Transcript Ethics and the CJ Professional

Ethics and the CJ Professional
Pollock chapter 6
\Ethics\arrest game.wmv
What is a “professional”?


A person who...
– Has a service orientation
– Possesses expertise derived from a distinct body of skills and knowledge
which is itself underpinned by values and standards
– Exercises authority and discretion
– Conducts him/herself within defined boundaries and ethical standards
– Is held accountable (Derived from Engineering Council of South Africa)
KEY QUESTION: When does a lack of professionalism become an ethical
issue?
– Impact on customer? Society?
– Physical harm?
– Financial harm?
Policy





Distinct from law
Formal policies
– Example: US Attorney’s Manual
– Set areas of emphasis
– Set thresholds for taking action
– Define procedures for taking action
Police agencies have extensive written policies, often multi-volume manuals
– When to arrest
– Use of force
– Exercise of discretion
Policies are affected by external forces
– Governments
– Interest groups
– Individuals
Ideologies can have a profound effect on policies
– Current example: war on terror
Discretion



Police have a lot of discretion
– Discretion operates at agency, unit
and individual levels
Differential law enforcement
– Not all laws receive equal emphasis
– Official policies may clash or be superseded by informal practices
 Policies may be unrealistic
 Policies may be unpopular or difficult to enforce
 Local attitudes may trump policies
Public attitudes are very important
– Prostitution, drugs, gambling
– Some areas (e.g., Las Vegas) have less moral sentiment against these
“vices”
Is it a matter of
principle or preference?


Who is one serving: themselves
or society?
– Friendships may clash with
workplace duties and the obligation to treat people fairly and
impartially
– Personal goals may clash with...
– Personal beliefs may clash with...
Morals  obedience, loyalty
– What to do when orders are illegal?
– What to do when orders are unethical?
– Is there a duty to use one’s own judgment?
– Can orders be refused? When should they be? When must
they be?
Believe it...or not!
More...
A dangerous way to “boost morale”





Spurred by superiors, L.A. Sheriff’s Deputies in Southeast L.A. competed in
separate one-day events in July and August 2007 to win “bragging rights” for
making the most arrests, the most vehicle impounds and the most number of
field interviews with gang members.
"It's just a friendly competition to have a little fun out here," said Lt. Jim Tatreau.
One purpose, he said, was as a motivator. He noted that some deputies made
15 to 20 arrests a month, while others only made 7 or 8 a year.
The number of arrests didn’t seem to be affected by the contest. But the
number of vehicle impounds and gang member interviews shot up dramatically
during the events.
Critics, including several well-known policing experts, immediately criticized the
idea. The greatest concern was that it could lead deputies to make unjustifiable
arrests and seizures and write false or exaggerated reports.
Sheriff Baca was one of the harshest critics: “We train deputies to be
independent thinkers and leaders...law enforcement is not the kind of service
where you can dictate the activity. We're not into numbers, we're into quality. I
don't think it will occur again.”
Los Angeles Times, 10/4/07
A study in police values
The investigation of
the murder of
Stephanie Crowe
The Murder of Stephanie Crowe
On the morning of January 21, 1998,
Stephanie Crowe, 12, was found stabbed to death
in her Escondido home. None of the other
residents – her parents, grandmother, sister and
brother – said they heard anything during the
night. Police immediately focused on three youths – her brother Michael, 14, and
two friends, Aaron Houser and Joshua Treadway.
Four days later they picked up Michael Crowe. He at first denied having
anything to do with his sister’s death. But during a relentless six-hour session the
next day, in which detectives concocted stories about finding his sister’s blood in
his room, Crowe finally confessed although in a most peculiar
way – by saying that, yes, he did it and that, yes, he was making
it up. Escondido police then picked up Joshua Treadway. After
being threatened with prison and subjected to two grueling
interrogations, including a ten-hour session in which police
administered a voice stress analysis, Treadway said he acted as
a lookout while Crowe and Houser did the deed. Aaron Houser
maintained his innocence throughout.
Certain that the crime was solved, prosecutors pointed to the
three teens’ love of fantasy role-playing games and Michael’s
admitted jealousy of his popular sister. The boys were quickly
indicted. But a judge later threw out all of Crowe’s confession
and most of Treadway’s, ruling that both teens had been
coerced. So the defense dredged up questionable forensic
testimony. “Expert” witnesses offered to testify that a knife
found under Treadway’s bed was “identical” to the weapon
that inflicted the fatal wounds, that the killing could not have
been committed by only one person, and that the words “kill, kill” left on
the victim’s windowsill could have been written by
Michael Crowe. An FBI crime scene profile strongly
suggested that the crime was an inside job.
Still, there were many inconsistencies. To have
participated in the killing Treadway had to have snuck out
of his home in the middle of the night and made the
ten-mile roundtrip journey on foot. It simply didn’t add
up. And there was something else...
Hours before the murder the Crowe’s neighbors
spotted Richard Tuite, a 28-year old schizophrenic
with a record for drug and property crimes. Tuite
had past arrests for burglary, a stabbing and for
leering at young girls and following them home.
Tuite, who was roaming the area, stood on the
victim’s property and looked up at the windows.
Richard Tuite
But by the time that an officer arrived Tuite was
nowhere to be seen. As the officer left he radioed in that he saw the
Crowe’s laundry-room door closing. The next day officers brought
Tuite to the police station, where they took his clothing and fingernail
scrapings. Tuite was cooperative and was let go.
Defense attorneys examined Tuite’s clothing. Spotting suspicious
stains, they asked they be tested. Detectives, who pooh-poohed Tuite’s
ability to commit the crime, said they did so and found nothing. But
the defense persevered and Tuite’s things were sent for DNA analysis.
Six months after their arrest a judge held over
the three boys for trial as adults. But the judge
warned prosecutors that their evidence was
wholly lacking. He also wondered why Tuite
had been dismissed as a suspect. The boys
were released to the custody of their parents.
In January 1999, as jury selection for the boy’s
trial got underway, the crime lab reported that Tuite’s shirt was
spattered with Stephanie Crowe’s blood.
The boys were freed. Escondido police
were replaced by the Sheriff’s office and
the State Attorney General’s office took
over the prosecution.
In May 2003 Tuite was convicted of
voluntary manslaughter for
Stephanie Crowe’s murder. In August
2004 he was sentenced to thirteen years.