A Career as a Police Officer

A Career as a Police Officer.

Ethics refers to the virtue of being honest at the least. Part of the positive ethics dictates that one embrace the character that is beneficent, non-maleficent, fair, just, truthful and has respect for the life of others. There are career and social ramifications to consider when determining tenets. What may seem unethical in one occupation may be regarded as simply correct in another. It is advocated that each uphold the virtue of respect for others, hold paramount concern for areas of competence for oneself and others as well as use professionalism in all activities so as to avoid conflict of interests. With this, one can easily adapt to the core definition of ethics that is the principle of behavior governing an individual or group to do what is good and right. One of the areas that ethics are highly regarded is human psychology and especially on issues dealing with killing. Different occupations have varying moral codes regarding human life. In most cases, occupations will try to safeguard human life as much as possible. Life is imperative for public service providers of the police forces and health care providers. All work towards saving our lives from attacks and diseases respectively. The main concern however is, should the police be allowed to kill. Most of the killing reported in the US has been associated with close range homicides by a police officer who claims that the opponent had drawn fire or was unresponsive. This has claimed the lives of many young people who were not given a chance to defend themselves.

Even when they hold the arm and authority, is killing ethically spot-on and when is it justifiable.
Ethics and integrity in the law enforcement sector are fundamental for efficient policing and trust within communities. Sound conducts by the security personnel not only improve the community interactions but also improves communication and enhances shared responsibility for mitigating crime and order. Their primary duty is to strengthen the community relationships and repair broken bonds between people and among the society members. Theirs is a duty to maintain order so that every other citizen’s life is safe and there is tranquility in the community. During training, three major concepts are taught. These are procedural justice, racial reconciliation and bias reduction. However, there are many cases when police are involved in indiscriminate killings and their integrity and ethical standards put to question. One case occurred in North Charleston where a law enforcement officer, Slager T. Michael, gunned down a reportedly unarmed black man and shot him in the back as he fled. This being a clear killing out of the odds raised concern over the officer’s ethical conduct. It is reported that it takes something so egregious for one to get justice when a police kill. Then, why should they be allowed to kill?
In their training, police are coached on how to adopt legitimate policing. This means that they always assess the indirect and direct benefits before engaging anyone into firing. They are required to be procedurally just. This means using all alternative means including dialogue to calm a rather precarious situation. According to the Crime Prevention Research review, citizens are reported to be more compliant and cooperative when the laws enforcers are legitimate. (Tyler and Fagan, 2008). Legitimacy simply means using proper procedures and being genuinely legal. People’s perception of authenticity encourages law-abiding behavior during citizen-police encounters and other everyday endeavors. Further, it engenders compliance and foster citizen satisfaction with police. This facilitates the capacity of the officers to control crimes and maintain order. Another important aspect of ethics in police department if integrity. Integrity means the ability to uphold good character and decency. Decency is vital when enforcing laws as it enhances the quality of being a whole and undivided. Unification in the way police combat crime plays a major role in building citizens confidence. According to Lincoln and Hlmes (2011), ethical decision making takes a four-component model. It is evident that law enforcers must be psychologically upright for them to be able to make settled moral judgments in times of need. The distinct psychological process calls for moral sensitivity, intentions, action, and justification.
The decision to kill is partly a moral intention that the officer has to make. In a case where the officer is pursuing an unidentified and unarmed flee, then the intention to kill could be regarded a choice the officer has deliberated and acted on as trained. Where not engaging could make them lose their chase, shooting will have adverse effects on the victim, society, and their relations. However, this could be determined by an individual’s moral action and audacity. Decision made under this category is highly questionable. For every choice, the law enforcer makes there are consequences. In the case of a police shooting, the action can be justifiable or entirely wrong.
Criminal homicide has been an unusual aggressive behavior among police officers. What is not realized is that not all homicides are necessarily criminal. There are two types of homicides: the justifiable homicide and the excusable homicide. A justifiable homicide occurs when the officer is instructed or authorized by law to assassinate. This includes killing in combat with the criminals or when battling with an enemy. Further, some of the killings are effected through a statutory sentence of death, when avoiding killings in the process of arresting a felon or preventing an escape. At the same time, the police forces are allowed to kill when they are forced into an imminent peril or great bodily harm. These falls under what is regarded as duty ethics. According to their occupation, police must be prepared to counter all forms of dangers. Some of these put their life at risk. In a situation where a suicide bomber confronts the officer, then it is to the benefit of the entire society that they assassinate the villain before they detonate. In such a case, the decision the officer makes must conform to the law enforcement policies and not fundamentally ethics. It is required that the officer killed for good intentions and upheld the dignity of the entire forces. The citizens would feel safer knowing that the officers are doing their primary duty that is to create peace in the society. By executing the bomber, the police is being fair to themselves and the entire community. Considering the consequences such as bombing other innocent people, causing harm and eventual hatred between communities, it would be worthy to stop the culprit for the purpose of instigating peace and unity (Lippert‐Rasmussen, 2007). At the same time, they would be mitigating the introduction of other malice that is entirely unethical in the community. It is integrity for one to respect others’ personal space. However, it is highly unethical when immoral people envisage the same space. It is the duty of the law enforcement officer to administer law and command without the society. In a situation where one fails to respect the law, then they have violated the right ethics. These dictate that people’s privacy, private property, and liberty is respected and guarded at all cost. In most cases, police are engaged in justifiable homicides to help promote a culture of respect among citizens. With respect, all other virtues of good ethics can be upheld. Unlike the justifiable homicides, excusable homicides are unintentional killings committed without the intention to do harm (Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2016). More than not, this is the reason used by the law enforcers to explain killings. After engaging in an affray and in a bid to save themselves, then the police may be forced to shoot. This is considered as self-defense. Although this may not produce good consequences under the utilitarianism theory, it is optimally correct given that, in either case, one of the parties could lose their life.
Although the police are exempted in some executions, there is no killing that is justifiable. Ethically taking life can never bring virtuous attitude. Whether the police kill in self-defense or war, good ethics dictate that we conserve life. There are better methods of solving a crisis without taking a life. The virtue ethics asserts that attitude and fairness are important when solving an egregious situation. The philosophy of justifiable police homicide is only a method used to respond to criminal misconduct on the part of the decedent. Oddly, the decedent assumes dual roles; one as the offender and the other as the victim. On the part of the law enforcement officer, there is little doubt about their actions according to law. There can be no justice when the police killed and faked self-defense. In the case where an offender is shot from behind, then there is enough proof that they were not given a second chance to express themselves. The utilitarian theories call for actions that would produce good consequences. The outcome of police homicide is suffering to the bereaved, fear among the citizens and lack of justice in the judicial systems. It is required that the officer is conscientious when apprehending a criminal. Part of the conscience if diligently considering alternatives to shooting such as calling them to surrender and later putting them in jail. The shooting, in this case, could be regarded as an ethical egoism and a violation of the divine command (Johnson, 2012). They thus could adopt the virtue of absolutism rather than applying situational ethics.
The taking of human life is quite a contentious topic. It is however highly dependent on the occupation and situation which led to the killings. In the case of law enforcement officer, killing is inevitable in certain situations. These are cases where the officer has to either forego their lives or that of the entire society. At the same time, whenever the law demands execution is conducted, it is for the benefit of the country or society. They do this in conformance with the duty ethics. However, it killing should only take place when the situation is beyond reproach. I believe in respecting others, being fair, truthful and upholding justice in all my day-to-day activities. This helps me to solve arguments and challenges amicably and with minimal conflicts. Similarly, whenever alternative mitigation methods can be used, it is worthy to uphold the virtue of justice, fairness, and dignity to safeguard both the life of the defendant and the offended.

References
Lincoln, S. & Holmes, E. (2011). Ethical Decision Making: A Process Influenced by Moral Intensity. Journal Of Healthcare, Science And The Humanities, Volume I, (No. 1), 55-61.
Lippert‐Rasmussen, K. (2007). Why Killing Some People Is More Seriously Wrong than Killing Others. Ethics, 117(4), 716-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/519064
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2016). Crime Prevention Research Review. Legitimacy In Policing, No. 10.
Johnson, R. (2012). Police Officer Job Satisfaction: A Multidimensional Analysis. Police Quarterly, 15(2), 157-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098611112442809
(Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2016)
(Lippert‐Rasmussen, 2007)
(Lincoln & Holmes, 2011) (Johnson, 2012)