Instructions For this assignment, answer these questions about the scenario you selected in Milestone One to address the following: I. Scenario Select one (1) of the scenarios and answer the following
JUS 455 Final Project: Case Study Ethical Analysis Overview If you are going to work at any position in the criminal justice system, you will be faced with ethical dilemmas. This is a f act that you cannot change or control. What you can control is how you react to those situations. One wrong reaction could cost you your career. In today’s society, our actions are constantly being monitored. Now more than ever, justice workers’ actions are being called into question. While you are expected to do the righ t thing when others are watching, the true test of character is what you do when no one is watching. In the final assessment, you will play the role of criminal justice worker depicted in one of the three scenario s below . You will use the skills gained in this course to properly identify the legal dilemma(s), identif y the facts relevant to each dilemma, and describe the course of action you would take and why. Additionally, you will identify what personal values you may call upon in making a decision, what duties you have based on the situation, a nd whether or not tho se values and duties are in conflict. This assessment addresses the following course outcomes: Analyze changes in society for determining their impact on ethics in law enforcement Analyze moral foundations for their impact on ethics in the United States Assess the role of society for its impact on creating or changing laws Assess ethical boundaries of a criminal justice employee for determining an effective course of action when confronted with e thical d ilemmas The project is supported by three formative milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules One, Two , and Five . Th e final paper will be submitted in Module Seven . Scenario #1 Joe is a corrections officer in a juvenile detention center and works on a unit housing 15 offenders, many of whom suffer from mental health problems. Joe has worked there for about two months. He feels comfortable with his job and has been accepted by the other staff members. He has not had any significant problems with the juveniles and is ge nerally enjoying his work. It is lunchtime on Monday, and Joe is in the dining room supervising the juveniles as they eat. At one table sit six juveniles, o ne of whom is a 17 -year -old named Brian , who m Joe thinks has a mental disability. Brian is displayi ng offensive behavior that is so bad that Joe cannot eat his own meal. Brian keeps adding ketchup in vast quantities to every dish, then slurping it from the plate. Brian uses his hands instead of a fork. Brian talks with h is mouth full, causing him to spi t his food across the table in front of the other juveniles. Joe can see that the other juveniles are repulsed by Brian’s behavior and a re getting upset by his actions. 2 Joe is surprised to see his coworker and mentor Darren suddenly get up from where he i s seated, go over to Brian, grab him by his shirt, and move him away from the table. Darren takes Brian off to the kitchen and returns with a large mixing bowl. In front of everyone, Darren tell s Brian to scrape out what is left of his meal into the large bowl. Darren then takes Brian to the center of the dining room floor, puts the bowl of food on the floor, and tells him to ea t. Darren tells Brian that he has disgusting manners, and if he is going to act like an animal while eating, he may as well get dow n on the floor like a dog and eat from his bowl. Darren tells Brian to stay on the floor and lick his bowl clean, like the animal that he is. The other juveniles are visibly upset at what Darren has done. Joe does not do or say anything to Darren while th is is going on, though he is taken aback by his coworker’s actions. Later, Darren explains to Joe and other staff who were present that the reason he acted this way was to shock Brian into understanding that his table manners were inapprop riate. Darren tho ught if he used “tough love” on Brian that he would be less likely to act that way in the future. Scenario #2 You are working the midnight shift as a police officer. You rec eive a call to respond to a one -car accident where the car left the roadway and im pacted with a tree. Upon your arrival, you see the badly damaged car up against the tree. There are no skid marks apparent and no witnesses around. You approach the car and find the apparent driver behind the wheel. You immediately recognize the driver to be the mayor of your town. You immediately notice signs that the mayor is impaired by alcohol, including the smell of an alcoholic beverage coming from his breath, the slurring of his speech, and the lethargy he is exhibiting. The mayor tells you that he s werved to avoid a dog, lost control and hit the tree. The mayor is not injured. When you ask the mayor if he has consumed alc ohol, he tells you that he was at retirement dinner and only had one glass of wine. The mayor asks you to just complete an accident report and give him a ride home. You question him further, telling him you are concerned that he was driving while impaired. The mayor tells you that he is not im paired and not to worry about anything because you never actually saw him driving. The mayor goes on to tell you that he will not say anything to anyone, and he lets you know that he has a lot of influence with what goes on at the police station, and that he has had his eye on you as an up -and -comer. You know that you could just complete an accide nt report identifying the cause of the accident as swerving to avoid an animal in the roadway. If you do not tell anyone that the mayor was drinking and he doe s not tell anyone, what i s the worst that could happen? Scenario #3 You are a new officer. An armed robbery takes place on your route where the store clerk has been stabbed and you respond with numerous other, more experienced officers. At the scene, you and another experienced officer find a car parked in an odd manner, adjacent to the store that got robbed. One officer reviews the surveillance footage and is able to broadcast a description of the suspect. You run the license plate on the car you found and learn that the owner matches the general description of the suspect. Addition ally, you learn that the registered owner of the car only lives a couple of blocks away. You and the more experienced officer respond to this address to attempt to locate the car owner and see if they were involved. When you get to the apartment of the reg istered owner, you notice that the lights are on within the apartment and you can hear noises coming from within. No one responds to your knocks on the door. You radio this information into the shift commander, and ask permission to kick the door in based upon the circumstances. The shift commander radios back that you should not enter, and to secure the apartment until detectives arrive. Your more experienced partner becomes upset and st ates that he is not going to let the detectives make his arrest. 3 Wit h that, he kicks the door in and you both enter the apartment and locate the car owner. Ultimately, the officer who observed the suspect on surveillance video comes to the apartment and positively identifies this person as the person who committed the arme d robbery. He is taken into custody. Detectives arrive on scene. Your partner tells the detectives that the door was partially opened and that the suspect eventually came to the do or where he was identified. Your partner also tells the detectives that they may want to get a search warrant as there is a bloodied knife under the mattress in the bedroom. Detectives get a search warrant and do find the knife. Your partner tells you that he will take care of the report. In the report, he document s the story outl ined above, including that the suspect ultimately came to the door. He also leaves out the fact that he searched around inside the apartment, findi ng the knife before the detectives got to the scene. The case has proceeded to trial, and you are aware that the defendant’s lawyer has filed a motion to suppress evidence, stating that the police made an illegal entry by kicking their way into the apartment. The prosecutor says there is nothing to worry about because th e report clearly indicates that the door wa s partially open, and that the defendant willingly opened the door and came out after a short period. What do you do? Prompt Pick one of the scenarios to address: You should recognize a variety of ethical dilemmas as you read through this case study. Iden tify each ethical dilemma. Explain what the dilemma is and why it raises an ethical issue. Explain which facts are important to understanding the nature of the issue. What ethical theories would you rely upon in determining how to best handle each situatio n? Identify what personal values you may call upon in making a decision as to how to handle the situation. What duties are involved in the situation, and to who or what is the duty owed? Do the duties conflict at all, and if so, how? Specifically, the fol lowing critical elements must be addressed: I. Ethics and Society Overview a. Describe the impact society has on ethical behavior in law enforcement. Use specific examples to support your claim. b. Determine why it is important that society has a say on ethical expectations within law enforcement. Why is it important for law enforcement to listen? c. Explain the relationship between society and the development of law . Defend your response with specific examples. d. Assess the importance of society’s role in the devel opment of law. Why is it important for lawmakers to listen? e. Analyze the relationship between morality and ethics within American law enforcement. f. Explain how society’s changing views may impact ethical guidelines within American law enforcement. Defend y our response. Select one (1) of the scenarios and answer the following questions. II. Scenario Select one (1) of the scenarios and answer the following questions. a. Identify the ethical dilemma raised by the facts and explain what the ethical dilemma is. b. Wha t makes this dilemma ethical ? What ethics does this dilemma challenge? c. Describe the factors that led to the dilemma. How can these factors inform your course of action? d. What implications should be considered when determining your course of action? Why? 4 III. Ethical Theories and Personal Values a. Identify the ethical theory you would rely upon to address this dilemma, and describe why it would be effective. b. How do you separate personal morals from ethics, and why is this important? c. When is it appropriate to l et your morals guide your actions ? Why? IV. Duties a. Describe your course of action if you were faced with this dilemma. Why would this reaction be appropriate and effective? b. What is your responsibility as a professional in this scenario? Defend your response . c. Does your ethical responsibility take precedence over your personal views? What do you do if the two are conflicting? d. Identify the impact of society’s changing views of acceptable behavior as it applies to a criminal justice practitioner’s duties. Milestones Milestone One : Scenario Selection In Module One , you will review the Final Project Rubric and, i n a paragraph, state which scenario you will use for your final project. Explain your reasons for choosing this scenario and i dentify what you think will be most difficult for you with this project. This milestone is graded with the Milestone One Rubric. Milestone Two : Scenario Overview Short Paper In Module Two , you will describe the ethical dilemma chosen to support your final project in a 1 –2 page short paper. This milestone is graded with the Milestone Two Rubric . Milestone Three : Theories, Values, and Duties Short Paper In Module Five , you will describe the theories, personal values, and personal responsibilities as it relates to your selected scenario in a 2 –3 page short paper . This milestone is graded with the Milestone Three Rubric. Final Submission : Case Study Ethical Analysis In Module Seven , you will submit your final case study ethical analysis . In this final submission, you will identify the issue and explain the proper action that should be taken utilizing the tools gained through this course. Also, you will recommend agency policies to put in place to p revent these ethical dilemmas from arisi ng in the first place. This submission will be graded using the Final Project Rubric (below) . 5 Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission : Your case study ethical analysis needs to be 6 –8 pages in length , using 12 -point Times New Roman font and following APA guidelines. Critical Elements Exemplary (100% ) Proficient (85% ) Needs Improvement (55% ) Not Evident (0% ) Value Overview: Ethical Behavior Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd dra ws connecti ons between s oci eta l trends a nd cha nges i n l a w enforcement ethi cs Des cri bes the i mpa ct of s oci ety on ethi ca l beha vi or i n l a w enforcement a nd s upports cl a i m wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es Des cri bes the i mpa ct of s oci ety on ethi ca l beha vi or i n l a w enforcement, but does not s upport cl a i ms wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es Does not des cri be the i mpa ct of s oci ety on ethi ca l beha vi or i n l a w enforcement 5.7 Overview: Ethical Expectations Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd i s s upported wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es Determi nes why i t i s i mporta nt for s oci ety to ha ve a s a y i n ethi ca l expecta ti ons wi thi n l a w enforcement, a nd es ta bl i s hes why l a w enforcement a genci es s houl d l i s ten Determi nes why i t i s i mporta nt for s oci ety to ha ve a s a y i n ethi ca l expecta ti ons wi thi n l a w enforcement, but does not es ta bl i s h why l a w enforcement a genci es s houl d l i s ten Does not determi ne why i t i s i mporta nt for s oci ety to ha ve a s a y i n ethi ca l expecta ti ons wi thi n l a w enforcement 5.7 Overview:Development of L aw Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd ci tes s chol a rly res ea rch i n defens e of cl a i ms Expl a i ns the rel a ti ons hi p between s oci ety a nd the devel opment of l a w, a nd defends res pons e wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es Expl a i ns the rel a ti ons hi p between s oci ety a nd the devel opment of l a w, but does not defend res pons e wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es Does not expl a i n the rel a ti ons hip between s oci ety a nd the devel opment of l a w 5.7 Overview: Society’s Role Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd i s s upported wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es As s es s es the i mporta nce of s oci ety’s rol e i n the devel opment of l a w, a nd i ncl udes why i t i s i mporta nt for l a wma kers to l i s ten As s es s es the i mporta nce of s oci ety’s rol e i n the devel opment of l a w, but does not i ncl ude why i t i s i mporta nt for l a wma ke rs to l i s ten Does not a s s es s the i mporta nce of s oci ety’s rol e i n the devel opment of l a w 5.7 Overview: Morality and Ethics Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd s upports cl a i ms wi th s peci fic exa mpl es Ana l yzes the rel a ti ons hi p between mora l i ty a nd ethi cs wi thi n Ameri ca n l a w enforcement Ana l yzes the rel a ti ons hi p between mora l i ty a nd ethi cs , but a na l ys is i s not s peci fi c to Ameri ca n l a w enforcement Does not a na l yze the rel a ti ons hip between mora l i ty a nd ethi cs 5.7 Overview: Changing Views Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd s upports res pons e wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es Expl a i ns the i mpa ct of s oci ety’s cha ngi ng vi ews on ethi ca l gui del i nes wi thi n Ameri ca n l a w enforcement a nd defends res pons e Expl a i ns the i mpa ct of s oci ety’s cha ngi ng vi ews on ethi ca l gui del i nes wi thi n Ameri ca n l a w enforcement, but does not defend res pons e Does not expl a i n the i mpa ct of s oci ety’s cha ngi ng vi ews on ethi ca l gui del i nes wi thi n Ameri ca n l a w enforcement 5.7 Scenario: Ethical Dilemma Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd i s wel l qua l i fi ed wi th concrete exa mpl es I denti fi es the ethi ca l di l emma ra i s ed by the fa cts , a nd expl a i ns wha t the ethi ca l di l emma i s I denti fi es the ethi ca l di l emma ra i s ed by the fa cts , but does not expl a i n wha t the ethi ca l di l emma is Does not i denti fy the ethi ca l di l emma ra i s ed by the fa cts 5.7 6 Scenario: Ethical Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd demons tra tes a nua nced unders ta ndi ng of ethi ca l i mpl i ca tions Determi nes wha t ma kes the di l emma ethi ca l a nd wha t ethi cs i t cha l l enges Determi nes wha t ma kes the di l emma ethi ca l , but does not a ddres s wha t ethi cs i t cha l l enges Does not determi ne wha t ma kes the di l emma ethi ca l 5.7 Scenario: Factors Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd des cri bes s peci fi c i ns ta nces where fa ctors ca n i nform the cours e of a cti on Des cri bes fa ctors tha t l ed to the di l emma , a nd how fa ctors ca n i nform a cours e of a cti on Des cri bes fa ctors tha t l ed to the di l emma , but does not a ddres s how fa ctors ca n i nform a cours e of a cti on Does not des cri be fa ctors tha t l ed to the di l emma 5.7 Scenario:
Implications Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd s upports res pons e wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es I denti fi es i mpl i cati ons tha t s houl d be cons i dered when determi ni ng a cours e of a cti on, a nd defends res pons e I denti fi es i mpl i cati ons tha t s houl d be cons i dered when determi ni ng a cours e of a cti on, but does not defend res pons e Does not i denti fy i mpl i ca tions that s houl d be cons i dered when determi ni ng a cours e of a cti on 5.7 Ethical Theories and Personal Values:
Ethical Theory Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd s upports cl a i ms wi th s chol arly s ources I denti fi es ethi ca l theory to a ddres s di l emma , a nd des cri bes why i t woul d be effecti ve I denti fi es ethi ca l theory to a ddres s di l emma , but does not des cri be why i t woul d be effecti ve Does not i denti fy ethi ca l theory to a ddres s di l emma 5.7 Ethical Theories and Personal Values:
Personal Morals Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd provi des s peci fi c exa mpl es Determi nes how to s epa ra te pers ona l mora l s from ethi cs , a nd es ta bl i s hes i mport a nce of s epa ra ti on Determi nes how to s epa ra te pers ona l mora l s from ethi cs , but does not es ta bl i s h i mporta nce of s epa ra ti on Does not determi ne how to s epa ra te pers ona l mora l s from ethi cs 5.7 Ethical Theories and Personal Values: Actions Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd provi des s peci fi c rel eva nt s cena ri os to s upport cl a i ms Determi nes when i t i s a ppropri ate to l et mora l s gui de a cti ons , a nd defends cl a i ms Determi nes when i t i s a ppropri ate to l et mora l s gui de a cti ons , but does not defend cl a i ms Doe s not determi ne when i t i s a ppropri a te to l et mora l s gui de a cti ons 5.7 Duties: Course of Action Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd cl a i ms a re wel l qua l i fied Des cri bes cours e of a cti on a nd why rea cti on woul d be a ppropri a te a nd effecti ve Des cri bes cours e of a cti on but does not des cri be why rea cti on woul d be a ppropri a te a nd effecti ve Does not des cri be cours e of a cti on 5.7 Duties: Responsibility Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd s upports res pons e wi th s peci fi c exa mpl es from s cena ri o Determi nes res pons i bi lity a s a profes s i ona l i n the s cena ri o, a nd defends res pons e Determi nes res pons i bi lity a s a profes s i ona l i n the s cena ri o, but does not defend res pons e Does not determi ne the res pons i bi lity of a profes s i ona l i n the s cena ri o 5.7 Duties: Precedence Meets “Profi ci ent” cri teri a a nd s ol uti ons a re rel eva nt a nd pl a us i ble Es ta bl i s hes i f ethi ca l res pons ibility ta kes precedence over pers ona l vi ews , a nd how to a ddres s them i f they a re confl i cti ng Es ta bl i s hes i f ethi ca l res pons ibility ta kes precedence over pers ona l vi ews , but does not es ta bl i s h how to a ddres s them i f they a re confl i cti ng Does not es ta bl i s h i f ethi ca l res pons i bi lity ta kes precedence over pers ona l vi ews 5.7 7 Duties: Changing Views Meets “Profi c i ent” cri teri a a nd s upports cl a i ms wi th a rea l -worl d exa mpl e I denti fi es the i mpa ct of s oci ety’s cha ngi ng vi ews of a ccepta bl e beha vi or, a nd a ddres s es how i t a ppl i es to a cri mi na l j usti ce pra cti ti oner’s duti es I denti fi es the i mpa ct of s oci ety’s cha ngi ng vi ew s of a ccepta bl e beha vi or, but does not a ddres s how i t a ppl i es to a cri mi na l j usti ce pra cti ti oner’s duti es Does not i denti fy the i mpa ct of s oci ety’s cha ngi ng vi ews of a ccepta bl e beha vi or 5.7 Articulation of Response Submi s s i on i s free of errors rel a ted to ci ta ti ons , gra mma r, s pel l i ng, s ynta x, a nd orga ni za ti on a nd i s pres e nted i n a profes s i ona l a nd ea s y -to-rea d forma t Submi s s i on ha s no ma j or errors rel a ted to ci ta ti ons , gra mma r, s pel l i ng, s ynta x, or orga ni za ti on Submi s s i on ha s ma j or errors rel a ted to ci ta ti o ns , gra mma r, s pel l i ng, s ynta x, or orga ni za ti on tha t nega ti vel y i mpa ct rea da bi l ity a nd a rti cul a ti on of ma i n i dea s Submi s s i on ha s criti cal errors rel a ted to ci ta ti ons , gra mma r, s pel l i ng, s ynta x, or orga ni za ti on tha t prevent unders ta ndi ng of i dea s 3.1 Earned Total 100%
