By law, the controlled substances and substances act requires officers to prosecute people suspected of trafficking controlled substances, which are serious crimes.

Burdened by Homework? Let us write your essays and assignments Order This Now

Please agree or disagree with the following statements please provide your opinion on the matter support with at least 1 sources
1:
Topic: Utilitarianism; I also picked police officers.
Ethics is the study of the moral principles of society. Ethical principles socially govern people’s thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes, and individuals may have diverse moral beliefs. Utilitarianism is one of the most critical moral theories. Utilitarianism primarily supports activities that conduct for enjoyment and to avoid all forms of despair. Utilitarianism is the most significant rule of happiness. A systematic meaning of utilitarianism defines behavior as “good” or “right” based on its capability to promote enjoyment. Then something is considered “wrong” if it causes the opposite response. This construction allows the ends to justify often the means to pursue a particular outcome. In other words, it is the preferred choice if the action is more successful than other accessible alternatives.
A positive outcome of utilitarianism in police officers- In some cases, when faced with a determination, an officer may want to depend on utilitarianism to make ethical decisions that will be defended in future investigations. For instance, a police officer assigned to monitor a sizeable anti-marijuana protest group may notice anyone selling marijuana within the group. By law, the Controlled Substances and Substances Act requires officers to prosecute people suspected of trafficking controlled substances, which are serious crimes. However, in practical terms, a police officer can prosecute a suspect without arresting him for two reasons. First, an arrest ban would make the pro-marijuana group more pleased than those who were discouraged by the decision. It’s safe to say that society is becoming more easygoing about cannabis use, and the action to authorize cannabis is becoming stronger. Possibly the officer will acknowledge this and decide accordingly. The officer can reverse the decision if the drug in transit is crack cocaine. If the drug is a deadly drug that can cause death, the police officer must restrain the suspect from avoiding harm.
Arrests on human trafficking charges could lead to severe conflicts with large marijuana advocacy groups. An arrest by the police would not make most of these people happy. As an outcome, it may be the duty of the police officer to arrest the trafficker, but the officer may conclude that the consequences of the arrest may be harmful. Therefore, officers use their discretion to use pragmatic principles in their decision-making. From a regulatory utilitarian outlook, police officers must contemplate the impact of a regulation that allows anyone to smoke and sell marijuana. If the officer considers that the provision would serve the public good, the officer must authorize the sale. If a police officer believes that a rule will harm the public, the officer should take this into account and, in any case, consider the possibility of arrest.
An unfavorable outcome of utilitarianism in police officers- Utilitarianism, like all regulating ethical theories, cannot solve every ethical dilemma we face. Sometimes the application of utilitarian standards can harm a group or an individual. Some of the significant issues of consequentialist utilitarian ethics are: Utilitarian ethics involves the consequences of our actions rather than the actions themselves. For instance, a police officer may examine that filling out a ticket at an intersection creates a safer interchange atmosphere for everyone. Still, it isn’t easy to ensure this is the result. Instead, unintended consequences may occur. For example, suppose a police officer issues a ticket at an intersection and a fatal accident occurs due to a traffic violation. In this case, there were unintended consequences, mainly if the officers acted safely in filling out the ticket. Depending on the result, unintentional effects may be considered immoral by utilitarian standards. People who follow this logic are called realists. Because the actual outcome determines whether an action is right or wrong, some consequences correctly account for the unpredictability of death, so despite the unintended negative consequences, the act itself was still moral. This seems like a more logical method of consequentialism because it involves a mental factor determining whether an action is ethical.
2: Deontology – Law Enforcement
The principle of deontology is one that can be seen in many aspects of law enforcement. Deontology is a principle “that is primarily concerned with one’s duty” (McCartney & Parent, 2015). This theory was developed by Immanuel Kant who believed that the end result of a decision was not important but the “moral intent” of a decision (McCartney & Parent, 2015). Through Kant’s theory there are two branches of duty: conditional and categorical (McCartney & Parent, 2015). Now conditional is a duty that is to achieve an end result or reach a specific goal (McCartney & Parent, 2015). Whereas categorical is a rule of duty or something that must be done (McCartney & Parent, 2015). Both of these branches can be seen and applied to law enforcement in negative and positive ways despite the outcome.
The positive outcome I want to look at is based off of the conditional branch of deontology. In law enforcement there is officer discretion on many things except domestic violence situations, protection order violations, and warrants. When looking at deontology’s conditional branch I feel that officer discretion can play a large role. For instance on a call that I have been on I pulled over a car that had no visible plates. Now when they stopped I observed that they had a temporary tag but when speaking with the driver the driver had a revoked license. But when speaking with them further the driver was only driving because the passenger had injured themselves and could not drive. So I chose to write them a lesser ticket as it made sense why the driver who was revoked was driving and then just had them switch and had the passenger drive instead. In this situation I feel that this showed the conditional branch as it is my duty as a law enforcement officer to not let revoked drivers drive on the road. But for this situation I understood why the revoked driver was driving and I did not feel that it would be morally right for me to write the highest charge I could due to the circumstances.
A negative outcome I want to look at is based off of the categorical branch of deontology. This is the branch that one has a duty to perform where the end result must be done. So for this I would like to look at domestic violence situations. In Colorado there is a duty to arrest if probable cause is established for a crime committed between intimate partners there shall be an arrest. Now for many of these I have been on there is a clear and established crime where someone whether it is the man or the woman is arrested. For some of these cases though it has been a big gray area or there is weak probable cause to a crime established but an arrest still has to be made whether I want to too or not but there is stibcill a duty that I have to carry through.

Burdened by Homework? Let us write your essays and assignments Order This Now

Leave a Comment