to act. However, virtues are based on the character of the individual. Every human being has the duty to do what is right, the duty to act. However, if the character of the individual is flawed, virtue will have to come forward and present itself in order for the person to do the right thing (McBeath & Webb, 2002).
This program appealed to the virtues of the young and old alike. The basis of the virtue theory is to determine what a good person would do in a situation that is complex. In the reality of the moment it is asking the question of what a reasonable person in the same situation would do. An even more pointed question to ask of law enforcement officers is, "Who do you become, when no one is watching?" What would you do if you were aware that no one is watching your actions? A law enforcement officer must walk a very fine line because gratuity and graft. A café owner giving a policeman a free cup of coffee is a gratuity. A café owner giving a police officer a cup of coffee to not cite the business for observed violations is graft. Police officers, by policy, should be prohibited from accepting gifts in the course of their duty. If a citizen insists on giving the officer a gift, the officer, by policy, shall take the gift and turn it in to the division created to handle such incidents. The division should log the item then redistribute it to a local charity. The intent of the policy is to uphold the integrity and virtue of the agency.
Officers must be cognizant that sometime citizens to determine what it takes to corrupt their virtue will check their integrity. Case in point is the English Tourist who was stopped for speeding by an American Police Officer during his vacation in America. The violator was stopped for speeding and issued a warning ticket. The violator was grateful for the warning and chose to offer the officer a monetary token of appreciation. The officer told the violator that gratuities are not permitted and refused to accept the gratuity. The violator suggested that the gratuity be donated to a charity of the officer's choice if the officer did not want to keep it. The officer again declined the offer and parted ways with the violator.
About three weeks later the officer receives a letter from the Chief indicating that a letter of commendation was received from a motorist in England who had visited their state. The motorist recalled the contact with the officer and told the Chief that even though a citation was expected for the violation, the officer issued a warning notice. The motorist recounted the offer of a gratuity to the officer and was surprised that the offer was rejected having traveled the world and had made such offers in the past that were accepted. In the end, the motorist told the Chief that the officer should be commended for the virtue and caliber of integrity displayed on the side of the road. The motorist in the letter stated that the officer was a credit to law enforcement everywhere.
Many law enforcement agencies have instilled in their officers that they are to exemplify the tenets espoused by Aristotle and Plato by displaying courage, temperance, wisdom, and justice in the deportment of their duties. By virtue of the training in ethics that the officers receive and are expected to practice, the question still remains, "Who do you become, when no one is watching?"
The basis of the virtue theory remains the same, it still lends to the question, "What would a good person do when exposed to a situation that can instantly elevate them financially?" Would a reasonable person placed in the same situation, react the same? Would such a person place the virtues of self at risk and the integrity of the agency at bay? Would such a person trade their integrity for the unknown outcome of a fleeting moment? The bottom line then would be to ask the officer, is it worth it?
Officers are urged to be mindful that even though they are not being watched physically, consciously they must be aware that their every action or inaction reflects on the image and professionalism of the agency and their fellow law enforcement officers.
Ethical Hierarchicalism 
Ethical Hierarchicalism posits that all views deemed normal are not equal. A police officer is called upon to do the right thing at all times. A police officer is permitted to speed in response to a call for emergency service but is not permitted to speed when there is no emergency. The act of speeding is the same, but the higher normal or greater good is chosen, when a decision is made. A police officer is held to a higher standard and is also expected to make ethical decisions in the course of their duties.
The old question of what would Jesus do comes into play when a split-second decision is made by an officer who must choose right or wrong in the twinkling of an eye. According to Munson (2000), a person must always ask what is the benefit of the decision and can the decision be defended? These are considerations that must be in the hierarchal region of decision-making (Munson, 2000). These decisions will affect the positive outcome of such choices.
Is a police officer wrong then for shooting a man with a gun who is about to kill an innocent person? Are police officers wrong for seizing the vehicle of a person who is known for selling drugs from the vehicle? Is the police wrong for setting up a sting operation to prove a case against a man soliciting a hit man to kill a spouse?
A man decides that the marriage is over and the spouse no longer serves a useful purpose in the union and should be killed. An informant tells the police that the husband is soliciting a person to commit the murder. Would the police be considered unethical for taking the job? Would the police be unethical for arranging to have the wife killed in accepting the job? What is the greater good in this situation?
Ethical hierarchicalism looks at the levels of good and determines which good is better for the masses. In this instance society would argue that the police are doing a greater good in saving the life of the spouse. One might argue that there is deceit on behalf of law enforcement in tricking or deceiving the man into thinking that they are going to carry out the contract. However, it can be successfully argued that even though deceit is a part of the plan, ethical hierarchism does permit the bending of ethics to save the life of the unsuspecting wife.
A police department is a public safety organization that is in charge of law enforcement in that country or state. The police officers under their command are expected to live by a standard that is above reproach. Over the years there have been officers who have violated the public trust by accepting bribes or releasing information to persons not authorized to receive that information. There have also been incidents of sexual harassment that often result in department review and sometime judicial hearings. These are some of the ethical issues that law enforcement has faced in the last seven years.
            Law enforcement agencies have instituted specialty units to combat certain criminal behaviors and have implemented policies that are bent of reducing loss of judgment that can lead to opportunities for police officers to do wrong. It is recommended that police agencies establish a Professional Standards Division (PSD) that investigates complaints against sworn and civilian employees to help ensure that the integrity of the agency is maintained and the trust that has been established between the community and the police department is maintained. The police department must also institute a policy that has a uniformed manner in which witnesses and the officers or civilians are questioned, and the way the report is documented and stored upon completion.
Conclusion
In a manner of being ethical and fair in the proceedings, the police department must establish investigative guidelines that are fair to the employee and the accuser. When a complaint is received for such behaviors as rudeness, use of obscene or profane language, refusal to identify oneself, personal appearance, improper operation of vehicle, failure to take reports when necessary, failure to take appropriate action when necessary, improper investigative procedures, and all other complaints that are outside the responsibility of the Professional Standards Division, they must and should be investigated by the accused immediate supervisor. The understanding for such a practice is that a person that is closer to the accused and who will be able to bring about corrections of the behavior in question should handle these issues. Such a correction mechanism does not need the full service of the Professional Standards Division when a supervisor's investigation can correct the deficiency. Does the agency need to terminate an employee because of behavior that can be corrected through training or counseling? Utilitarianism posits that the actor must understand that there are consequences for every action.
When an officer is found in violation there are certain procedures that must be followed in order to issue a reprimand to correct the behavior. The accuser is asked to reduce the complaint to writing or be audio-recorded. The allegations of misconduct must be detailed. This process must be done under oath. The Professional Standards Division will, whether civil or sworn, investigate all anonymous complaints against employees. All complaints shall be investigated.
Employees shall be notified in writing that there is a complaint and an administrative investigation is being initiated based on the complaint. The employee will be given a list of their rights and responsibilities as they pertain to the investigation. Utilitarianism ethics can also invoke some form of criticism in that it does not take into consideration the rights of the individual. It only considers the outcome of good overcoming evil (McGee, 2009).
The outcome of an action determines whether it is good or bad decision. The better the consequences of the action, the more it is accepted as being the right thing to do. Officers must be cognizant at all times that their actions must be justified or they will be required to pay for the consequences of their actions. The ethics of virtue, consequence, and Hierarchicalism, all lend true to the fact that all employees are required to do what is right at all times and to be able to justify their choice of action or inaction.
The members of a public safety organization must be constantly aware that their every action is under close scrutiny. They must also be aware that whatever acts they perform as a police officer, they are subjected to higher standards than is the norm in the everyday societal environment. Police officers must abide by the rules established by the organization wherein they are employed. Police officers must set the example for others in the community to follow. Leaders must set the example for subordinates to follow. The organization must establish policies and procedures and they must enforce these policies and procedures when the rules are broken.
The public safety organization must emphasize that all employees must abide by the rules. It must be made known that unethical behavior will not be tolerated. The organization must set the pace on what is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable behavior. The organization must also evenly administer remedies to prevent or decrease opportunities for employees to either participate in such behaviors or to become engaged in such behaviors. There must be training courses and refresher courses to influence the decision of employees to do the right thing. In the end, unethical behavior that is condoned will only create more disruption of the activities of an organization. Employees must fully understand the consequences of their actions and will know this because they have been given the training by the organization. The end result of the employee's action will be the result of rule consequentialism where the employee knows that the action taken will produce the prescribed result. There is no excuse to do wrong, unless it can be justified. Yet, does being justified make the act any better, even though one knows the act is wrong? The act is only wrong if the greater good is not served. The decision maker must decide the best route to take in protecting the integrity of the agency while being ethical.
About the author: Dr. Celvin "CG" Walwyn holds a PhD in Public Safety with a Specialization in Leadership, a Masters Degree in Security Management with a Concentration on Homeland Security, and a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice. He was the 2011-2015 Commissioner of Police with the Royal St. Christopher and Nevis Police Force, and a former Texas Police Chief, who retired after serving 30 years as a veteran of Florida, Texas, and Caribbean law enforcement. He began his career as a Virgin Islands Law Enforcement Explorer. Find more on Dr. Walwyn on LinkedIn or contact him at cgwalwyn@me.com or @drwalwyn on Twitter
References
Akers, R., & Seller, J. (2004). Criminal Theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.
Botes, A. (2000). A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(5), 1071-1075. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01576.x
Kant, I. (2004). Critique of practical reason and other works on the theory of ethics . Barnes & Noble.
McBeath, G. & Webb, S. (2002). Virtue ethics and social work: being lucky, realistic, and not doing ones duty. The British Journal of Social Work, 32(8), 1015-1036.doi: 10.1093/bjsw/32.8.1015
McGee, R. (2009). Analyzing insider trading from the perspectives of utilitarian ethics and rights theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 65-82. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0068-2.
Munson, R. (2000). Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics (6th ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2008). Criminal justice organizations administration and management. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.