Mid-terms: essay format (1 page summary) of each chapter with APA format, chapters 1, 2, 3, 4
Book Used: Williams , C.R., & Arrigo, B.A. (2011). Ethics, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Prentice Hall. ISBN-13: 978-0135071540
I have attached a summary of each chapter, PLEASE do NOT summarize this. These were notes given from the instructor.
Please be sure that APA format is 100% this is a big part of the grade.
Chapter1
Morality, Ethics, and Human Behavior
Chapter Objectives
1. Become familiar
with the major arguments supporting the importance of studying ethics in the
criminal justice field.
2. Understand the
vocabulary of ethics—that is, morals, ethics, values, ethical codes, ethical
standards, and dilemmas.
3. Understand how to
analyze an ethical dilemma.
4. Become sensitive
to the types of ethical dilemmas faced in one’s professional life.
This chapter introduces the concepts of ethics and morals.
It begins with some hypothetical situations. Instructors may introduce these
and just let students talk for a bit about what they would do. After some
discussion, move the query to not “what you would do,” but “why is that the
right thing.” Then, begin the subject of ethics – it is how you answer the
question: why?
WHY STUDY ETHICS?
Everyone has ethical dilemmas or choices to make between
different courses of action.
We make judgments all the time about right and wrong
behavior.
Criminal justice professionals experience a multitude of
these decisions.
An ethical analysis of an organization is different from the
political, organizational, or sociological approaches.
Discretion exists at each stage: legislative, enforcement,
prosecution, and corrections.
Elements of criminal justice professionals (on p. 6-7).
Should we be concerned with a politician who has
extramarital affairs? Drinks to excess?
Gambles? Uses drugs? Abuses his or her spouse? What if the person was a police
officer? A judge? Should a female police
officer be sanctioned for posing naked in a men’s magazine, using pieces of her
uniform as “props”?
Should a probation officer socialize in bars that his or her
probationers are likely to frequent?
Should a prosecutor be extremely active in a political party and then
make decisions regarding targets of “public integrity” investigations of
politicians?
Definition of public servant (serves public, is paid from
public purse). Compare Delattre’s ideal versus real life examples.
Felkenes elements of why ethics is important for cj
professionals (p. 8).
DEFINING TERMS
Greek word ethos pertains to custom (behavioral practices)
or character, and morals is a Latin word with a similar meaning.
Morals and Ethics
Morals and morality refer to what is judged as good conduct.
(Immorality refers to bad conduct.)
Ethics refers to the study and analysis of what constitutes
good or bad conduct
In professions involving public trust such as politics,
education, and the clergy—there is a thin line between one’s private life and
one’s public life.
Making Moral Judgments
We make moral or ethical judgments all the time.
We also make choices that can be judged as right or wrong.
Decisions that can be judged involve four elements: 1) acts that are 2) human, and 3) of free
will 4) that affect others.
Examples of ethical decisions for police include: Whether to take gratuities. Whether to cover
up the wrongdoing of a fellow officer. Whether to sleep on duty.
Discussions regarding the ethics of defense attorneys
include: Devoting more effort to private cases than appointed cases. Whether or
not the defense attorney allows perjury.
“Inventory of Ethical Issues” (p. 13).
Ethical work decisions fall into three major
categories: Effects on citizenry.
Effects on other employees. Effects on the organization one works for.
Duties
Dutiesrefer to those actions that an individual must perform
in order to be considered moral.
Superogatoriesare commendable but not required.
Imperfect dutiesare general duties that one should uphold,
but without specific application as to when or how.
Values
Values are defined as elements of desirability, worth, or
importance.
Some writers think that value judgments and moral judgments
are indistinguishable, relativistic and individual.
Universalists believe some values are more important than
others and that the value system is universal, i.e. valuing money over life.
Values and morals are similar, but while values merely
indicate relative importance, morals prescribe or proscribe behavior.
Individual values form value systems. [See Value Exercise, p. 15]
MORALITY AND THE LAW
Laws are the formal, written rules of society. Yet they are
not comprehensive in defining moral behavior.
“Good Samaritan laws” exist in some states and are quite
common in Europe. These laws make it a crime to pass by an accident scene or
witness a crime without rendering assistance.
Some actions prohibited by law are thought to be private
decisions of the individual and not especially wrong or harmful.
Do you believe the state should regulate behavior that
arguably doesn’t hurt anyone else (such as motorcycle or bicycle helmet laws)?
Prostitution? Gambling? Which, if any,
laws do you believe legislate what should be private decisions of individuals?
We have had laws in the past that were or are now considered
immoral.
More recently, we have had legal authorities authorizing
forms of interrogation that many argue constitute torture and are morally and
ethically wrong, even if lawful.
Civil disobedience occurs when someone voluntarily disobeys
what they consider to be an unjust or immoral law.
Which, if any, laws do you believe are themselves morally
wrong (or support immoral behavior)? If one followed all laws, would that make
them a moral person?
Actus reus – act; Mens rea – mental state; causation;
concurrence = crime (will be covered in more detail later)
Criminal Culpability/Moral Culpability
The law recognizes different levels of responsibility by the
different levels of mens rea. (intent, knowing, negligence, recklessness)
Careless actions are judged as less “bad” than those actions
performed with deliberation and intent.
Do you hold someone just as accountable for acts that are
reckless and acts that are deliberate?
Mental state may prevent any level of guilt (incompetent
through mental illness or age)
Other possible factors that reduce culpability? (poverty,
childhood abuse, etc.)
One may be legally culpable but morally blameless; morally
culpable but legally blameless, or both legally and morally culpable.
Do you agree that a child before the legal age of reason is
not morally culpable for his or her actions? Why or why not? What should the
age of reason be?
What are some situations in which the individual cannot be
considered rational or, alternatively, is not acting from free will? Can the
behavior that results be defined as moral or immoral?
What about people who say that the “couldn’t help
themselves? Do you think there is such a
thing as an “irresistible impulse”?
Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines
Regulations govern the activities of occupations; come from
a governmental authority and often specify sanctions for noncompliance.
Standards may come from private or public bodies and are
often used as a basis for some type of accreditation.
Guidelines may come from a professional group and are
usually recommendations rather than directions.
When rules or standards are violated, other relevant
criminal charges may be imposed as well.
Professions usually have a code of ethics or set of
professional rules to educate and encourage their members to perform in
accordance with an ideal of behavior.
Enforcing rules is very different from promoting an ethical
standard of honesty and integrity in the workplace.
MORALITY AND BEHAVIOR
Believing something is wrong does not always prevent us from
doing it.
A large percentage of schoolchildren will cheat when given
the opportunity to do so; even though they know it is wrong.
Are people fundamentally bad and only held in check by rules
and fear of punishment? Or, are they fundamentally good and commit bad acts
because of improper upbringing or events that subvert their natural goodness?
Or, are there fundamentally bad and fundamentally good people who are just
“born that way” for no reason?
Why do we idolize people who have done things we know and
believe to be wrong?
ANALYZING ETHICAL DILEMMAS
Ethical discussions in criminal justice can be either issues
or dilemmas.
Ethical issues are broad social questions, often concerning
the government’s social control mechanisms and the impact on those governed.
Ethical dilemmasare those situations in which one person
must make a decision about what to do. Either the choice is unclear, or the
“right” choice will be difficult because of the costs involved.
The following steps might be taken in order to clarify the
dilemma:
Review all the facts.
Identify all the potential values and concepts.
Identify all possible moral issues for each party involved.
Decide what is the most immediate moral or ethical issue
facing the individual.
Resolve the ethical or moral dilemma using an ethical system.
Ethical judgment pyramid [See Ethical Judgment Pyramid, p.
26]:
The tip of the pyramid is the judgment itself.
The moral rules that support such judgments make up the body
of the pyramid.
These rules, in turn, must be supported by ethical systems.
CONCLUSION
Morals and ethics both relate to standards of behavior.
Not all behaviors are subject to ethical judgments—only
those that are performed by humans who are acting with free will and that
affect others.
Professional ethics deals only with those behaviors relevant
to one’s profession.
Chapter 2
Determining Moral Behavior
Ethical Systems
Chapter Objectives
1. Become familiar
with the major ethical systems and the criticisms leveled against each.
2. Become familiar
with other ways to resolve ethical dilemmas in addition to the ethical systems.
3. Understand the
controversy between relativism and absolutism.
4. Become familiar
with how the major ethical systems have relevance to issues in criminal
justice.
5. Learn how to apply
the major ethical systems to ethical dilemmas.
In this chapter, the most well-known ethical systems are
presented. These systems give students the tools to analyze ethical dilemmas.
The instructor may want to discuss the Ramparts scandal from the perspective of
Detective Russell Poole. Have students walk through his dilemma from the
perspective of every ethical system to see if different results may occur under
the various ethical systems. One thing that I think is important to emphasize
is that, while our discussion of these system emphasizes the differences
between them, most day-to-day ethical dilemmas present questions that would
result in the same answers from most systems, not different answers. Also, it is important to be consistent in the
analysis of dilemmas so that the class discussion should always start with the
questions posed below:
1. Identify the
facts.
2. Identify relevant
values and concepts.
3. Identify the
possible choices one might make.
4. Analyze the
choices under an ethical system.
ETHICAL SYSTEMS
Ethical systems have a number of characteristics.
They are the source of moral beliefs.
They are the underlying premises from which you make
judgments.
They are beyond argument.
They might be called moral theories or moral philosophies.
To be accepted as an ethical system, the system of
principles must be internally consistent, must be consistent with generally
held beliefs, and must possess a type of “moral common sense.”
Judgments come from basic moral rules which are derived from
ethical systems.
[See Ethical Pyramid, p. 36]
DEONTOLOGICAL AND TELEOLOGICAL ETHICAL SYSTEMS
A deontological ethical system is one that is concerned
solely with the inherent nature of the act being judged.
Teleological systemsjudge the consequences of an act.
Ethical Formalism
Ethical formalismis a deontological system because the
important determinant for judging whether an act is moral is not its
consequence, but only the motive or intent of the actor.
According to Kant, the only thing that is intrinsically good
is a good will.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) believed moral worth comes from
doing one’s duty.
The following comprise the principles of Kant’s ethical
formalism
Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same
time will that it should become a universal law.
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in
your own person or that of any other, never simply as a means but always at the
same time as an end.
Act as if you were, through your maxims, a lawmaking member of
a kingdom of ends.
A system such as ethical formalism is considered an
absolutist system—if something is wrong, it is wrong all the time.
However, to not tell the truth when the attacker doesn’t
deserve the truth is not a lie, but if one intentionally and deliberately sets
out to deceive, then that is a lie—even if it is being told to a person who
doesn’t deserve the truth.
Are there any situations in which lying is acceptable?
There are several criticisms of ethical formalism.
It seems to be unresponsive to extreme circumstances.
Morality is limited to duty.
The priority of motive and intent over result is problematic
in some instances.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical system: what is
good is determined by the consequences of the action.
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), a major proponent of
utilitarianism, believed that the morality of an action should be determined by
how much it contributes to the good of the majority.
Bentham did not judge the relative weight of utility.
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), believed that utilities
(benefits) had different weights or values. Most problematic issue of
utilitarianism is the assumption that one can predict the consequences of
actions.
There is little concern for individual rights in utilitarianism.
In act utilitarianism, the basic utility derived from an
action is alone examined.
In rule utilitarianism, one judges that action in reference
to the precedent it sets and the long-term utility of the rule set by that
action.
Rule utilitarianism may be closer to the principles of
ethical formalism, because it looks at general universal laws; the difference
between the two is that the laws themselves are judged right or wrong depending
on the motives behind them under ethical formalism, whereas utilitarianism
looks to the long-term consequences of the behavior prescribed by the rules to
determine their morality.
Can you think of any acts that result in bad consequences
but should still be considered good acts?
What about bad acts that result in good consequences?
In the movie, Sophie’s Choice, a woman was forced to choose
which one of her children to send to the gas chamber. If she did not decide,
both would be killed. How would ethical formalism resolve this dilemma? How
would utilitarianism?
There is a continuing debate over whether the U.S. needed to
bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Present the
arguments on both sides. Now consider:
are they utilitarian arguments, ethical formalist arguments, or some other?
OTHER ETHICAL SYSTEMS
Religion
Religious ethics includes Judeo-Christian ethics, Buddhism,
Confucianism, and Islam among others.
Pantheistic religions that do not have any judgments of
right and wrong cannot be the basis for an ethical system.
Many religions have their own version of the Golden Rule.
The legalist position is God is inviolable and that
positions on moral questions are absolute.
The situationalist position is that something may be right
or wrong depending on the circumstances.
Human beings can “know” God’s will in three ways:
Individual conscience. An individual’s conscience is the
best source for discovering what God wants one to do. If one feels
uncomfortable about a certain action, it is probably wrong.
Religious authorities. They can interpret right and wrong
for us and are our best source if we are confused about certain actions.
Holy scriptures. The third way is to go directly to the
Bible, Koran, or Torah as the source of God’s law.
Natural Law
In the natural law ethical system, there is a universal set
of rights and wrongs that is similar to many religious beliefs, but there is no
reference to a specific supernatural figure.
Morality is part of the natural order of the universe.
For instance, the preservation of one’s own being is a
basic, natural inclination, and thus is a basic principle of morality.
Other inclinations are peculiar to one’s species— for
instance, humans are social animals; thus, sociability is a natural inclination
that leads to altruism and generosity.
According to the social contract theory, members of society
originally were engaged in a “war of all against all. ”The “contract” is one
where individuals give up the freedom to aggress against others in return for
their own safety.
What are “natural rights”—rights that everyone has purely by
virtue of being alive?
What are the “natural” inclinations of human beings?
The Ethics of Virtue
The ethics of virtue instead asks the question, “What is a
good person?”
Virtues that a good person possesses include thriftiness,
temperance, humility, industriousness, and honesty.
It is a teleological system because it is concerned with
acting in such a way as to achieve a good end -- the specific “end” is
happiness.
The roots of this system are in the work of Aristotle, who
defined virtues as “excellences.”
Aristotle: we are, by nature, neither good nor evil but
become so through training and the acquisition of habits.
The principle of the golden mean: virtue is always the
median between two extremes of character.
Moral virtue comes from habit, which is why this system emphasizes
character.
One difficulty is in judging the primacy of moral virtues.
Do you think most people do the right thing out of habit or
reason?
Do you think that people who have the virtues discussed
above never perceive moral dilemmas because they always do the right thing?
The Ethics of Care
The ethics of care: emphasis is on human relationships and
needs.
The ethics of care has been described as a feminine morality
because women in all societies are the childbearers and consequently seem to
have a greater sensitivity to issues of care.
Carol Gilligan’s work on moral development identified a
feminine approach to ethical dilemmas that focuses on relationships and needs
instead of rights and universal laws.
Applying the ethics of care leads not to different solutions
necessarily, but perhaps different questions.
Eastern religions, such as Taoism, are consistent with the
ethics of care.
The “restorative justice” movement is consistent with the
ethics of care.
Braswell and Gold (2002) discuss a concept called
peacemaking justice: connectedness,
caring and mindfulness.
Egoism
Egoismpostulates that what is good for one’s survival and
personal happiness is moral.
Psychological egoismrefers to the idea that humans naturally
are egoists and that it would be unnatural for them to be any other way.
Enlightened egoismmay mean that one should treat others as
we would want them to treat us to ensure cooperative relations. Even seemingly
selfless and altruistic acts are consistent with egoism, since these acts
benefit the individual by giving self-satisfaction.
Capitalism is based on the premise that everyone pursuing
his or her self-interest will create a healthy economy.
Egoism is rejected by most philosophers because it violates
the basic tenets of an ethical system.
Do people do things solely for altruistic reasons, or are
there always hidden motives and egoistic agendas operating?
OTHER METHODS OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
John Rawls: moral principles can be developed through
inductive logic by moral judges: They would possess common sense; They would
have open minds; They would know their own emotions; They would have a
sympathetic knowledge of humans.
Their judgments are then used to form a set of principles
that define right and wrong.
Nash’s guidelines: determine the facts of the situation;
public disclosure; use a rationale.
[See “Ethics Self-Survey” & “How to Make an Ethical
Decision”, p. 55 & 56]
Krogstand and Robertson:
The imperative principle: directs a decision maker to act
according to a specific, unbending rule.
The utilitarian principle: determines the ethics of conduct
by the good or bad consequences of the action.
The generalization principle: which is based on this
question: “What would happen if all similar persons acted this way under
similar circumstances?”
Close and Meier:
Does the action violate another person’s constitutional
rights, including the right of due process?
Does the action involve treating another person only as a
means to an end?
Is the action under consideration illegal?
Do you predict that your action will produce more bad than
good for all persons affected?
Does the action violate department procedure or professional
duty?
Most simple set of questions:
Does it affect others?
Does it hurt others?
Would I want it done if I were on the other side?
Would I be proud of the decision?
RELATIVISM AND ABSOLUTISM
There are two main arguments for relativism.
There are many different moral standards of behavior.
We do not know how to determine the absolute rules.
Do you believe that there are no absolute moral truths and
that morality is simply an individual’s definition of right and wrong? If you answered yes, then are you also saying
that child molesters and cannibals have the right to decide which behaviors are
acceptable for them?
Cultural relativism defines good as that which contributes
to the health and survival of society.
Occupational subcultures also support standards of behavior
that are acceptable only for those within the occupation.
It must be noted that even absolutist systems may accept
some exceptions.
The principle of forfeiture associated with deontological
ethical systems holds that people who treat others as means to an end or take
away or inhibit their freedom and well-being forfeit the right to protection of
their own freedom and well-being.
TOWARD A RESOLUTION: SITUATIONAL ETHICS
Situational ethics:
There are basic principles of right and wrong.
These can be applied to ethical dilemmas and moral issues.
These principles may call for different results in different
situations, depending on the needs, concerns, relationships, resources,
weaknesses, and strengths of the individual actors.
Situational ethics is different from relativism because
absolute norms are recognized, whereas under relativism there are no norms.
Example of absolute norms:
Treat each person with the utmost respect and care.
Do one’s duty(ies) in such a way that one does not violate
the first principle.
[See “An Ethical Continuum”, p. 61]
RESULTING CONCERNS
As mentioned previously, ethical systems are not moral
decisions as such; rather, they provide the guidelines or principles to make
moral decisions.
“The Major Ethical Systems” summarizes the key principles
for these ethical systems.
[See “The Major Ethical Systems”, p. 62]
When there is no agreement concerning the accepted facts in
a certain case, it is confusing to bring in moral arguments before resolving
the factual issues.
Very few people follow such strong moral codes that they
never lie or never cause other people harm.
One can condemn the act and not the person.
CONCLUSION
Ethical systems are ordered principles that define what is
right or good.
Each of these ethical systems answers the question, “What is
good?” in a different way.
Relativism and absolutism are contrary principles but may be
reconciled using the concept of situational ethics.
Chapter3
Chapter Objectives
1. Become familiar
with the major theories regarding the development of moral behavior, especially
Kohlberg’s moral development theory and learning theory.
2. Become familiar
with Gilligan’s research exploring gender differences in moral development.
3. Recognize the
difficulty associated with the relationship between moral beliefs and behavior.
4. Become familiar
with some of the applications of moral development theory to criminal
offenders.
6. Become familiar
with some issues regarding teaching ethics in criminal justice.
7. Understand the
range of answers to the question: “Why be ethical?”
One of the most intriguing aspects of ethics to me has
always been the connection between ethics (what is right?) and criminology (why
do people do wrong?). There are also obvious overlaps between the second
question and child development and psychology. In this chapter, there is an
attempt to bridge the gap between criminology and these other fields of
knowledge. We ask the question: “How does one become a good person?” And, “Why be
ethical?”
THEORIES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Who has been the greatest influence on your moral
development? Why? How?
Why do you think people behave in ways that hurt other
people?
Have you ever done something you knew to be wrong? Why did
you do it?
Psychology seeks to understand why people behave the way
they do.
Beliefs and actions are related, but one does not
necessarily predict the other.
Biological theories propose that we are good or bad because
of biological predispositions.
Learning theory argues that our behavior is based on the
rewards we have received.
Developmental theories explain that people’s behavior is
influenced by their intellectual and emotional stage of development.
Biological Theories
There are links between the brain and the predisposition to
certain behaviors.
The frontal lobes seem to be the part of the brain
implicated in feelings of empathy, shame, and moral reasoning.
There may also be sex differences in brain activity and
research offers evidence that women are biologically inclined to empathy and
sensitivity to human relationships.
Learning Theory
Learning theorists believe that children learn what they are
taught, including morals and values as well as behavior.
In modeling, values and moral beliefs are patterned after
those one admires and aspires to identify with.
Reinforcement:
Behaviors and beliefs that are reinforced (either through material
rewards or through more subjective rewards, such as praise) are repeated and
eventually become permanent.
Cognitive dissonance: the discomfort that results when
behavior is not consistent with beliefs.
This leads to the development of attitudes to support one’s behavior.
Successful socialization requires gradual substitution of
symbolic and internal controls for external sanctions and demands.
According to learning theorists, even the most altruistic
behaviors provide rewards for the individual.
There is little room in this theory for universalism,
absolutism, or the idea that a moral truth exists apart from humans that is not
of their construction, but that awaits their discovery.
Developmental Theories
Developmental theories propose that individuals mature
physically, cognitively, and emotionally.
Social maturity is marked by the ability to empathize with
others and a willingness to compromise one’s desires with other’s needs.
Kohlberg’s Moral Stages (description of characteristics of
stages):
They involve qualitative differences in modes of thinking,
as opposed to quantitative differences.
Each stage forms a structured whole; cognitive development
and moral growth are integrated.
Stages form an invariant sequence; no one bypasses any stage
and not all people develop to the higher stages.
Stages are hierarchical integrations.
[See Kohlberg’s moral stages, p. 75]
Preconventional Level: the person approaches a moral issue
motivated purely by personal interests.
Stage 1 has a punishment and obedience orientation. What is
right is that which is praised; what is wrong is that which is punished.
Stage 2 has an instrument and relativity orientation. The
child becomes aware of and is concerned with others’ needs. What is right is
still determined by self-interest, but the concept of self-interest is
broadened to include those who are within the child’s sphere of relationships.
Conventional Level: people perceive themselves as members of
society, and living up to role responsibilities is paramount in believing
oneself to be good.
Stage 3 has an interpersonal concordance orientation. The
views of “significant others” are important to one’s self-concept.
Stage 4 has a law-and-order orientation. The individual is
concerned with the rules set down by society.
Post-Conventional Level: a person moves beyond the norms and
laws of a society to determine universal good— that is, what is good for all
societies. Few people reach this level, and their actions are observably
different from the majority.
Stage 5 has a social contract orientation. The person
recognizes larger interests than current laws.
Stage 6 centers on universal ethical principles. The person
who has reached this stage bases moral judgments on the higher abstract laws of
truth, justice, and morality.
A seventh stage? Kohlberg advanced the possibility of a
seventh stage, which has been described as a “soft” stage of ethical awareness
with an orientation of cosmic or religious thinking. This stage focuses on
agape—a nonexclusive love and acceptance of the cosmos and one’s place in it.
Critics of Kohlberg:
The stages tend to center too much on the concept of
justice, ignoring other aspects of morality.
The stages, especially 5 and 6, may be nothing more than
culturally based beliefs regarding the highest level of morality.
Justice, rules, and rights are emphasized as higher values
than are caring and relationships.
Others say Kohlberg emphasizes reason in moral decisions and
ignores emotional factors.
Studies have found significant cultural differences in the
age at which children reach different stages of moral development.
Some criticize the lack of connection between reasoning levels
and moral action in particular situations.
Kohlberg’s research can also be described as sexually biased
because he interviewed boys almost exclusively in early research. Subsequent
studies have found that women tend to cluster in Stage 3 because of their
greater sensitivity to and emphasis on human relationships.
A Different Morality?
Carol Gilligan researched the apparent sex difference in moral reasoning
and proposed that women may possess a different morality from men.
Gilligan labels this a care perspective. Ethics of care has been described in Chapter
2 as one of the ethical frameworks.
Gilligan found that men focused on justice while half of the
women who exhibited a focus did so on justice concerns and the other half
focused on care concerns.
Another study of fifty college students (half men, half
women) tested the subjects’ orientation to three moral dilemmas, and the
results were consistent with Gilligan’s findings. However, the content of the
dilemma evidently influenced whether care considerations would be found.
It should also be noted that other studies failed to find
any differences between men and women in their responses to moral dilemmas.
Teaching Moral Reasoning:
Being in a situation where seeing things from other points
of view is encouraged.
Engaging in logical thinking, such as reasoned argument and
consideration of alternatives.
Having the responsibility to make moral decisions and to
influence one’s moral world.
Exposure to moral controversy and to conflict in moral
reasoning that challenges the structure of one’s present stage.
Exposure to the reasoning of individuals whose thinking is
one stage higher than one’s own.
Participation in creating and maintaining a just community
whose members pursue common goals and resolve conflict in accordance with the
ideals of mutual respect and fairness.
ETHICS, BEHAVIOR, AND CRIMINALITY
There seems to be little consistency between beliefs and
behaviors.
Can we predict individuals who will perform unethical or
immoral actions?
Predicting Behavior
Some studies, however, do find beliefs and actions to be
correlated.
Hartshone and May study: no correlation between different
tests of honesty and behavior.
How many students cheat?
Kohlberg stage scores derived from interviews and ratings.
“Recognition” tests: require the subject merely to recognize
and identify certain moral principles and agree with them.
“Production” measures: require the subject actually to
reason through a dilemma and provide some rationale, which is then analyzed.
It may be that recognition measures are less reliable in
predicting behavior.
Teaching Ethics
Transparency International (2003) is an organization that
compiles evidence of corruption from across the world and rates countries on
how much corruption exists.
The United States scored in sixteenth place, with more
corruption than countries such as Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland,
Singapore, Sweden, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
Why do you think the United States doesn’t rank higher on
the Transparency International integrity survey?
The reasons given for ethics decline include the following:
We have eliminated many of the opportunities for the
teaching of morals.
The community is not a cohesive force any longer.
The authority of religion is not as pervasive as it once
was.
The family is weakening as a force of socialization.
Educators have abdicated their responsibility for moral
instruction in favor of scientific neutrality.
Administrators and managers exert the strongest influence on
the ethical climate of an agency, regardless of whether ethics classes are
offered.
Morality, Criminology, and Offender Populations
Do criminals have the same moral beliefs as others? Do they
know that stealing is wrong?
The social sciences have generally avoided using moral
definitions for wrongdoing.
Radical criminologists raise important points in their
discussion of how certain behaviors are defined as criminal and who is allowed
to do the defining.
Three major theoretical perspectives address the origins of
delinquency—temperament, attachment, and social learning.
Historically, criminality and sin were associated, and
correctional practitioners were primarily concerned with reformation in a
religious sense.
The orientation of corrections in the latter part of this
century (1950s–1970s) became more scientific than religious, and intervention
adopted the aim of psychological readjustment rather than personal redemption.
“Faith-based” correctional programs are experiencing
resurgence.
Various attempts have been made to introduce offenders to
“moral education”, i.e. Hickey and Scharf
Prisoners may find no rewards for expressing higher-stage
reasoning, much less acting upon such reasoning.
WHY BE ETHICAL?
When faced with a choice of behavior, one should at least
perform the following steps.
Examine all possible solutions to the problem and be aware
of the direct and indirect effects of each response.
One should determine whether any solutions would be viewed
as unacceptable if made public, and for what reason.
Reconcile their decisions with their personal set of values
or ethical system.
“Why be good?”
Under ethical formalism, the answer is that the world works
better, and it is rational to do one’s duty and live up to the categorical
imperative.
Under utilitarianism, the answer is that it is better for
everyone, including the individual, to do what benefits the majority.
Under the ethics of care, the answer is that we naturally
and instinctively have the capacity to care and to be concerned about others.
The theme running through the ethical systems is empathy and
caring for one another
the golden rule,
the universalism principle under the categorical imperative,
rule utilitarianism
enlightened egoism.
Tyler (Why People Obey the Law) - people obey the law not because of fear of
being punished but, rather, because of a fundamental belief in the goodness of
law.
If people do not hold these beliefs, then they have no
normative controls on their behavior and the only thing left is deterrence.
Unethical behavior that ignores rights by criminal justice
professionals may create the very criminality that one is trying to prevent.
Professional ethics is merely an application of moral
systems to a particular set of questions or a specific environment.
CONCLUSION
Biological theorists do not propose biological determinism,
only that certain traits or biological characteristics may influence one’s
behavior.
Learning theorists argue that people learn morals through
rewards. It is relativistic in that it postulates human learning as neutral.
There is no one true moral theory to discover; rather, the individual will
adopt whatever moral theory has been rewarded.
Developmental theorists propose that morality comes only at
an advanced stage of emotional and social development and is linked to
cognitive development.
Kohlberg’s theory proposes a hierarchy of moral stages, with
the highest stage holding the most perfect moral principles.
The approaches to moral development presented in this
chapter are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Some types of interventions can improve the moral reasoning
abilities of some offenders. Whether
moral reasoning will affect behavior is a different question.
Chapter4
The Origins and Concept of Justice
The Origins of Justice
Components of Justice
Distributive Justice
Corrective Justice
Chapter Objectives
1. Understand the
origins of justice
2. Understand the
components of justice including distributive, corrective and commutative.
3. Be able to define
procedural and substantive justice.
4. Understand the
difference between the utilitarian rationale and retributive rationale under
corrective justice.
Professionals in the criminal justice system serve and
promote the interests of law and justice. An underlying theme of this chapter
is that the ends of law and justice are different—perhaps even, at times,
contradictory. Although criminal justice
professionals use the word justice all the time, it may be the case that they
are not at all familiar with the philosophical foundations of the concept. This
chapter discusses justice and Chapter 5 discusses the administration of law.
ORIGINS OF THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE
Definitions of justice include: fairness, equality,
impartiality, appropriate rewards or punishments.
Justice should not be confused with “good.”
Justice concerns rights and interests more often than needs.
Justice originates in the Greek word dike, which is
associated with the concept of everything staying in its assigned place or
natural role.
Plato: justice
consists of maintaining the societal status quo. Justice is one of four civic virtues, the
others being wisdom, temperance, and courage
Aristotle distinguished distributive justice from
rectificatory justice.
Aristotle: the lack
of freedom and opportunity for slaves and women did not conflict with justice,
as long as the individual was in the role in which, by nature, he or she
belonged.
COMPONENTS OF JUSTICE
Distributive justice:the allocation of the goods and burdens
of society to its respective members.
Corrective justice: concerns the determination and methods
of punishments.
Commutative justice:transactions and interchanges where one
person feels unfairly treated.
Three continuing themes in any discussion of justice:
fairness, equality and impartiality.
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
Goods: economic
goods, opportunities for development, and recognition
Two valid claims to possession are need and desert.
Lucas: need, merit, performance, ability, rank, station,
worth, work, agreements, requirements of the common good, valuation of
services, and legal entitlement.
The various theories can be categorized as egalitarian,
Marxist, libertarian, or utilitarian, depending on the factors that are
emphasized
[See Exercise: How Much Are They Worth? p. 102]
[See Exercise: Who
Should Be Promoted? p. 103]
John Rawls’s: combines utilitarian and rights-based;
proposes an equal distribution unless a different distribution would benefit
the disadvantaged.
Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive
total system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for
all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage; and attached
to positions and offices open to all (except when inequality is to the
advantage of those least well-off ).
Rawls uses a heuristic device that he calls the veil of
ignorance to explain the idea that people will develop fair principles of
distribution only if they are ignorant of their position in society.
Criticisms of Rawls’ theory of justice
the veil of ignorance is not sufficient to counteract
humanity’s basic selfishness
Rawls’s preference toward those least well-off is contrary
to the good of society.
wrong to ignore desert in his distribution of goods
The ethics of care is consistent with a Marxist theory of
justice, since both emphasize need.
Utilitarian theories try to maximize societal good, so some
balance of need and merit would be necessary to provide the incentive to
produce.
Ethical formalism is solely concerned with rights; thus,
issues of societal good or others’ needs may not be as important as the
individual’s rights.
Relevance of distributive justice to criminal justice?
Appropriateness of affirmative action in hiring and
promotion
How much to pay police officers compared to other
professions.
Connection between distributive justice and corrective
justice (is poverty related to crime? To punishment?)
Explain why reciprocal altruism is similar to psychological
egoism, a term from Ch. 2. Do you
believe that humans have adapted such that reciprocal altruism is a trait that
endures through natural selection?
Think about the symbol of American justice – what does it
represent to you? Do you believe that
who you are makes a difference in today’s system of justice? Give examples.
How would you answer the argument of an individual who did
not believe they should have to pay school taxes because they have no
children? What about the argument that
rich school districts should share their wealth with poor districts (keeping in
mind that those who pay higher taxes in that district might have moved there
because of the reputation of the school)?
CORRECTIVE JUSTICE
Corrective justice is concerned with dispensing punishment.
Substantive justiceinvolves the concept of just deserts, or
how one determines a fair punishment for a particular offense; Procedural justice concerns the steps we must
take before administering punishment.
If you were being punished for a crime, would you rather
receive a year in prison or fifty lashes?
Why do we not use corporal punishment for criminal
offenders? Do you think we should?
Substantive Justice
Substantive Justice: just punishment is proportional to harm
Victim is a peripheral figure but punishment is measured by
harm to victim and state
[See Exercise:
Determining Severity p. 109]
Two philosophies applied to how to punish: retributive
justice and utilitarian justice.
Retributive Justice: (consider the following)
balance and proportionality (lex talionis & lex salica)
mens rea (intent) and capacity
victim precipitation (but not who the victim is supposedly)
Rawls: only when punishment can be shown to benefit the
least advantaged (the victim) can it be justified
Mercy – different from desert
Utilitarian Justice
Punishment is to deter offenders from future crime.
Caesare Beccaria & Jeremy Bentham (hedonistic calculus)
measure to determine the amount of punishment needed to
deter
Procedural Justice
Law includes the procedures and rules used to determine
punishment or resolve disputes
The law is an imperfect system.
“Moral rights” may differ from “legal rights,” and “legal
interests” may not be moral.
Due processexemplifies procedural justice.
notice of charges,
neutral hearing body,
right of cross-examination,
right to present evidence,
representation by counsel,
statement of findings, and
appeal.
Review Bill of Rights (what does it say about rights? Note:
Amnd. 9 & 10)
Illegal detentions?:
Clark v. Martinez, 125 S. Ct. 716 (2005) that the government
may not “indefinitely” detain illegal immigrants, even if they have been found
guilty of a crime.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 124 S.Ct. 2633 (2004), the
Supreme Court held that an American citizen could not be held indefinitely as
an “enemy combatant” without some form of due process.
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 124 S.Ct. 2686 (2004), the
Supreme Court held that those being held in Quantanamo Bay were subject to the
laws of the United States and deserved some form of due process.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 125 S.Ct. 972, 160 L.Ed.2d 910 (2005),
recently denied certiorari to another Quantanomo Bay detainee who lost at the
Court of Appeals level in his bid to have the Court recognize various
protections granted by the Geneva Convention to the detainees.
Is the right to be free from governmental deprivation of
liberty without some finding of guilt a natural right or a legal right?
The exclusionary rule: rule or right?
The inevitable discovery exception
The good faith exception
The pubic safety exception
(Rochin v. California, 343 U.S. 165 [1952])
*Analyze this case under procedural and substantive
justice: An eighty-seven-year-old man
living in Chicago is exposed as a soldier who took part in killing hundreds of
Jewish concentration camp victims. U.S. extradition procedures are followed to
the letter, and he is extradited to Israel to stand trial. Israeli law
determines that courts in Israel have jurisdiction over Nazi war crimes.
Israeli legal procedure is followed without error, and he is convicted of war
crimes and sentenced to death.
**Analyze this case under procedural and substantive
justice: Federal law enforcement agents
determine that a citizen of another country participated in a drug cartel that
sold drugs in the United States. A small group of agents goes to the foreign
country, kidnaps the offender, drugs him, and brings him back to the United
States to stand trial. Upon challenge, the government agents explain that,
although these actions would have been unconstitutional and illegal against a
citizen of the United States in this country, since they were conducted on
foreign soil against a non-U.S. citizen, they were not illegal.
***Let’s assume that in a civil dispute, one side has a very
strong claim and would almost surely win in court, yet because the attorney
missed a filing deadline, the judge throws out the case. Do you believe this is
fair? In a death penalty case, new
evidence emerged that supported the defendant’s allegations of innocence, but
the evidence was uncovered after the deadline for filing an appeal. Should the
execution go forward?
****Consider the case of an individual who befriends an
elderly person, takes care of him, and provides him comfort in his old age even
at the sacrifice of personal time and expense. When the elderly person dies,
however, a distant relative who expressed the view that it wasn’t her duty to
take care of her relative inherits substantial assets. Is this fair? Is this
just? If the law (which would typically uphold the inheritance absent any
special elements such as contract or payment for personal services) does not
support any recognition of the friend’s non-legal “rights” to any portion of
the inheritance, what theory of justice might support it?
CONCLUSION
Justice is a philosophical concept concerned with rights and
needs, law is the administration of justice.
Justice can be further differentiated into distributive
justice and corrective justice.
Corrective justice further divided into substantive and
procedural issues.
Substantive justice is justified by retributive and
utilitarian rationales.
No comments:
Post a Comment