b'Ethics in Law Enforcement\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement\nSteve McCartney and Rick Parent\nBCCAMPUS\nVICTORIA, B.C.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement by Steve McCartney and Rick Parent is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0\nInternational License, except where otherwise noted.\n\xc2\xa9 2015 Steve McCartney and Rick Parent\nThe CC licence permits you to retain, reuse, copy, redistribute, and revise this book\xe2\x80\x94in whole or in part\xe2\x80\x94for free providing the author is\nattributed as follows:\n\nEthics in Law Enforcement by Steve McCartney and Rick Parent is used under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.\n\nIf you redistribute all or part of this book, it is recommended the following statement be added to the copyright page so readers can access\nthe original book at no cost:\n\nDownload for free from the B.C. Open Textbook Collection.\n\nThis textbook can be referenced. In APA citation style, it should appear as follows:\n\nMcCartney, S. & Parent, R. (2015). Ethics in Law Enforcement. Victoria, B.C.: BCcampus. Retrieved\nfrom http://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/.\n\nCover image attribution:\n\nScales of Justice-Frankfurt Version by Michael Coghlan is used under CC BY SA 2.0 Licence.\n\nEbook ISBN: 978-1-989623-63-3\nPrint ISBN: 978-1-989623-62-6\nVisit BCcampus Open Education to learn about open education in British Columbia.\nThis book was produced with Pressbooks (https://pressbooks.com) and rendered with Prince.\n\n\x0c\x0cContents\n\nAccessibility Statement\n\nviii\n\nAbout BCcampus Open Education\n\nxi\n\nIntroduction\n\n1\n\nChapter 1: Ethical Behaviour\n1.1 The Importance of Ethical Behaviour\n1.2 Ethics and the Pursuit of a Law Enforcement Career\n1.3 As Employees in Law Enforcement Agencies\nReferences\n\n3\n5\n7\n9\n\nChapter 2: Ethical Systems\n2.1 Major Ethical Systems\n2.2 Utilitarian Ethics\n2.3 Deontology\n2.4 Virtue Ethics\n2.5 Ethics of Care\n2.6 Egoism\n2.7 Religion or Divine Command Theory\n2.8 Natural Law\n2.9 Social Contract Theory\n2.10 Rawls\xe2\x80\x99 Theory of Justice\n2.11 Moral Relativism\nReferences\n\n11\n13\n17\n20\n23\n24\n26\n29\n30\n33\n34\n36\n\nChapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of Effective Resolution\n3.1 Ethical Dilemmas\n3.2 Values\n3.3 Solving Ethical Dilemmas\nReferences\n\n39\n40\n49\n52\n\n\x0cChapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n4.1 Ethical Issues\n4.2 The Ethics of Power and Authority\n4.3 The Milgram Experiment\n4.4 Person, Gender, and Cultural Differences in Conformity\n4.5 Ethical Issues during an Investigation\n4.6 Gratuities\n4.7 Use of Force Philosophy Theory and Law\nReferences\n\n54\n55\n57\n61\n67\n70\n72\n93\n\nChapter 5: Accountability and Investigation\n5.1 Autonomy and Accountability\n5.2 British Columbia\xe2\x80\x99s Police Act\n5.3 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act\n5.4 Investigation Models\n5.5 Independent Investigations Office\nReferences\n\n96\n97\n98\n100\n101\n102\n\nChapter 6: Policing\n6.1 Noble Cause Corruption\n6.2 Policing Public Demonstrations and Crowd Control\n6.3 Sex Offender Notification Laws\n6.4 Ethics of Private Policing\nReferences\n\n104\n105\n108\n112\n117\n\nChapter 7: Discretion, Supervision, and Leadership\n7.1 The Ethics Surrounding Discretion\n7.2 Discretion and Supervision\n7.3 Selective Enforcement\n7.4 Loyalty\n7.5 Ethical Leadership\n7.6 Transactional and Transformational Leadership\nReferences\n\n123\n127\n129\n130\n132\n134\n137\n\n\x0cChapter 8: The Culture of Law Enforcement\n8.1 Police Subculture\n8.2 Socialization of Police\n8.3 Skepticism and Cynicism\n8.4 Moral Culpability versus Legal Culpability\nReferences\n\n141\n144\n147\n149\n150\n\nAppendix. The British Columbia Police Code of Ethics\n\n152\n\nAbout the Authors\n\n156\n\nVersioning History\n\n157\n\nList of Links by Chapters for Print Users\n\n159\n\n\x0cAccessibility Statement\n\nviii\n\n\x0cBCcampus Open Education believes that education must be available to everyone; this means\nsupporting the creation of free, open, and accessible educational resources. We are actively committed\nto increasing the accessibility and usability of the textbooks we produce.\n\nAccessibility features of the web version of this resource\nThe web version of Ethics in Law Enforcement includes the following features:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 It as been optimized for people who use screen-reader technology:\n\xe2\x97\xa6 all content can be navigated using a keyboard\n\xe2\x97\xa6 links, headings, tables use proper markup\n\xe2\x97\xa6 all images have text descriptions\n\xe2\x80\xa2 It includes an option to increase font size. (See tab on top right of screen titled, \xe2\x80\x9cIncrease\nFont Size.\xe2\x80\x9d)\n\nOther file formats available\nIn addition to the web version, this book is available in a number of file formats including PDF, EPUB\n(for eReaders), MOBI (for Kindles), and various editable files. Here is a link to where you can download\nthis book in another file format. Look for the Download this book drop-down menu to select the file type\nyou want.\nIf you are using a print copy of this book, you can find the web addresses of all websites reference in\nthis book in the back matter.\n\nKnown accessibility issues and areas for improvement\nThere are no known accessibility issues at this time.\n\nLet us know if you are having problems accessing this book\nIf any of the above accessibility issues are stopping you from accessing the information in this\ntextbook, please contact us to let us know and we will get it fixed. If you discover any other issues,\nplease let us know of those as well.\nPlease include the following information:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The location of the problem by providing a web address or page description\n\xe2\x80\xa2 A description of the problem\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The computer, software, browser, and any assistive technology you are using that can help us\nix\n\n\x0cx Steve McCartney and Rick Parent\n\ndiagnose and solve your issue\ne.g., Windows 10, Google Chrome (Version 65.0.3325.181), NVDA screen reader\nYou can contact us through the following form: Report an Open Textbook Error\n\nHelp us improve the accessibility of our resources\nAre you interested in helping us make more of our textbooks accessible? If you have Pressbooks\nexperience, a basic knowledge of web accessibility guidelines, and some time your are willing to\nvolunteer, we would love some help as we have a number of textbooks that need remediation\nwork. Contact us.\nThis statement was last updated on July 11, 2019.\n\n\x0cAbout BCcampus Open Education\n\nEthics in Law Enforcement was published by BCcampus.\nBCcampus Open Education began in 2012 as the B.C. Open Textbook Project with the goal of making\npost-secondary education in British Columbia more accessible by reducing student costs through the\nuse of openly licensed textbooks and other OER. BCcampus supports the post-secondary institutions\nof British Columbia as they adapt and evolve their teaching and learning practices to enable powerful\nlearning opportunities for the students of B.C. BCcampus Open Education is funded by the British\nColumbia Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training, and the Hewlett Foundation.\nOpen textbooks are open educational resources (OER) created and shared in ways so that more people\nhave access to them. This is a different model than traditionally copyrighted materials. OER are defined\nas teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released\n1\nunder an intellectual property license that permits their free use and re-purposing by others. Our open\ntextbooks are openly licensed using a Creative Commons licence, and are offered in various e-book\nformats free of charge, or as printed books that are available at cost. For more information about\nopen education in British Columbia, please visit the BCcampus Open Education website. If you are an\ninstructor who is using this book for a course, please fill out our Adoption of an Open Textbook form.\n\n1.\n\n2\n\n2. [1]\n\nxi\n\n\x0cIntroduction\n\nThe police are essential to democracy. By ensuring that no person is above the law, the police protect citizens\nfrom victimization. Through the enforcement of the law, police ensure that no individual or group violently\nasserts its will over public order.\n1\n\nLearning Objectives\n\n1. Debate the major arguments concerning the importance of ethics in law enforcement.\n2. Distinguish the issues relating to morals, ethics, values, ethical codes, ethical standards, and\nethical dilemmas.\n3. Contrast individual and organizational values and responsibilities.\n4. Analyze an ethical dilemma.\n5. Contrast issues that include decision making, discretion, and the structure of accountability.\n6. Differentiate between organizational and individual misconduct and issues related to\nconsequences and liability.\n7. Using critical thinking, evaluate the moral issues related to a course of action including the\nresolution of an ethical dilemma.\n\nIn this book, you will examine the moral and ethical issues that exist within law enforcement. This\nbook will also familiarize you with the basic history, principles, and theories of ethics. These concepts\nwill then be applied to the major components of the criminal justice system: policing, the courts,\nand corrections. Discussion will focus on personal values, individual responsibility, decision making,\ndiscretion, and the structure of accountability. Specific topics covered will include core values, codes\nof conduct, ethical dilemmas, organizational consequences, liability, and the importance of critical\nthinking. By the end of this book, you will be able to distinguish and critically debate contemporary\nethical issues in law enforcement.\n\n1. Caldero, M. and Crank, J. (2004) Police Ethics: The Corruption of Noble Cause, Second edition. Mathew Bender and Company.\n\n1\n\n\x0cChapter 1: Ethical Behaviour\n\n2\n\n\x0c1.1 The Importance of Ethical Behaviour\n\nFor citizens, even for those of us with no aspirations in a career in law enforcement, morality and\nintegrity are important characteristics to demonstrate. We instinctively know that it is good to be moral\nand act with integrity, but by coming to an understanding of the reasons for morality and integrity, we\nwill be motivated to champion such behaviour. Among the reasons to be moral and integral, regardless\nof occupation are to:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Make society better. When we help make society better, we are rewarded with also\nmaking better own lives and the lives of our families and friends. Without moral conduct,\nsociety would be a miserable place.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Treat everyone equally. Equality is a cornerstone of most Western democracies, where all\nindividuals are afforded the same rights. This is not possible without the majority of citizens\nbehaving in a moral manner.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Secure meaningful employment. Often employers will look at a person\xe2\x80\x99 past behaviour as\na predictor of future behaviour. Someone who has a history of immoral behaviour will have\ndifficulty securing employment in a meaningful job, as that person may not be trusted.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Succeed at business. If you are employed in an occupation in which there you must rely on\nothers, your moral conduct will determine the degree of goodwill that you receive from\nothers. Businesses that have a checkered moral history are typically viewed with caution and\nare unlikely to attract new customers through word of mouth, and therefore are unlikely to\nprosper. This is especially the case where social media makes customer reviews readily\naccessible.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lessen stress. When we make immoral decisions, we tend to feel uncomfortable and\nconcerned about our decision making. Making the right moral decision, or taking a principled\nperspective on an issue, reduces stress.\nUltimately, ethics is important not so that \xe2\x80\x9cwe can understand\xe2\x80\x9d philosophically, but rather so we can\n\xe2\x80\x9cimprove how we live\xe2\x80\x9d (Lafollette, 2007). By being moral, we enrich our lives and the lives of those\naround us. It\xe2\x80\x99s especially important to live a moral life when we are young, as it is helpful to exercise and\npractise these concepts before being confronted with more complex issues. Lafollette (2007) theorizes\nthat ethics is like most everything else that we strive to be good at; it requires practice and effort.\nPractising and making an effort to make moral decisions throughout life will pay dividends when we are\nfaced with serious moral dilemmas. Furthermore, having insight into \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6historical, political, economic,\nsociological and psychological insights\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d (Lafollette, 2007, p.7) allows us, as decision makers, to make\nmore informed decisions, which will likely result in moral decisions. In sum, the practice of being moral,\nallows us to work on these skills, so when we are faced with real situations that impact others, we are\nready\nLafollette (2007) also emphasizes the need to understand and develop our virtues. Knowing that we\nought to behave in a certain way, yet missing an opportunity to exercise moral behaviour, is an indication\nof the need to \xe2\x80\x9csharpen moral vision.\xe2\x80\x9d For example we know that we ought to stay in good physical\n3\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 4\n\nshape but often do not. This illustrates the need to be mindful of a virtue (in this case perseverance)\nthat is important and must be developed. If, as people aspiring to become law enforcement officers, we\ndevelop the virtue of perseverance by staying in shape, we are more likely to hone that skill when we are\nworking in law enforcement. We will be able to draw on that virtue when needed for even more serious\nsituations, not only in law enforcement, but in other challenges that we may face in life.\nEthics is also important for those citizens who do not aspire to work in law enforcement. Successful\nbusiness leaders often say that treating people morally is a very important aspect in obtaining success.\nA person\xe2\x80\x99s reputation is of key importance for a business leader, and if a person\xe2\x80\x99s reputation is damaged\nby poor ethical conduct, the business will also suffer. The same is true in all walks of life. Where ethics\nare taken seriously, and people strive to make ethical decisions and actions, personal and professional\nsuccess follows.\nCritics may argue that this attitude is self-serving and that some individuals act ethically only for their\nown self-interest to be successful or happy. Critics would add that this is not the right reason to be ethical,\nand therefore is not being truly ethical. A counter argument may be that the action itself can be regarded\nas ethical, regardless of the reason for taking the action. This perspective focuses more on the end result\nrather than the means to the end.\n\nHow do you know as an individual if you pass the ethics test?\n\nAs an individual, you can ask yourself what society would be like if everyone conducted their moral selves\nlike you do. Would society be better or worse? By asking yourself this question, your are really testing the\nuniversality of your behaviour. Immanuel Kant, a famous scholar of ethics, suggests we should only act in\nways that we would want everyone else in the same situation to act. We should also consider any way that we\ncan improve our moral life to make society better.\n\n\x0c1.2 Ethics and the Pursuit of a Law Enforcement Career\n\nWithout a doubt, the most important attributes of an individual applying for a job in law enforcement are\nthe applicant\xe2\x80\x99s integrity and moral behaviour. In order to be a law enforcement officer, individuals must\ndemonstrate a life lived morally.\nOf course, in some instances, an applicant may have on occasion been involved in isolated immoral\nactivities. This is often understandable; however, law enforcement employers will not hire an applicant if\nthey detect a demonstrated pattern of immoral behaviour. Recruiters and the agencies they work for may\ndiffer in the specific number of illegal or immoral acts they will allow an applicant to have committed\nbefore hiring that person, they all agree that it is very few. Some law enforcement agencies, in hiring\nclimates where they have numerous applicants to consider, have the ability to be very selective and may\nchoose only those applicants who have not demonstrated any moral lapses.\nThe moral history of an applicant is closely scrutinized by law enforcement agencies through\nbackground checks, polygraphs, detailed interviews, and integrity questionnaires. Each of these methods\nare used to root out applicants who may have exhibited poor moral choices in their past. Right or wrong,\nlaw enforcement agencies view past performance as a predictor of future moral performance.\nPredicting an applicant\xe2\x80\x99s future moral conduct is largely based on the common acceptance of the\nslippery slope theory of ethics. According to this theory, applicants who exhibit minor moral\ninfractions are viewed as likely to progress to more serious immoral behaviour. Punch (2009) describes\nthe slippery slope as being small deviant acts that become increasingly easy and lead to participation in\nlarger, more serious acts. Punch (2009) refers to the slippery slope as a \xe2\x80\x9cladder\xe2\x80\x9d in which corruption is\nthe end result, after a series of immoral steps.\nPunch (2009) also describes the journey of some police officers as they travel from being moral\ncivilians to immoral police officers. This often occurs because indoctrination into the police culture can\nnegatively affect police recruits\xe2\x80\x99 ethical behaviour and have disastrous consequences (Souryal, 2011).\nPunch (2009), in describing this journey into the police subculture, states that the result is the slippery\nslope during which immoral decisions start as minor breaches of organizational or occupational rules\nand evolve into major corruption. Accordingly, Punch infers that even those applicants who have taken\npart in minor immoral activities would likely progress to serious immoral behaviours.\nPunch (2009) refers to qualitative research, illustrating how the slippery slope theory may have played a\nrole in the corruption case of Bob Leuci of the New York Police Department (NYPD). In this instance,\nLeuci joined the NYPD and was determined to remain straight, but slipped into corruption in a desire to\nfit into the police culture. Eventually, he became involved in serious corruption, resulting in his being\nfired, charged, and criminally convicted.\nContrary to proponents of this perspective, Prenzler (2009) argues that the notion of slippery slope has\nbeen incorporated into the police subculture not because the theory is valid but rather as a way to keep\nyoung officers from committing even minor ethical or moral infractions. Lafolette (2007) also rejects the\ntheory, arguing that proponents of the slippery slope argument are imposing a general structure in which\n5\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 6\n\nthe cause of immoral activity can be traced back to even morally permissible activity. He breaks down\nthe argument into a formula, asserting the following:\nAction x is prima facie (or believed to be) morally permissible\nIf we do action x, then through small analogous steps circumstance y will probably follow\nCircumstance y is immoral\nTherefore x is immoral\n\nLafollette (2007) asserts that the above argument leads to unrealistic and unlikely conclusions because it\nassumes that all slopes move are downward toward immoral behaviour, and never considers that a slope\ncould be upward, toward more moral behaviour. We should be prepared to consider that individuals who\nact immorally may regret their actions and decide to act more morally, or at the very least, cease their\nimmoral practices. Essentially, Lafollette (2007) argues that we can learn from minor bad behaviours,\nregret the immoral behaviour through guilt or empathy, and strive to improve or reform. Thus, he\nargues, a person who commits fraud for the first time and later regrets the act will change his or her\nbehaviour and not commit fraud in the future. What the person learns is that the feelings of guilt are not\nworth the gains made from fraud.\nCaless (2008) enlarges Lafollette\xe2\x80\x99s critique with his observation that absolutists, viewing minor moral\nbreaches in black or white terms, further promote the slippery slope theory. Caless (2008) questions the\nassumption that everyone is susceptible to corruption, and, as a result, minor immoral breaches must\ninevitably lead to major ones. He argues that if the slippery slope argument is to be accepted, then all\nofficers who have ever received even a free cup of coffee will eventually perform major immoral actions.\nThe slippery slope theory also proposes that corrupt individuals who have entered law enforcement are\nmore likely to engage in future criminal activity whether they have that first free cup of coffee or not.\nColeman (2004) responds to this argument by suggesting that if only a few officers slide into immoral\nbehaviour as a result of receiving a gratuity, then all officers should be denied such opportunities. Police\ncorruption is so serious that it should be prevented at all levels, even if this means banning all gratuities.\n\nIf you are pursuing a career in law enforcement, how do you know if you pass the ethics test?\n\nAsk yourself what a law enforcement agency would think of your poorest moral decisions, and how these\ndecisions would appear if you made them while your were employed by that agency. When did you make\nthese moral mistakes? Were you young and therefore they could be considered childish mistakes? Problems\narise when we make moral mistakes as adults, especially if we are young adults who have declared an interest\nin pursuing a law enforcement career.\n\n\x0c1.3 As Employees in Law Enforcement Agencies\n\nDemocratic countries walk a fine line between the anarchy and civil violence of collapsed states and the\nsuppressive citizen controls exerted by highly authoritarian regimes. It is through the commitment of\nthe police to the citizenry, their capacity to control crime, and their ability to act according to the rules\nthey enforce\xe2\x80\x94that they are also not above the law\xe2\x80\x94that democracy survives (Caldero and Crank , 2004,\np.17)\nInevitably this question arises: \xe2\x80\x9cwhy is it so important to be a moral law enforcement employee?\xe2\x80\x9d There\nare several reasons why people employed in law enforcement are required to be moral and to have sound\nmoral values. Ironically, morals can at times be a hard sell to law enforcement officers, who, when\ndealing with exigent situations in which they are concerned not only for their safety but for the safety\nof all citizens, consider that the manner or means of how safety is achieved is not as important as the\nend result of achieving that safety. In other words, for officers who are dealing with their own personal\npersonal safety as well as the safety of others, may consider the notion of philosophizing about the right\nthing to do as not being overly important.\nHowever, law enforcement careers come with a number of duties and responsibilities for which moral\nbehaviour is mandatory. The primary ones include discretion, power, and public service.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Discretion. Discretion in law enforcement is necessary in order to efficiently manage call\nloads and to mediate minor incidents. Law enforcement personnel have enormous\ndiscretionary power throughout every rank, regardless of seniority, and are given great\nfreedom to make operational decisions from the moment they start on the job. Discretion in\nlaw enforcement includes whom to arrest, whom to investigate, whom talk to, and whom to\ninterview. More importantly, in these decisions officers have the power to deprive people of\ntheir freedom (Pollock, 2014). It is critical that law enforcement officials possess moral\ncharacter so that the enormous decisions they must make are balanced and fair.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Power. Because law enforcement officers exercise much discretion they also wield great\npower. They have the power to arrest, detain, search, seize, and question. The government\ngrants officers these powers so they can enforce laws and maintain the peace. We live in a\ncountry in which due process protects civilians from the abuse of government agents and in\nwhich certain freedoms are expected. Thus, we expect law enforcement officers to use their\ndiscretion with due process in mind (Pollock, 2010).\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Public service. The state employs law enforcement officers to carry out the state\xe2\x80\x99s mandate:\nenforcing the law and keeping the peace. The trust the state places in law enforcement and\nother public officials to carry out this duty in a responsible fashion is called public trust.\nPublic trust ensures that those tasked with these duties will not abuse their power. Public trust\nalso ensures that all public officials will be held to a higher standard than those they serve.\nThe ultimate test of public trust is that law enforcement officials \xe2\x80\x9cwalk the talk\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cpractise\nwhat they preach,\xe2\x80\x9d and that they never engage in behaviour that, if performed by others,\nwould be considered to break the law (Pollock, 2010).\n7\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 8\n\nIt is important that employees of all government agencies possess and display a sense of justice in which\nall individuals are treated fairly. \xe2\x80\x9cJustice,\xe2\x80\x9d as defined by Rawls (1999), means that all citizens are treated\nequally and fairly regardless of, among other things, their class, social position, intelligence, or strength.\nRawls (1999) emphasizes that there is no greater need in government than for its social institutions to act\nwith justice as the primary goal. For the police, this notion takes on even more importance, as the police\nare the most visible representatives of government at the street level, and the high level of discretion\nthey exercise makes this notion of justice all the more critical (Lipsky, 1980). In order to achieve justice,\npolice agencies must use their moral and ethical discretion at all times or they risk losing legitimacy,\ntrust, and confidence.\nWithout ethical conduct, police lose legitimacy, and without legitimacy, the police are ill equipped to\ncarry out their duties (Punch, 2009). One of the main characteristics sought by police recruiters in\nindividuals applying to become police officers is that they possess positive ethics and moral values,\nwhich are reflective of society\xe2\x80\x99s expectations (Ellwanger, 2012).\nIn pursuing moral behaviour within policing, recruitment and training are utilized respectively in an\nattempt to ferret out immoral applicants who are dishonourable and do not exhibit integrity. This is done\nthrough extensive background checks during recruitment and later, and moral principles are reinforced\nthrough scenario training. Police officers are trained and educated as recruits so that they will be able\nto cope with the peculiarities of being a police officer in an ethical fashion (Allen, Mhlanga, and Khan,\n2006; Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy, 2012; Renkema, 2007).\n\nHow do law enforcement officers know if they pass the ethics test?\n\n1. Officers should ask themselves if their agency were aware of their current moral and ethical life\non and off the job, would the agency still hire them? If the answer is no, then officers should\nconsider changes in their behaviour.\n2. Officers, when confronted with a moral and ethical dilemma, should reflect on what their\nrecruiting officer would consider to be the ideal action. Officers, in turn, should consider what\naction they would like to see an applicant to the agency make when faced with the same moral\nand ethical dilemma?\n\n\x0cReferences\n\nAllen, J., Mhlanga, B. and Khan, E. (2006). Education, training and ethical dilemmas: responses of\ncriminal justice practitioners regarding professional and ethical issues. Professional Issues in Criminal\nJustice 1(1).\nBraswell, M., McCarthy, B., and McCarthy B. (2012). Justice, crime and ethics (7th ed). Burlington,\nMassachusetts: Elsevier.\nCaldero, M. and Crank, J. (2004). Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause (2nd ed). Mathew Bender\nand Company.\nCaless, B. (2008). Corruption in the police: The Reality of the \xe2\x80\x98Dark Side\xe2\x80\x99. The Police Journal, 81(1),\n3\xe2\x80\x9324. doi:10.1350/pojo.2008.81.1.389.\nColeman, S. (2004). When police should say \xe2\x80\x98no!\xe2\x80\x99 to gratuities. Criminal Justice Ethics, 23(1), 33\xe2\x80\x9344.\ndoi:10.1080/0731129x.2004.9992159.\nEllwanger, S. (2012). How police officers learn ethics. In M. Braswell (Ed.), M. C. Braswell, B. R.\nMcCarthy, & B. J. McCarthy, Justice, crime, and ethics (7th ed.). Newark, NJ: Anderson Publishing\nCompany OH.\nLafollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, ME: Blackwell Publishing.\nLipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York:\nRussell Sage Foundation.\nPollock, J. M. (2010). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. United States: Wadsworth\nPublishing Company.\nPrenzler, T. (2009). Police corruption: Preventing misconduct and maintaining integrity. Boca Raton,\nFlorida: CRC Press.\nPunch, M. (2009). Police Corruption: Deviance accountability and reform in policing. Portland,\nOregon: Willan Publishing.\nRawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.\nRenkema, C. (2007). Police academy assessment centre. New Westminster, British Columbia: Justice\nInstitute of British Columbia.\nSouryal, S. (2011). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth (5th Edition). Burlington, Maine:\nElsevier.\n\n9\n\n\x0cChapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\n10\n\n\x0c2.1 Major Ethical Systems\n\nWhen learning how to resolve ethical dilemmas, it is important to be able to articulate a justifiable\nrationale for why we believe one decision seems right and another seems wrong. Having a basic\nunderstanding of the major ethical theories will help us toward an ethical resolution learning how to\narticulate and justify the decision.\nAt times, some of the ethical theories may seem overly philosophical for our purposes; we may even\nwonder why we should study theories that were sometimes developed centuries ago when we are\nprimarily dealing with present-day issues. In other instances, some of the ethical theories may seem\noverbearing. The theories we look at here, however, are important to help us understand why the\ndecisions we make, or someone else makes, are ethical or unethical.\nFor example, a decision may be made that appears on the surface to be unethical, but when we are aware\nof the philosophical system used in the decision making, we can then understand the root of the decision\nand, at the very least, see its intended morality. This allows us to view ethical issues from different\nperspectives and assists us in making informed decisions.\nThis book is concerned primarily with normative ethics and understanding only the common normative\nethical theories. By dissecting the normative theories of ethics, we can have a clear understanding on\nthe moral decisions we ought to make, or the reason some people make the decisions they do. Ethical\ntheories will be examined only briefly as the focus of this book is contemporary ethical issues facing\nlaw enforcement. The descriptions of the following ethical theories are very basic and address only the\npoints required for a basic understanding in a law enforcement context. Examples of how a theory may\nrelate to and assist law enforcement are included.\n\nOverview of Ethical Theories\nThere are three categories of ethical theories:\n1. Normative ethics\n2. Meta ethics\n3. Applied ethics\nNormative theories tell us not only what we ought to do, but also why we do things that in some instances\nmay appear counterintuitive to what we think an ethical decision would be. Such theories are often\ncalled ethical systems because they provide a system that allows people to determine ethical actions\nthat individuals should take (Pollock, 2007). Evans and Macmillan (2014, p.27) define normative ethics\nas \xe2\x80\x9ctheories of ethics that are concerned with the norms, standards or criteria that define principles of\nethical behaviour.\xe2\x80\x9d The most common examples of normative ethical theories are utilitarianism, Kantian\nduty-based ethics (deontology), and divine command theory, which are described later in this chapter.\nThese systems are used by individuals to make decisions when confronted with ethical dilemmas.\n11\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 12\n\nMeta-ethics does not address how we ought to behave; rather, meta-ethics is related more to the study\nof ethical theory itself. Here the interest is in evaluating moral and ethical theories and systems. For\nexample, moral relativism is a meta-ethical theory because it interprets discussions around ethics; a\nquestion asked within moral relativism is \xe2\x80\x9cis ethics culturally relative?\xe2\x80\x9d Evans and Macmillan (2014,\np.27) define meta-ethics as \xe2\x80\x9ctheories of ethics concerned with the moral concepts, theories, and the\nmeaning of moral language. Pollock (2007, p.6) further defines meta-ethics as \xe2\x80\x9ca discipline that\ninvestigates the meaning of ethical systems and whether they are relative or are universal, and are selfconstructed or are independent of human creation.\xe2\x80\x9d\nFor the purposes of this book, meta-ethics will relate to the way we look at and understand normative\nethical theories. More concisely, meta-ethics concerns an interpretation and evaluation of the language\nused within normative ethical theories.\nApplied ethics describes how we apply normative theories to specific issues, usually related to work or\nbelonging to an organization; for example, policies and procedures of organizations or ethical codes of\noutlaw bikers versus ethical codes of police officers. Evans and Macmillan (2014, p.27) define applied\nethics as \xe2\x80\x9ctheories of ethics concerned with the application of normative ethics to particular ethical\nissues.\xe2\x80\x9d An example is knowing and practising the code of ethics for BC Corrections as an employee of\nBC Corrections or following the British Columbia Police Code of Ethics as a police officer.\nWith the overview of the three categories of ethical theories we will further analyze each ethical theory\nor system.\nThe normative ethical theories that are briefly covered in this chapter are:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Utilitarianism\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Deontology\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Virtue ethics\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Ethics of care\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Egoism\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Religion or divine command theory\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Natural Law\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Social contract theory\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Rawls\xe2\x80\x99s theory of justice\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Moral relativism\n\n\x0c2.2 Utilitarian Ethics\n\nUtilitarian ethics is a normative ethical system that is primarily concerned with the consequences of\nethical decisions; therefore it can be described as a teleological theory or consequentialist theory,\nwhich are essentially the same thing, both having a notion that the consequence of the act is the most\nimportant determinant of the act being moral or not. Teleological reasoning takes into consideration\nthat the ethical decision is dependent upon the consequences (\xe2\x80\x9cends\xe2\x80\x9d) of the actions. In teleological\nreasoning, a person will do the right thing if the consequences of his or her actions are good.\nAdditionally, if an action by a person was an act that was \xe2\x80\x9cnot good,\xe2\x80\x9d but the consequences turned out to\nbe \xe2\x80\x9cgood,\xe2\x80\x9d under some theories of teleological reasoning, the act may be deemed a good ethical act. This\nis also referred to as \xe2\x80\x9cconsequentialist moral reasoning,\xe2\x80\x9d where we locate morality in the consequences\nof our actions.\nAs a result of the consequentialist nature of utilitarianism, the means to get to the ethical decision (\xe2\x80\x9cend\xe2\x80\x9d)\nare secondary; the end result is that which must be considered before determining the morality of the\ndecision.\nJeremy Bentham (1748-1832) developed the principles of utility by defining it as a measure of\nmaximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. Bentham wrote that everyone prefers pleasure over pain. It\nis with this belief that utilitarian moral principles are founded (Sandel, 2010). In developing the theory of\nutilitarianism, Bentham may have meant pleasure as in \xe2\x80\x9chappiness\xe2\x80\x9d and pain as in \xe2\x80\x9csadness\xe2\x80\x9d; however,\nBentham\xe2\x80\x99s rendering of utilitarianism sounded hedonistic, as if sensuality was the measure Bentham\nassociated with pleasure (Hinman, 2013).\nJohn Stuart Mill reconsidered the principles of utilitarianism and suggested that pleasure should not\nmerely refer to sensual pleasure but also to mental pleasure, such as music, literature, and friendship.\nMill sought to make intellectual pleasures preferable to sensual ones.\nHinman (2013) suggests there are four principle differences between pleasure and happiness:\n1. Happiness is related to the mind, whereas pleasure is related to the body (for example sexual\npleasure, eating, drinking)\n2. Pleasure is of shorter duration than happiness. Happiness is long-term, focusing on the\nsatisfaction of living well, or achieving life goals.\n3. Happiness may encompass pleasure and pain.\n4. There is an evaluative element in happiness versus pleasure.\nThere are two formulations of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act\nutilitarianism concerns the consequences of the first instance, where the utility of that act is all that is\nregarded.\nThe second formulation of utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, concerns the consequences of the majority\nof people following a certain rule that is immoral, which would be negative. With rule utilitarianism, to\n13\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 14\n\ndetermine the ethics of an act, the questions to ask are \xe2\x80\x9cWhat would happen if there was a universal rule\nthat condones this action?\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cWould such a rule promote the consequences that would best serve a\nmoral society?\xe2\x80\x9d Rule utilitarianism operates as a check and balance for utilitarian principles, assuring\nthat decisions that may be utilitarian in principle are qualified with the notion of universality, asking\n\xe2\x80\x9cwhat would the result be if everyone followed a rule that allowed this act?\xe2\x80\x9d\nThe best way to illustrate consequentialist theory is through an implausible story proposed by Michael\nSandel (2010).\nImagine you are the driver of a trolley car train and are speeding along. As you are heading to the work yard,\nyou realize the brakes don\xe2\x80\x99t work. Ahead you see five workers on the track. They are busy jack hammering\nand do not see you approach. You as the driver have the ability to determine where the train goes by switching\nthe tracks to another track. However that track has one worker, who is also oblivious to your approach. By\nphysically switching the tracks, you will save five, but your actions will kill the lone worker.\nThe moral dilemma is such that we are required to determine what the consequences or the end result should\nbe. The questions you need to ask are:\nWhat action would you take?\nAre the end results, or the consequences of your actions, important?\nWhat action would a Rule Utilitarian take?\nWhat action would an Act Utilitarian take?\n\nQ. How can utilitarian theory assist law enforcement in moral dilemmas?\nLaw enforcement officers possess a great deal of discretion that must be exercised by all officers of\nevery rank, regardless of their experience. When exercising this discretion, officers will be confronted\non a daily basis with issues that are complex, and may not be covered in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s policy and most\ncertainly would not have been covered in their formal education or police academy or other training.\nLaw enforcement officers also are required to make exigent decisions, without the ability to consult with\nsenior officers or policy and procedures. In some instances, when confronted with decisions, officers\nmay want to rely on utilitarianism to make an ethical decision that is defensible when scrutinized in the\nfuture. For example, an officer tasked with policing a large pro-marijuana protest group may observe a\nperson within the group selling marijuana. Legally, the officer has the duty to charge that person with\ntrafficking in a controlled substance under the Controlled Drug and Substance Act, a serious indictable\noffence. However, from a utilitarian position, the officer may elect not to arrest and charge the suspect\nfor two reasons:\n1. The act of not arresting would make more pro-marijuana group happier compared to the\nnumber of people would be unhappy with that decision. We can reasonably say that society at\nlarge is becoming more relaxed about marijuana use, and the movement to legalize marijuana\nis strong and getting stronger. Perhaps the officer would recognize this, and make his or her\ndecision accordingly. If the drug being trafficked was crack cocaine, then the officer would\nlikely adjust the decision. (If the drug was a more lethal drug, that could cause death, the\nofficer would be compelled by duty to arrest the suspect in order to prevent harm.)\n2. If the arrest is made for trafficking , the consequence would likely be a serious violent\n\n\x0c15 Chapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\nconfrontation with the large pro-marijuana group. The arrest by the police would not make\nthe majority of these individuals happy. As a result, while arresting the trafficker may be the\nduty of the officer, the officer may come to the conclusion that the consequences of making\nan arrest are likely to be negative. Therefore by using discretion, the officer is utilizing\nutilitarian principles in his or her decision making.\nFrom a rule utilitarianism perspective, the officer should consider what the consequences would be if\nthere were a rule that everyone was allowed to smoke and sell marijuana. If the officer believes that\nsociety would be well served by this rule, then the officer should allow the sale to continue. Should the\nofficer believe the rule would be detrimental to society, the officer should consider this as well, and at\nleast consider making the arrest.\n\nThe Problems with Utilitarianism\nLike all normative theories of ethics, utilitarianism cannot address all of the ethical dilemmas we face.\nSometimes using utilitarian principles may be harmful to a group of people or to an individual. Some of\nthe major problems with utilitarian consequentialist ethics include the following:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Measuring happiness is difficult. Happiness is subjective and as a result is open to\ninterpretation. Is happiness in winning a million dollars more significant than the happiness a\nperson experiences when told by a doctor that he has a clean bill of health? Likewise, does\nthe value of happiness increase with time, or with importance? If someone won a million\ndollars, would this be measured as \xe2\x80\x9cthe most possible happy,\xe2\x80\x9d as the million dollars will\nhopefully last for a long time? Conversely, a person received a clean bill of health after a\nroutine checkup can be regarded as more important news; however this person is likely to\nforget this good news within days. So when we look at the happiness that is caused by these\ntwo events, we need to ask ourselves, \xe2\x80\x9cwhat makes us the most happy?\xe2\x80\x9d\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Utilitarian ethics is concerned about the consequences of our actions, regardless of the\naction itself. However, it can be difficult to know what the consequences of our actions will\nbe because of the variables that we do not control. For example, a police officer may believe\nthat writing tickets at an intersection will create a safe intersection environment for everyone.\nHowever, it is difficult to determine for sure that this will be the outcome. Unintended\nconsequences may instead occur. Suppose, for example, that while the officer is writing a\nticket at the intersection, a fatal accident occurs due to the officer disrupting the traffic. In\nthis instance, the unintended consequences could not have been predicted, especially if the\nofficer acted in a safe manner while writing the ticket. The unintended consequences may be\nviewed as immoral by utilitarian standards because of the end result. People who maintain\nthis logic are referred to as Actual Consequentialists because actual consequences are what\ndetermine if the act was right or wrong. However, some consequentialists would rightly take\ninto consideration the fact that the fatal accident could not have possibly been foreseen, and\ntherefore the act itself was still moral in spite of the unforeseen negative consequences. This\nappears to be a more logical approach to consequentialism as it incorporates a mental element\n(mens rea) in determining if the act was moral.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Desired ethical consequences that actually result from our actions do not always happen\nimmediately. If the desired consequences of our actions do not occur immediately, how long\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 16\n\nmust we wait for those good consequences to develop before we can say the action was\nethical? Likewise, how long are we to wait to deem the consequences as positive or negative?\nFor example, in a correctional institute, a warden who believes that weapons are being made\nin an inmate job program may cancel the program. The warden may decide to cancel the\nprogram due to the inability of staff to ensure that the making of weapons does not occur. The\nwarden\xe2\x80\x99s decision is ultimately based on ethics and a desire to ensure the well-being of\ncorrections staff and inmates. However, the inmates may view this decision as punitive as the\nprohibited weapons are being made by only some inmates. In analyzing the ethics of the\ndecision by the warden, the question would have to be asked, \xe2\x80\x9chow much time would have to\nexpire before we could determine this was an ethical action versus a punitive one?\xe2\x80\x9d\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Happiness should not be the only consequence or goal that matters in some ethical\ndilemmas. Some goals of the ethical decision, such as human rights, may matter more than\nthe consequences of the action. For example, consider a detective who is investigating a\nseries of sexual assaults has located evidence which is not admissible in court but clearly\ndemonstrates that a suspect is guilty of the crimes. The detective realizes that the suspect is\nlikely to recommit the crime, and therefore decides to plant false forensic evidence on the\nsuspect to implicate him. While this action may result in positive consequences (and the\ngreater happiness for the greater number of people), the actions are wrong and cannot be\ncondoned. By removing the notions of justice, fairness, and basic human rights owed the\nsuspect, the actions are immoral and unethical; they are actions that will eventually erode\nconfidence in police. The consequences, from a utilitarian perspective, should not outweigh\nthe notion of justice. In this way, utilitarianism can provide an excuse for those who commit\nwrongs for noble reasons. On the other hand, utilitarians may argue that the actions are\nactually not utilitarian because the long-term effects may have an opposite effect: less\nhappiness for the greater number of people should lawful investigations not be trusted by\nsociety. This is an example of rule utilitarianism, where we can look at the benefits of having\na rule that allows such actions (planning evidence) by law enforcement officers that would\nnot promote the most happiness overall.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 When utilitarian decisions benefit the majority at the expense of the minority, the\nminority\xe2\x80\x99s rights may not be taken into account. Utilitarian principles often run contrary\nto individual\xe2\x80\x99s rights, and at times are the antithesis to concepts of modern justice theories.\nWhen we are tempted to make a decision that will positively impact the majority, we must\nalso consider the negative impact on the minority. In the example above, the detective who\nplants false forensic evidence on a suspect may feel that the maximum happiness to the\nmajority of people makes the action ethical. However, the investigator is not respecting the\nrights of the individual suspect. Much the same way, when crime reduction policies, such as\nsex offender registries, allegedly promote community safety, offenders\xe2\x80\x99 rights are ignored\ndue to the loss of privacy. This is especially so, given that studies indicate such registries are\noften ineffective and do little to protect the community (Petrunik, 2002; Vess, 2008).\n\n\x0c2.3 Deontology\n\nProbably the most complex of all the ethical systems we look at here is Kantian logic, which is a\ndeontological theory. The word deontology comes from the Greek word deon, meaning \xe2\x80\x9cobligation\xe2\x80\x9d or\n\xe2\x80\x9cduty.\xe2\x80\x9d It is an ethical system primarily concerned with one\xe2\x80\x99s duty. It is also known as ethical formalism\nor absolutism.\nDeontology was formulated by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant believed that the end result is not\nof primary importance; rather, the real importance is in determining the moral intent of a decision\nor action itself. Kant would assess the morality of one\xe2\x80\x99s action and disregard the consequences. He\nfurther believed that we have duties that are imperative and that these duties must never be abandoned,\nregardless of the anticipated outcome. These duties, according to Kant, are absolute and must be applied\nto everyone equally.\nThe notion of duty is important to law enforcement officers who are bound by law to perform their\nduty. A duty is something we are required to execute, regardless of whether we want to or not. The duty\nmay have a personal or professional negative consequence attached to it, but as it is a requirement or\nobligation, it is absolute and/or imperative.\nKant distinguished two types of duties: conditional or hypothetical imperatives and categorical\nimperatives.\nA hypothetical imperative is a duty that is necessary to accomplish a specific goal. It is something that\nwe do to achieve an end. Banks (2013) uses the example of the duty of a student to study hard in order\nto get good grades. In law enforcement, we may look at the hypothetical duty of a patrol officer to write\nas many search warrants as possible to be considered for a detective job.\nA categorical imperative is an unconditional rule or duty. Regardless of the impact on you that the\ndecision may cause, the duty remains the same and must be done. In this way, the act is unrelated to the\nend result; it is a duty regardless of the outcome. One example in law enforcement is a domestic assault\npolicy that imposes a duty on a police officer to charge a spouse with an assault if evidence exists. This is\na duty regardless of the outcome or the wishes of the officer. The duty in this case is policy written by the\nBritish Columbia Attorney General\xe2\x80\x99s office. The categorical imperative does not only have to be written\npolicy; a police officer who stops a violator may have a duty to write the ticket if certain conditions of\nthe violator stop warrant it, such as the danger of the activity and the driving history of the driver. There\nis much to say about the categorical imperative for law enforcement; however, for the purposes of this\nbook, we will concentrate on only a portion.\nWithin the categorical imperative, Kant (2006) states that \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6every rational being, exists as an end in\nhimself, not merely as a means.\xe2\x80\x9d Kant is saying that we should never use people to attain our desired\nend result; that we should treat everyone with respect regardless of the outcome. O\xe2\x80\x99Neil (1986) uses an\nexample in which a person deliberately makes a promise to another person without ever intending to\nhonour that promise. In this sense, the person who is being deceived cannot consent because the rule,\nor maxim, of the first person is not known. In a law enforcement context, a police investigator who\n17\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 18\n\npromises a witness that she will not have to testify against someone if she gives a statement would not be\nrespecting that person and would be using her as a means to an end. An officer would know that this is\nnot a promise that should be made as it is ultimately up to Crown counsel to determine who testifies and\nwho does not. Kant would argue that the promise is using the witness as means to an end, and therefore\nnot ethical. A law enforcement officer must decide whether to follow a consequentialist perspective, in\nwhich the consequences of his or her actions are more important, or a Kantian perspective in which the\nwitness ought not to be used as a means to the effective ends.\nCoercion is also a way in which Kant would suggest that respect is not shown. Given the powers that\nlaw enforcement officers yield, coercion is a tactic that, while perhaps producing an effective end to an\ninvestigation, would be wrong in Kant\xe2\x80\x99s view regardless of the outcome because the coercion did not\nallow the other party to consent to the act. Kant\xe2\x80\x99s conclusion is the following maxim: \xe2\x80\x9cAct in such a way\nthat you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply\nas a means, but always at the same time as an end\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d (Kant, 2006, p.50)\nQ. How can deontological theory assist law enforcement in moral dilemmas?\nUniversality. Kant suggests that we should consider the implications of our actions as if they were\nuniversal. If we are considering not paying transit fares by jumping over the turnstiles, we should\nconsider the implications if all transit users did not pay. In a law enforcement context, we should\nconsider the ramifications of our actions. For example, a lead investigator may consider misleading the\nmedia in order to trick a suspect into making a mistake and exposing himself. When the investigator\napplies the universality rule (i.e., the spectre of all investigators lying to the media universally), it allows\nthe investigator to consider the negative ramifications of the action, even if the lie was made with the\nintentions of bringing out a moral consequence. This is comparable to rule utilitarianism, in which the\nuniversal application of actions should be considered.\nThe importance of duty. Law enforcement officers are required at times to fulfill their duty no matter\nwhat the personal costs. When confronted with a duty that they may not want to perform, the officers\nshould consider that they agreed to perform duties when they swore their oath. These duties must be\nperformed by someone, and when this duty falls to them, they must do their duty. For example, a patrol\nofficer who does not want to criminally charge an acquaintance must consider her duty and the oath that\nshe took when she joined the agency. The caveat to duty is that the duty must be done in good faith; that\nis, the duty should not be performed if the officer is aware that there is a lack of morality in the duty. It is\noften said among experienced police officers, \xe2\x80\x9cyou are paid not for what you do, but for what you might\nhave to do.\xe2\x80\x9d This maxim refers to dangerous duty that you may not want to do, but are paid to do, and\nought to do.\nLaw enforcement officers facing a dilemma in which rule utilitarianism and Kantian logic are at odds\nshould further understand that the choice between the two schools of thought will yield different\noutcomes, and that the two schools of thought will help the officer understand the options and how to\nrationalize the decision made. It is not easy to know what option to choose, but officers should take\ninto account the stakeholders involved, including witnesses, suspects, society, the agency and of course\nthemselves.\nRespect. Kant believed that a person should never be treated as a means to an end. The moral decision\nthat a person makes must not in any way take advantage of a person. An example is lying to a person\n\n\x0c19 Chapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\nto gain \xe2\x80\x9csomething\xe2\x80\x9d in return, even if the \xe2\x80\x9csomething\xe2\x80\x9d is good or a conclusion that will assist and help\npeople. An example in a law enforcement context would be an investigator using an informant to obtain\ninformation on another suspect, while offering the informant the chance to remove a charge, when the\ninvestigator knows that this will not happen.\n\n\x0c2.4 Virtue Ethics\n\nVirtue ethics has its historical background in ancient Greece and was primarily developed by Aristotle.\nFor the purposes of law enforcement, the major foundation in virtue ethics is the idea that if you are a\ngood person, you will do good things, and to be good, you must do good (Pollock, 2007). In essence,\nwe do not do good things because of an analysis of the end result or of an equation to decide how\nmany people to help versus harm. Rather, we do the right thing, or good thing, because of our good\ncharacter as demonstrated throughout our life. Therefore, the good act is an automatic response requiring\nlittle thought. However, when faced with complex ethical dilemmas, the person who has demonstrated\na life of good character will show good character, using temperance and intellect. The real question for\nAristotle was not, \xe2\x80\x9cwhat should I do?\xe2\x80\x9d but rather \xe2\x80\x9cwhat type of person ought I be?\xe2\x80\x9d When our answer\nis that we ought to be a virtuous person, we are likely to act in a virtuous manner, and therefore in an\nethical manner.\nAristotle also spoke of flourishing in life, or living in a state of well-being. He used the word eudaimonia\n(from the Greek eu, \xe2\x80\x9cgood,\xe2\x80\x9d and daimon, \xe2\x80\x9cspirit;\xe2\x80\x9d commonly translated as \xe2\x80\x9chappiness\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cwelfare,\xe2\x80\x9d\nbut more accurately as \xe2\x80\x9chuman flourishing\xe2\x80\x9d) to express the state of well-being and living a flourishing\nlife. Within this context, Aristotle concentrated on virtues and vices. Virtues are strengths of a person\xe2\x80\x99s\ncharacter that promote flourishing and well-being (Hinman, 2013). Conversely, vices are character flaws\nthat impede flourishing and limit one\xe2\x80\x99s sense of well-being.\nHinman (2013) writes of different types of virtues that Aristotle proposed:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Executive virtues are examples of \xe2\x80\x9cstrength of will,\xe2\x80\x9d such as courage and perseverance.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Moral virtues are related to moral goodness. Examples are compassion, generosity,\ntruthfulness, and good temper.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Intellectual virtues are related to the ability to consider options. Examples are wittiness,\nwisdom, and understanding.\nWhen we look at some of these virtues collectively, we can see that they project attributes that we want\nlaw enforcement personnel to possess. In a law enforcement context, society has expectations of officers\nwho:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Are courageous. Officers who are willing to put themselves in harm\xe2\x80\x99s way, in order to\nenforce the law, to protect people and property and to prevent crime.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Demonstrate perseverance. Officers who are not easily deterred from doing the right thing\nor investigating crimes.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Exhibit compassion. Officers who are able to empathize and sympathize with lawbreakers\nand victims and who understand that situations are complex and that everyone deserves\nrespect.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Act with generosity. Officers who offer themselves off duty by volunteering and who try to\nbetter the lives of others through community service.\n20\n\n\x0c21 Chapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Show truthfulness. Officers who are trustworthy and who can be counted on to speak the\ntruth, even when the truth is embarrassing, or results in a not-guilty decision in a case that is\nimportant to the officer.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Display good temper. Officers who, when confronted with difficult situations, stay calm\nand who are able to withstand pressure to react physically or verbally.\nThe virtues listed above are attractive to law enforcement agencies, and people who demonstrate these\nvirtues are those who law enforcement agencies and all other branches of public service want. Vichio\nsuggests a list of core virtues that law enforcement personnel should possess (Fitch, 2014). They include:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Prudence. Officers with the ability to decide the correct action to take when rules and policy\nare not present.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Trust. Officers with the ability to be relied upon for truth. This must exist between officers\nand civilians, officers themselves, and officers and the courts.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Effacement of self-interests. Officers who do not abuse their position of authority or gain\nfavouritisms due to their position.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Courage. Officers who place themselves in danger intellectually and physically. Officers\nwho are not afraid of testifying in court and/or making arrests in tense and intimidating\nsettings.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Intellectual honesty. Officers who act while weighing what they learned in training and\nwhose actions reflect their training and their academic abilities.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Justice. Officers who treat everyone fairly, regardless of personal biases, and who act toward\nindividuals as if looking through a veil of neutrality.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Responsibility. Officers who understand what is right and that there are other courses of\nactions, but have the intent to do right. Officers who can be counted upon to keep oaths, and\nto be accountable.\nThe Center for American and International Law identifies what they term the Six Pillars of Character.\nThey created these pillars with the assistance of 30 national leaders and ethicists. The six pillars that they\nidentified as being the most important characteristics of an ethical police officer are:\n1. Trustworthiness. Includes integrity, promise-keeping, and loyalty.\n2. Respect. Treating everyone with respect, regardless of any biases or provocations.\n3. Responsibility. Includes accountability, pursuit of excellence, and self-restraint.\n4. Justice and fairness. Includes equity and demonstrating due process.\n5. Caring. Showing concern for others. Showing consideration for decisions that affect others.\n6. Civic virtue and citizenship. Being socially conscious. Demonstrating concern for one\xe2\x80\x99s\ncommunity.\nQ. How can virtue ethics assist law enforcement in moral dilemmas?\nAs mentioned previously, law enforcement agencies place a great emphasis on good behaviour of their\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 22\n\nofficers. One way to ensure a strong likelihood of good behaviour is to hire those who have moral\ncharacter that reflect the values of the agency. In clearly identifying these characteristics, agencies are\nlikely to attract those who also identify with these characteristics.\n1. Virtue ethics, at its core, is also simplistic, having two tenets that are important for law\nenforcement. There is no need to measure consequences or the morality of the action. Simply,\nthe task is to be good and do good acts. If officers are good, they will act in a virtuous\nmanner.\n2. There is a need to practise virtue. By practising being virtuous, you will become virtuous in\ndifficult situations automatically. Given this view, it is critical for law enforcement agencies\nto ensure that applicants wanting to join the agency have practised being virtuous to the point\nwhere it has become a habit. Applicants who have practised the virtues listed above will be\nofficers who demonstrate those virtues by habit.\n\n\x0c2.5 Ethics of Care\n\nAlso known as feminist ethics, ethics of care is primarily concerned with caring for others. This has\nevolved from the need to care for those who cannot care for themselves, such as infants. It is a system\nthat assists us in our relations with other people and thereby strengthens how we positively interact with\npeople. The concept of ethics of care is consistent with many peace-keeping and peace-making roles\nwithin law enforcement (Braswell and Gold from Pollock, 2007). Officers routinely find themselves\nrefereeing non-assault domestic and civil arguments while attempting to bring a peaceful resolution to\nthe conflict. Ethics of care is, at times, an important perspective for law enforcement officers when they\nsee a person in need and decide to perform an act of care or kindness. Officers who perform a caring act\nare, according to ethics of care, acting out of compassion rather from a sense of duty; it is within this\ncontext that ethics of care can be a reminder to law enforcement officers that often an ethical solution\nmay be to make peace through consensus and understanding, rather than resolve issues formally through\ncharges.\nEthics of care also supports the notion that issues should be resolved with compassion while building\nhuman relationships. In this way, a person should strive to build relationships with the community or\nindividuals. With individuals, the building of rapport is critical to providing compassion to those in crisis\nand/or need.\nQ. How can ethics of care theory assist law enforcement in moral dilemmas?\nBuilding rapport with members of the community is an important aspect of community policing. This\nenables officers to identify issues and to deal with them with compassion. For example, an officer who\nbuilds rapport with students in a high school may become aware of a bullying situation. It is with\ncompassion that the officer will be pushed to action to resolve this issue. Or an officer who is called\nto a grocery store to arrest a mentally ill street person who is stealing food may, instead of arresting\nthe suspect, find an alternative route, such as connecting the suspect with a social service agency, or\narranging for a social worker to help the person finda home.\nLaw enforcement officers should attempt, where possible, to address such issues with compassion and\nrespect for all the parties involved.\n\n23\n\n\x0c2.6 Egoism\n\nUnlike other theories that prescribe how we ought to behave, egoism is a descriptive principle (Pollock,\n2007) that does not tell us necessarily how we ought to behave, but rather why we behave the way we\ndo. It infers that the person who acts in an egotistical manner does so because it is natural to act in this\nway, and therefore it is a moral action unto itself.\nAccording to the tenets of egoism, the core reason that someone does any action is self-serving by\nbringing happiness or some other benefit to him- or herself. If someone performs an action that appears\nto be altruistic, the action was likely performed to give the actor gratification in some way. This may\ncome in many forms; for example in the form of positive media attention, or just feeling good about\noneself.\nThe following example may illustrate how a heroic act by law enforcement officers may be viewed\ndifferently through the lens of egoism. On June 10, 2014, Vancouver police detectives witnessed a\nshooting on the seawall in Yaletown. A gunfight ensued in which the suspect was able to escape via\nbicycle. Armed and reloaded, the suspect pedalled away and was followed by one of the detectives. The\nsuspect fired at the pursuing detective, narrowly missing her. The detective pursued the suspect while\nbeing shot at until other police officers arrived who shot the suspect in an exchange of gunfire.\nMost people would look at this case and believe that the detective was selflessly trying to apprehend a\ndangerous suspect before anyone else was shot. While this may be true, proponents of egoism would\nsuggest that the detective acted in her own self-interest because capturing the suspect would satisfy\nher happiness, that she wanted media attention, or that she thought her actions would look good to her\ncolleagues, thereby making her happy. This is a cynical view of her actions, but may help us understand\nwhy some people act in a way that puts them in danger.\nAnother way to demonstrate egoism is to place yourself in a situation in which you see someone who\nrequires help. Suppose you decide that not assisting would cause you to feel guilty, thereby troubling\nyou. As a response, you assist the person. From an outsider\xe2\x80\x99s perspective, you were acting selflessly and\nin the interest of the person who was requiring assistance. The end result of your actions, though, was\ntwofold:\n1. Your actions assisted the person in need.\n2. Your actions made you feel good, allowing you to rid yourself of that troubling feeling\nresulting from guilt.\nQ. How can egoism assist law enforcement in moral dilemmas?\nEgoism does not suggest that police officers should act in their own self-interest; certainly this would\nnot be appropriate for law enforcement personnel. Where egoism may help is to better understand why\npeople do things that may appear selfish. This may help us develop empathy for the suspects that appear\nto be selfish and allow us to better understand that their actions are driven by egoism. Egoism may\n24\n\n\x0c25 Chapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\nalso assist us in understanding the motives of others, allowing us to look at these motives with more\nskeptically than we would otherwise.\nEgoism can also provide explanations of misconduct among law enforcement officers. Officers who\nabuse the trust placed on them by society and abuse their authority could be said to be acting in an\negoistic state (Souryal, 2011). In this sense, law enforcement officers are acting in their own self-interest\nand not in the interest of their agency, the individual citizen who was the target of and officer, and\nsociety in general. Ultimately, the end result of bad behaviour by law enforcement personnel, according\nto Souryal (2011, p.275), is \xe2\x80\x9carguably feeding one\xe2\x80\x99s ego.\xe2\x80\x9d\nIn a broader sense, ethical egoists may also view everything we do as an extension of a desire to live at\npeace in a society that respects all; every positive action we take is actually selfish activity, so that we\ncan make a better society to live in. In this way, egoists can be positive in their actions making what are\napparent good and ethical decisions. However proponents of the egoist theory would suggest that the\ndecisions are at their root self-serving, and therefore egoist in nature.\n\nCriticisms of Egoism\nEgoism is an attempt at explaining how we naturally behave with our own interests as a central focus,\nand that we ought to behave in this way. However, it is an overly cynical perspective on how humans\nbehave. There are plenty of examples of selfless acts that are committed every day and go without notice.\nWhile it is true that many donations are made and good deeds done with the expectation that positive\npublicity will be generated for the giver, this does not necessarily mean that the giver\xe2\x80\x99s sole purpose is\nto gain publicity. It is possible that publicity is a by-product of giving. Furthermore, while it is in the\ninterests of people to make decisions that will better society, there is no evidence that everyone makes\nthese decisions based on self-interest (Rachels, 2006). If these decisions were universalized, then the\nworld would be a markedly poorer place to live in.\n\n\x0c2.7 Religion or Divine Command Theory\n\nReligion is often considered the most widely used system to make ethical decisions and to conduct moral\nreasoning (Pollock, 2007). Throughout the world, people rely on a variety of religions to help them\ndetermine the most ethical action to take. While divine command theory is widely used throughout the\nworld, there are differences: the application of the theory may differ from religion to religion, and it may\ndiffer within each religion.\nOne of the basic tenets for divine command theory is to use God as the source for all principles. In\nthis way, to rely upon divine command theory, a person must believe that there is a willful and rational\ngod that has provided the direction toward an ethical outcome. It is from God\xe2\x80\x99s commands that actions\nare determined to be right or wrong and, because of this, divine command theory provides an objective\nassessment of what is ethical or moral. However, there is ambiguity in the way in which some scripture\nis interpreted.\nAccording to Pollock (2007), there are four assumptions of divine command theory:\n1. There is a god.\n2. God commands and forbids certain acts.\n3. An action is right if God commands it.\n4. People ascertain what God commands or forbids.\nDivine command theory also provides an explanation of why ethics and morality are so important.\nIn religions, good acts are rewarded in the afterlife, while bad acts condemn the perpetrator to an\neverlasting punishment. What essentially makes religion such an incredibly powerful ethical system is\nthat there is the spectre of a potentially eternal punishment in the afterlife (Pollock, 2007). This notion\nof eventual punishment reinforces in its followers the necessity to make ethical decisions based on the\ncommands of their god.\nBarry (1985, as cited in Pollock, 2007) describes that understanding God\xe2\x80\x99s will is done in three ways:\n1. Through individual conscience\n2. By religious authorities\n3. Through holy scripture\nQ. How can divine command theory assist law enforcement in moral dilemmas?\nIt is important for law enforcement officers who do not practise religion to be cognizant of the\nimportance of religion with believers. As religions provide the most commonly used ethical systems\nin the world, law enforcement personnel, regardless of their own beliefs, must be aware that not only\nwill some officers refer to scripture, so too will members of the public. It is at times difficult for nonbelieving officers to understand the power of religion and the importance of its meaning to believers.\n26\n\n\x0c27 Chapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\nNon-believers must be cognizant of situations in which, to them, decisions based on divine command\ntheory may seem odd or unethical, but are ethical to the believer. This does not mean that the law does\nnot apply, but that care must be taken to act with empathy when dealing with these situations.\nGenerally, for officers who believe in God, a source of comfort may be present when facing death or\nother traumatic events that non-believers may not experience. Officers dealing with death may find\ncomfort in the belief that those who die may be in a better place, that their soul is eternal, and that death\nmay mean that the soul goes to heaven. Believing that death is not the end, but a new beginning, may\nhelp officers who practise religion deal with pain and suffering.\nOfficers are routinely involved in circumstances in which situations appear to be unfair and where\ninnocent bystanders are victimized with tragic outcomes. Officers who believe in God are also able to\nlook at these situations and find comfort in the belief that God has a plan for everyone, even those who\nhave been unfairly victimized. These officers can draw strength from their belief that the apparently\nrandom victimization wasn\xe2\x80\x99t so random, and that God was acting in a way that, while hard to explain, is\nplanned for some reason only known to God.\nSpecifically, divine command theory can offer officers a written or prescribed direction to morality.\nOfficers who are faced with a situation in which their values clash with society may fall back on divine\ncommand theory for direction in grey areas. An officer who is surrounded with unethical activity by\nofficers, other criminal justice workers, and people on the street may be able to withstand pressure to\njoin in the immoral practice with the belief that God commands moral behaviour toward everyone and\nprohibits such things as theft through corruption.\nOfficers could also use divine command theory to reaffirm in their own minds what is right, even when\nthe Criminal Code or other legislation is unclear on a particular issue. By officers asking themselves\nwhat would God command or prohibit, they may be able to make a decision that they can justify.\nFinally, officers who believe that God is always good would therefore believe that all of God\xe2\x80\x99s\ncommands and prohibitions are good. By interpreting scripture, following the directions of religious\nauthority, or making individual interpretations of God\xe2\x80\x99s command and prohibitions, officers are\ntherefore able to do good, understanding that ultimately it is God\xe2\x80\x99s commands that they follow, and\ntherefore their actions are good.\n\nCriticisms of Divine Command Theory\nWhile religion may be the most common ethical system employed, it has many issues that can be\nproblematic if used as a moral guideline for law enforcement officers. For law enforcement officers in\na pluralistic society, who are entrenched in religious doctrine and make ethical decisions based on that\nreligious doctrine, their ethical decisions will not be acceptable with numerous segments of the society\nthat they are sworn to treat equally. While decisions based on religious doctrine may be satisfactory for\na law enforcement officer in his or her personal life, they can create difficulties in the workplace. An\nexample is a law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce a court order to clear a group of Christians\nprotesting abortion. The Christian officer may take offecse to such an order, in spite of the court\xe2\x80\x99s ruling\nand society\xe2\x80\x99s general acceptance of abortion.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 28\n\nSpecifically, in a criminal justice context, Rawls (2005) viewed religion in public life as something that\nwas out of place and that should, instead, be a private affair. Our religious and personal morals should\nbe put aside when doing the business of the public. It is important, according to Rawls, that workers in\ngovernment institutions not demonstrate their religious affiliations because we all receive benefits from\nliving in a pluralistic society and that, as a result, we ought to withhold our religious and personal morals\nto ensure equality.\nOther criticisms of divine command theory include:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Religious scriptures are generally ancient and are hard to interpret against the complexities of\ntoday\xe2\x80\x99s society. As a result, religion as an ethical system does not provide specific ethical\nguidance to specific ethical dilemmas. Scriptures are ambiguous and are generally broad in\nnature.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 There are many religions in the world, with each possessing different prescriptions for\nmorality. Religions have different gods from one another that are worshipped. Does the god a\nperson chooses make a difference? Can you pray to the \xe2\x80\x9cwrong\xe2\x80\x9d god, or no god?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Science has no evidence of the existence of God. Without a belief in the existence of God,\ndivine command theory loses its authority among a large portion of the population who base\ntheir lives on science and empiricism.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If we do believe in God, \xe2\x80\x9cwho\xe2\x80\x9d determines what the commands are is not absolutely known\nor agreed upon. Within religious sects, arguments about who interprets commands is\ncommonly a schism that separates factions.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Those who believe in God can interpret the commands in their own way, thereby creating\ndifferent interpretations to the solutions sought for ethical dilemmas; consequently, there can\nbe confusion about what exactly is God\xe2\x80\x99s will.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Contradictions in scripture are confusing. On one side there is mention of the sanctity for life,\nbut there are interpretations that are cited by fundamentalists that provide allowances to cause\ndeath to other humans. The most commonly used example of this is in the Quran, in which\none passage reads that infidels are to be caught and slayed, but another preaches that Allah\nloves transgressors. Interestingly, the first verse, it is argued by Muslims, is taken out of\ncontext, and refers to Muslims providing self-defence. Interpretations as to what constitutes\nself-defence further complicates when this verse should be enacted. Should an infidel, in the\neyes of a fundamentalist, be slayed for what the fundamentalist deems as an insult, and\ntherefore an attack?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The notion that the might or power of God should be the basis of our ethical decisions\nindicates that the morality of the decision is based upon the fear of God\xe2\x80\x99s might and power. If\nthis is so, then is the decision really an ethical decision, or is it coerced?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If God is omnipotent, and is also the basis of morality:\n\xe2\x97\xa6 How can we rationalize the suffering of innocent children in developing countries?\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Is this God\xe2\x80\x99s plan to allow this to happen? If it is, how can we call this moral?\n\n\x0c2.8 Natural Law\n\nNatural law was espoused by Saint Thomas Aquinas, who viewed the world as being created by God\nand understood that humans are rational beings capable of using their intellect to comprehend the world.\nBy extension, God enabled humans to reason in a natural way to make ethical choices. Aquinas viewed\nthe first principle of natural law as: \xe2\x80\x9cgood is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided\xe2\x80\x9d (White,\n2006, p.29). Simply put, natural law asserts that what is good is natural, and what is natural is good.\nUnlike Thomas Hobbes\xe2\x80\x99 cynical view in the social contract theory 0see next section), Aquinas viewed\nhumans as being naturally inclined to do good rather than evil.\nBecause of the natural inclination toward doing good, Aquinas viewed morality as a universal set of\nrights and wrongs that are shared across cultures. He delineated two basic human inclinations:\n1. To preserve one\xe2\x80\x99s own life\n2. To preserve the human species\nFollowers of natural law would suggest that the decision is moral if it furthers human life or preserves\none\xe2\x80\x99s own life. Should the decision go against human life or preserving your own life, the decision is\nimmoral.\nQ. How can natural law assist law enforcement in moral dilemmas?\nNatural law can reaffirm in officers the importance of their job, that being to preserve their own life and\nthe human species. Officers could be reminded that property is not as important as life and that their sole\nfunction should be public safety, rather than the protection of property, which is one of the common law\nduties of police officers.\nOfficers could also use natural law as a reminder of the importance to preserve their own lives when\nconfronted with dangerous situations, and that is natural to want to protect oneself.\n\nCriticisms of Natural Law\nA problem inherent in natural law is defining what is natural. A proponent of natural law may deduce\nthat homosexuality is unnatural because it does not preserve the human species. However, biologists\nhave documented many different species that engage in homosexual behaviour. Many people consider\nhomosexual behaviour as unnatural; however, it is seen among a variety of animal species, therefore the\ncase for this being a natural activity is strong (Fereydooni, 2014).\n\n29\n\n\x0c2.9 Social Contract Theory\n\nSocial contract theory is another descriptive theory about society and the relationship between rules and\nlaws, and why society needs them. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1689) proposed that a society without rules\nand laws to govern our actions would be a dreadful place to live. Hobbes described a society without\nrules as living in a \xe2\x80\x9cstate of nature.\xe2\x80\x9d In such a state, people would act on their own accord, without any\nresponsibility to their community. Life in a state of nature would be Darwinian, where the strongest\nsurvive and the weak perish. A society, in Hobbes\xe2\x80\x99 state of nature, would be without the comforts and\nnecessities that we take for granted in modern western society. The society would have:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 No place for commerce\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Little or no culture\n\xe2\x80\xa2 No knowledge\n\xe2\x80\xa2 No leisure\n\xe2\x80\xa2 No security and continual fear\n\xe2\x80\xa2 No arts\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Little language\nSocial contract theory is a cynical, but possibly realistic, view of humanity without rules and people to\nenforce the rules. An example of a society in a state of nature can at times be observed when a society\nis plunged into chaos due a catastrophic event. This may occur in because of a war, such as happened\nin Rwanda, or by cause of a natural disaster, such as what happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of\nHurricane Katrina. In both of these examples a segment of society devolved from a country in which the\nrule of law was practised to a community in a state of nature. Rules and laws were forgotten and brute\nforce dictated who would survive. Unfortunately, without laws and rules, and people to enforce those\nlaws and rules, society devolves into a state of nature.\nIn general, even without the calamities of natural disasters and war, Hobbes assumed people would strive\nfor more wealth and power in what could be described as a \xe2\x80\x9cdog eat dog\xe2\x80\x9d society, where, he believed,\npeople will do whatever is required to survive in a state of nature, where rules and laws are non-existent.\nThis would mean that people will act in \xe2\x80\x9cwicked\xe2\x80\x9d ways to survive, including attacking others before\nthey are attacked themselves. With rules in place, people feel protected against attack.\nIn a state-of-nature society, the strongest would control others that are weak. Society would have no rules\nor laws forbidding or discouraging unethical or immoral behaviour. People would be forced to be solely\nself-interested in order to survive and prone to fight over possession of scarce goods (scarce because of\nthe lack of commerce).\nFor Hobbes, the solution is a social contract in which society comes to a collective understanding \xe2\x80\x94\na social contract \xe2\x80\x94 that it is in everyone\xe2\x80\x99s interest to enforce rules that ensure safety and security for\neveryone, even the weakest. Thus, the social contract can deliver society from a state of nature to a\n30\n\n\x0c31 Chapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\nflourishing society in which even the weak can survive. The degree to which society protects the weak\nmay vari; however, in our society, we agree to the contract and need the contract to ensure security for\nall.\nThe social contract is unwritten, and is inherited at birth. It dictates that we will not break laws or certain\nmoral codes and, in exchange, we reap the benefits of our society, namely security, survival, education\nand other necessities needed to live.\nAccording to Pollock (2007), there are five main reasons that laws are required in society:\n1. The harm principle: to prevent the serious physical assault against others that would be\nvictimized.\n2. The offence principle: to prevent behaviour that would offend those who might otherwise be\nvictimized.\n3. Legal paternalism: to prevent harm against everyone in general with regulations.\n4. Legal moralism: to preventing immoral activities such as prostitution and gambling.\n5. Benefit to others: to prevent actions that are detrimental to a segment of the population.\nProblems with the social contract theory include the following:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 It gives government too much power to make laws under the guise of protecting the public.\nSpecifically, governments may use the cloak of the social contract to invoke the fear of a\nstate of nature to warrant laws that are intrusive.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 From the time that we are born, we do not knowingly agree to a contract and therefore do not\nconsent to the contract. An outflow of this thought is a movement entitled the \xe2\x80\x9cSovereign\nCitizens\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cFreemen of the Land.\xe2\x80\x9d The FBI identifies these movements as individual\ncitizens who reject government control and \xe2\x80\x9cthe government operates outside of its\njurisdiction. Because of this belief, they do not recognize federal, state, or local laws,\npolicies, or regulations.\xe2\x80\x9d (US Department of Justice, 2010). The FBI considers these\nmovements as domestic terrorist threats (FBI, 2011).\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If we do accept the contract and wish to abide by it, we may not fully understand what our\npart of the contract is or ought to be.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Contracts can be unfair for some. For example, the poor do not get the same benefits of the\ncontract.\nQ. How can social contract theory assist law enforcement in moral dilemmas?\nWhile social contract theory does not tell people how they ought to behave, it does provide a basis\nto understand why society has implemented rules, regulations, and laws. If not for the social contract\ntheory, our understanding of the need for these rules would be limited.\nSpecifically for law enforcement, social contract theory is important to justify the power that law\nenforcement can exert over the population as a whole (Evans and MacMillan, 2014). The power\nimbalance, held by law enforcement, is part of the contract that society has agreed upon in exchange for\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 32\n\nsecurity. Where the contract can be problematic is when the power used by law enforcement exceeds\nwhat is expected by society under the contract.\n\n\x0c2.10 Rawls\xe2\x80\x99 Theory of Justice\n\nJohn Rawls (1921-2002) was a contemporary philosopher who studied theories surrounding justice.\nHis theories are not focused on helping individuals cope with ethical dilemmas; rather they address\ngeneral concepts that consider how the criminal justice system ought to behave and function in a liberal\ndemocracy. It is for this reason that it important that all law enforcement personnel be aware of Rawls\xe2\x80\x99\ntheories of justice or at least have a general understanding of the major concepts that he puts forth.\nRawls\xe2\x80\x99 theory is oriented toward liberalism and forms the basis for what law enforcement, and the\ncriminal justice system, should strive for in a pluralistic and liberal society. Borrowing from some\nconcepts of social contract theory, Rawls envisions a society in which the principles of justice are\nfounded in a social contract. However, Rawls identifies problems with the social contract that do not\nallow fairness and equality to exist among members of society and therefore proposes a social contract\nwhich is negotiated behind a \xe2\x80\x9cveil of ignorance.\xe2\x80\x9d Here the negotiating participants have no idea what\ntheir race, gender, education, health, sexual orientation, and other characteristics are so that the social\ncontract is fair. Ultimately, Rawls argues that the primary concern of justice is fairness, and within this\nparadigm Rawls identifies two principles:\n1. \xe2\x80\x9cEach person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a\nsimilar liberty for others\xe2\x80\x9d (Rawls, 2006, p.63). Rawls goes further by allowing each person to\nengage in activities, as long as he or she does not infringe on the rights of others.\n2. \xe2\x80\x9cSocial and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably\nexpected to be to everyone\xe2\x80\x99s advantage (b) attached to positions and offices open to all\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d\n(Rawls, 2006, p.63). Likewise, everyone should share in the wealth of society and everyone\nshould receive benefits from the distribution of wealth. Rawls does not argue that everyone\nshould be paid the same, but rather that everyone should have benefit from a fair income and\nhave access to those jobs that pay more.\nThese principles should be adhered to, according to Rawls, to ensure that disadvantages are neutralized\nand everyone receives the same benefits of justice.\nRawls further addresses ethics in the individual, though this is not the central tenet of his theory, and is\nsomewhat of a general statement of how moral people should behave (Banks, 2013).\n\n33\n\n\x0c2.11 Moral Relativism\n\nThe principles of morality can be viewed as either relativist or absolutist (Souryal, 2011). Moral\nrelativism refers to the differences in morality from culture to culture. A moral relativist\xe2\x80\x99s perspective\nwould state that what is moral in one culture may not be moral in another culture, depending upon\nthe culture. This is important for police officers to understand in a pluralistic society in which many\ncultures and religions make up the community where the police officer works. It is important for officers\nto appreciate that what may be immoral in a traditional Canadian sense may not be moral to members\nof a culture traditionally found outside of Canada. In realizing this, officers may be able to withhold\njudgment, or at the very least empathize with the members from that community for what in the officer\xe2\x80\x99s\nperspective may be an immoral act.\nMorality in policing is, in most cases, relativistic since police officers are prone to accept moral\nstandards that allow them to achieve goals within the police subculture, often at times contrary to\nthe morals within mainstream society (Catlin and Maupin, 2002). It is moral relativism that enables\npolice officers to accept lying to suspects in interviews in order to gain confessions, or to witnesses\nto gain compliance. In this instance, an officer may believe that lying is not morally permissible in\ncertain circumstances, but is permissible in other situations. Another example in which a moral relativist\nperspective may assist an officer is in understanding circumstances surrounding physical punishment of\nchildren who misbehave. A culture may maintain that physical puinishment is morally permissible, even\nthough in Canada the same punishment may be in violation of the Criminal Code. It is helpful for officers\nto understand this while investigating these offences, so that they can build rapport and empathize with\nsuspects, and use moral relativity as a theme in interviews to alleviate the guilt the suspect may feel.\nContrary to relativism, moral absolutism refers to the belief that morality is the same throughout all\ncultures; that what is right in one culture is right in all cultures and what is wrong in one culture is\nwrong in every culture. Here, the immoral act is always wrong, no matter the culture, because there are\nuniversal rules governing morality. Police officers who are absolutists would reject lying, relying instead\non a deontological perspective in which the consequences of the lie do not matter.\nMoral relativism is a meta-ethical theory because it seeks to understand whether morality is the same\nin different cultures. Proponents of moral relativism do not observe universal rules governing moral\nconduct; rather, moral rules are contingent on at least one of:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Personality (McDonald, 2010)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Culture (McDonald, 2010)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Situations (Catlin and Maupin, 2010).\nThe difficulty with applying relativism to the police culture is that it does not take into account the\ndiversity of individuals that make up the police culture (Westmarland, 2008). One of the initiatives\nof community policing is that police agencies now recruit from a wide range of ethnic and cultural\nbackgrounds (Barlow and Barlow, 2009; Kalunta-Crumpton, 2009). This diversity within law\nenforcement is reflected by the wide array of attitudes that police have toward various issues and the\n34\n\n\x0c35 Chapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\nchange that has occurred within policing (Newburn and Reiner, 2007). The ability of cultural norms to\nchange is ever-present, and norms can and do change to reflect the values of other cultures (Groarke,\n2011). Ultimately, cultural relativism reflects the notion that what is right is permissible in the culture\nthe actor is within and that moral principles are not universal (McDonald, 2010). Within the policing\ncontext, the moral underpinnings of members of the police subculture are often in step with the morals\nof mainstream society, but at times they are not.\n\n\x0cReferences\n\nAquinas, Saint Thomas. (2006). The Natural Law. In White, J.E. (ed.) Contemporary Moral Problems\n(pp. 27-30). Belmont CA., Thomas Wadworth.\nBanks, C. (2013). Criminal Justice Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.\nBarlow, D. and Barlow, M. (2009). Community policing in the United States: social control through\nimage management in D. Wisler and I. Onwudiwe (eds) Community Policing: International Patterns\nand Comparative Perspectives, Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 167-188.\nCatlin, D. and Maupin, J. (2002). Ethical orientations of state police recruits and one year experienced\nofficers. Journal of Criminal Justice 30(6) 491-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00171-X\nEvans and MacMillan (2014). Ethical issues in criminal justice and public safety. (4th ed). Edmond\nMontgomery Publications, Toronto.\nFBI (2011). Sovereign citizens: A growing domestic threat to law enforcement, Retrieved from:\nhttps://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat-to-lawenforcement\nFereydooni, A. (2012). Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? Yale Scientific. Retrieved from:\nhttp://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/\nFitch, B., (2014). Law enforcement ethics: classic and contemporary issues. Thousand Oaks, Ca., Sage\nPublishing.\nGroarke, L. (2011). Moral reasoning: Rediscovering the ethical tradition, Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford\nUniversity Press.\nHinman, L. (2013). Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory. Wadsworth Publishing Co.\nKalunta-Crumton, A. (2009). Patterns of community policing in Great Britain\xe2\x80\x99 in D. Wisler and I.\nOnwudiwe (eds) Community Policing: International patterns and comparative perspectives (pp.\n\n149-166.). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.\n\nKant, E. (2006). The Categorical Imperative. In J. White (Ed.) Contemporary Moral Problems (pp.\n14-50). Belmont CA. Thomson Wadsworth.\nPetrunik, M. (2002). Managing Unacceptable Risk: Sex Offenders, Community Response,and Social\nPolicy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative\nCriminology, 46(4), 483-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X02464009\nPollock, J. (2007). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Belmont, California: Wadsworth\nCengage Learning.\n36\n\n\x0c37 Chapter 2: Ethical Systems\n\nMcDonald, G. (2010). Ethical relativism vs absolutism: research implications. European Business\nReview, 22(4), 446-464.\nNewburn T. and Reiner, R. (2007). Policing and the police. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner. The\nOxford handbook of criminology (4th ed., pp. 910-952). Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nO\xe2\x80\x99Neill, O. (1986). Matters of life and death, (T. Regan, Ed.). McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.\nExcerpted in Contemporary moral problems, (J. E. White, Ed.), West Publishing Company.\nRachels, J. (2006). Egoism and moral skepticism. In J. White (Ed.) Contemporary moral problems (pp.\n10-18.). Belmont CA. Thomson Wadsworth.\nRawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.\nRawls, J., (2006). A theory of justice. In White, J.E. (ed.) Contemporary moral problems (pp. 60-66).\nBelmont CA., Thomas Wadworth.\nSandel, M. (2010). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.\nSouryal, S. (2011). Ethics in criminal justice: In search of the truth (5th Ed.), Burlington, Maine:\nElsevier.\nU.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Domestic Terrorism Operations Unit and\nDomestic Terrorism Analysis Unit, (2010) Sovereign citizen danger to law enforcement. Washington,\nDC.\nVess, J. (2008). Sex offender risk assessment: Consideration of human rights in community protection\nlegislation. Legal and Criminological Psychology 13, 245\xe2\x80\x93256.\nWestmarland, L. (2008). Police cultures in T. Newburn (ed) Handbook of policing, (pp. 253-280). Willan\nPublishing.\n\n\x0cChapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of\nEffective Resolution\n\n38\n\n\x0c3.1 Ethical Dilemmas\n\nWhen we are confronted with a problem or an issue for which we are required to make a difficult\ndecision, we face a dilemma. The decision may be difficult because there are at least two competing\nvalues we are forced to choose between. For example, we may want to purchase an expensive product,\nbut we may have to decide between an expensive, higher-quality product and a cheaper, inferior product.\nOur decision will involve balancing the values between saving money and purchasing a product that\nmay perform better and last longer. The decision is often difficult, and sometimes we make the wrong\ndecision with the best of intentions of making the right decision.\nIn order to solve ethical dilemmas, we must be aware of what values we consider important. Pollock\n(2010, p.13) defines values as unverifiable \xe2\x80\x9celements of desirability, worth and importance.\xe2\x80\x9d They are\nunverifiable because they are not capable of being scientifically proven and may vary from person to\nperson. Evans and MacMillan (2014) define values as opinions and beliefs that we decide are beneficial\nor important. Before we address how we can solve ethical dilemmas, we need to understand what values\nare and why they are so important.\n\n39\n\n\x0c3.2 Values\n\nValues are what guide an agency and its employees. Law enforcement agencies will have differing\nvalues depending on their function. An agency that investigates wildlife infractions may possess\ndifferent values from correctional services.\nLet\xe2\x80\x99s take a look at various law enforcement agencies and the values they identify as being important on\ntheir websites.\n\nCanadian Border Services Agency (CBSA)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Integrity\n\xe2\x97\xa6 We exercise our authority in an honest, open and fair manner.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 We accept responsibility for our actions in order to build and maintain a reputation\nof trustworthiness and accountability.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Respect\n\xe2\x97\xa6 We serve the public interest through non-partisan support of our Minister.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 We show the utmost appreciation for the dignity, diversity and worth of all people\nand uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 We develop and sustain mutual trust with our colleagues.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Professionalism\n\xe2\x97\xa6 We employ public resources wisely and properly.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 We provide efficient, competent and excellent service.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 We set high standards of achievement and accountability both individually and\ncollectively.\n\nBC Corrections\n\n1\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Integrity\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Taking responsibility for our actions\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Understanding how our actions can affect others\n1. \xc2\xa9 Province of British Columbia. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission of the Province of British\nColumbia.\n40\n\n\x0c41 Chapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of Effective Resolution\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Courage\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Doing what\xe2\x80\x99s right and staying positive, not popular\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Trying something new, risking failure\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Leading by example\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Teamwork\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Coming together in times of crisis\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Mentoring\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Working with people in other departments for a common purpose\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Passion\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Sharing creative solutions with the leadership team\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Demonstrating pride in what we do\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Attempting to perform at a level we would expect of others\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Service\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Maintaining respectful relationships\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Working effectively with our justice partners\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Doing our job really well\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Curiosity\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Listening to new ideas\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Challenging the way we do business and being willing to try new ideas\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Seeking a better way to achieve our goals\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Accountability\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Being responsible for any action we take, and believing in ourselves\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Taking ownership for our actions\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Providing effective leadership and direction to our teams\n\nVancouver Police Department\nThe Vancouver Police Department has four core values, which they refer to as IPAR:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Integrity\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Professionalism\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Accountability\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Respect\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 42\n\nRoyal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)\n\n2\n\nRecognizing the dedication of all employees, we will create and maintain an environment of individual\nsafety, well-being and development. We are guided by:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Integrity\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Honesty\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Professionalism\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Compassion\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Respect\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Accountability\nWhen applying for a job with any law enforcement agency, it is important that the applicant understands\nthe core values of that agency. The Vancouver Police website succinctly addresses the importance of\nknowing the agency\xe2\x80\x99s stated core values and demonstrating a life lived where these values have been\nincorporated in day-to-day living:\nThese core values can\xe2\x80\x99t be taught in any school, and they are non-negotiable for our applicants. Without these,\nit would be impossible to have a successful career with the VPD.\n\nValues are not solely limited to what the agency believes are core values, but also include one\xe2\x80\x99s\npersonal and outside values. (Caldero and Crank, 2004). For example, applicants to the Vancouver Police\nDepartment should be aware of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s values and demonstrate how they have incorporated these\nvalues into their everyday personal and professional life.\nWe are inclined to have similar values that are shared among other members of the agency. Values\nare important for law enforcement officers and should be shared and agreed upon by all members.\nThese imparted values are concentrated throughout the agency and become part of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s culture.\nWorking with various constituents and members of other agencies also requires officers to consider their\nvalues. The Canadian Border Services Agency articulates the full integration of values from various\nsectors of society in its values statement, which reads:\nValues are a compass that guides us in everything we do; they represent what we believe and care about. Values\ncannot be considered in isolation from each other as they often overlap. We are expected to integrate public\nsector and CBSA values into our decisions, actions, policies, processes, systems, and how we deal with others.\nSimilarly, we can expect to be treated in accordance with these values by our colleagues and management.\n\nLet\xe2\x80\x99s review a situation of differing values in a law enforcement case. As illustrated in the table below, in\nthe case of an active shooter at a theatre, individuals involved in the shooting will have differing values.\n\n2. This reproduction is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and has not been\nproduced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, the Government of Canada. From: Mission, Vision and\nValues\n\n\x0c43 Chapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of Effective Resolution\n\nRole at the Theatre\n\nValues\n\nSingle person\n\nHope, stamina, sobriety\n\nMother with child\n\nCaring, concern, fortitude\n\nOfficer responding\n\nSelf-discipline, fortitude, courage\n\nFollow-up detectives Accountability, empathy, consideration\n\nEach person will have his or her own interests and goals, which reflect the values that are important\nto them at the time. The mother with her child is primarily concerned with the safety of her child, and\nmust show caring to her child and the fortitude to protect her child in the face of danger. Conversely,\nthe follow-up detectives sent to investigate the shooting have goals that include conducting a thorough\ninvestigation. They may share some of the values that the mother possesses, but for the investigation,\nthey will likely possess values of accountability to the mother and other victims, as well as have empathy\nfor all the victims\xe2\x80\x99 families. When the situation changes, so too do the values that we possess.\nThe Ethics Resource Center (2009), located in Arlington, Virginia, identifies the following values as\ntypical values that appear throughout codes of ethics. These are important for us to remember when\nfaced with difficult ethical decisions where we are required to be aware of all the values of each of the\n3\nvested stakeholders. Some ethical values include:\n\n3. Copied in whole from the Ethics Resource Center.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 44\n\nAcceptance\n\nFavorable reception or belief in something\n\nAccomplishment\n\nDoing or finishing something successfully\n\nAccountability\n\nObligation or willingness to accept responsibility\n\nAdaptability\n\nThe ability to modify behavior to fit changing situations\n\nAdventurousness\n\nInclination to undertake new and daring enterprises\n\nAllegiance\n\nLoyalty or the obligation of loyalty\n\nAltruism\n\nUnselfish concern for the welfare of others\n\nAmbition\n\nAn eager or strong desire to achieve something\n\nAppreciation\n\nRecognizing the quality, value or significance of people and things\n\nAspiration\n\nA strong or persistent desire for high achievement\n\nAssiduousness\n\nUnceasing; persistent; diligent\n\nAuthenticity\n\nThe quality or condition of being trustworthy or genuine\n\nAutonomy\n\nThe condition or quality of being independent\n\nBenevolence\n\nAn inclination to perform kind, charitable acts\n\nCamaraderie\n\nGoodwill and lighthearted rapport between or among friends\n\nCaring\n\nFeeling and exhibiting concern and empathy for others\n\nChangeability\n\nThe ability to modify or adapt to differing circumstances\n\nCharity\n\nGenerosity toward others or toward humanity\n\nChastity\n\nThe condition of being of virtuous character\n\nCheerfulness\n\nThe quality of being cheerful and dispelling gloom\n\nCitizenship\n\nExercising the duties, rights, and privileges of being a citizen\n\nClear thinking\n\nActing intelligently without mental confusion\n\nCollaboration\n\nTo work cooperatively especially in a joint intellectual effort\n\nCommitment\n\nBeing bound emotionally or intellectually to a course of action or to another person or\npersons\n\nCommunity\n\nSharing, participation, and fellowship with others\n\nCompassion\n\nDeep awareness of the suffering of others coupled with the wish to relieve it\n\nCompetence\n\nThe state or quality of being adequately or well qualified\n\nCompetitive\n\nTo strive to do something better than someone else\n\nComposure\n\nMaintaining a tranquil or calm state of mind\n\n\x0c45 Chapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of Effective Resolution\n\nConcern\n\nRegard for or interest in someone or something\n\nConscientiousness The trait of being painstaking and careful\nConsideration\n\nProcess of employing continuous, careful thought and examination\n\nConsistency\n\nReliability or uniformity of successive results or events\n\nConstancy\n\nSteadfastness in purpose\n\nCooperation\n\nThe willing association and interaction of a group of people to accomplish a goal\n\nCourage\n\nThe state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes\nwith confidence and resolution\n\nCourtesy\n\nCivility; consideration for others\n\nCredibility\n\nThe quality or power to elicit belief\n\nDecency\n\nConformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty\n\nDedication\n\nSelfless devotion of energy or time\n\nDemocracy\n\nThe principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community\n\nDependability\n\nThe trait of being reliable\n\nDetermination\n\nFirmness of will, strength, purpose of character\n\nDiversity\n\nA point of respect in which things differ; variety\n\nEasygoing\n\nRelaxed or informal in attitude or standards\n\nEducation\n\nObtaining or developing knowledge or skill through a learning process\n\nEfficiency\n\nThe quality of producing an effect or result with a reasonable degree of effort to energy\nexpended\n\nEmpathy\n\nIdentification with and understanding of another\xe2\x80\x99s situation, feelings, and motives.\n\nEncouragement\n\nThe act of incitement to action or to practice\n\nEquality\n\nThe right of different groups of people to receive the same treatment\n\nEquity\n\nThe state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair\n\nEthics\n\nThe way people behave based on how their beliefs about what is right and wrong influence\nbehavior\n\nExcellence\n\nState of possessing good qualities in an eminent degree\n\nFairness\n\nConsistent with rules, logic, or ethics\n\nFaith\n\nConfident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing\n\nFaithfulness\n\nAdhering firmly and devotedly to someone or something that elicits or demands one\xe2\x80\x99s\nfidelity\n\nFidelity\n\nFaithfulness; loyalty or devotion\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 46\n\nFlexibility\n\nResponsive to change\n\nForgiveness\n\nThe willingness to stop blaming or being angry with someone\n\nFortitude\n\nThe strength or firmness of mind that enables a person to face danger, pain or\ndespondency with stoic resolve\n\nFriendship\n\nA relationship between people based on mutual esteem and goodwill\n\nGenerosity\n\nLiberality in giving or willingness to give\n\nGentleness\n\nThe quality of being mild and docile\n\nGenuine\n\nNot spurious or counterfeit\n\nGiving\n\nVoluntarily transferring knowledge or property without receiving value in return\n\nGoodness\n\nMorally right, or admirable because of kind, thoughtful, or honest behavior\n\nGoodwill\n\nA friendly attitude in which you wish that good things happen to people\n\nGratitude\n\nA feeling of thankfulness and appreciation\n\nHardworking\n\nIndustrious and tireless\n\nHelpfulness\n\nThe property of providing useful assistance or friendliness evidence by a kindly and\nhelpful disposition\n\nHonesty\n\nFairness and straightforwardness of conduct\n\nHonor\n\nPrincipled uprightness of character; personal integrity\n\nHope\n\nThe feeling that something desired can be had or will happen\n\nHumility\n\nFeeling that you have no special importance that makes you better than others\n\nIndustriousness\n\nThe characteristic of regularly working hard\n\nIngenuity\n\nInventive skill or imagination\n\nInitiative\n\nAbility to begin or to follow through energetically with a plan or task\n\nIntegrity\n\nStrict adherence to moral values and principles\n\nJoy\n\nIntense or exultant happiness\n\nJustice\n\nConformity to moral rightness in action or attitude\n\nKindness\n\nThe quality or state of being beneficent\n\nLaw-abiding\n\nAbiding by the encoded rules of society\n\nLiberty\n\nThe right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one\xe2\x80\x99s own choosing.\n\nLove\n\nA feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person or idea\n\nLoyalty\n\nA feeling or attitude of devotion, attachment and affection.\n\nMercy\n\nForgiveness shown toward someone whom you have the power to punish\n\n\x0c47 Chapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of Effective Resolution\n\nModeration\n\nHaving neither too little or too much of anything\n\nMorals\n\nIndividual beliefs about what is right and wrong\n\nObedience\n\nCompliance with that which is required; subjection to rightful restraint or control\n\nOpportunity\n\nFavorable or advantageous circumstance or combination of circumstances\n\nOptimism\n\nA bright, hopeful view and expectation of the best possible outcome\n\nPatience\n\nThe ability to accept delay, suffering, or annoyance without complaint or anger\n\nPeace\n\nFreedom from war or violence\n\nPerseverance\n\nSteady persistence in adhering to a course of action, a belief, or a purpose\n\nPromise-keeping\n\nKeeping your word that that you will certainly do something\n\nPrudence\n\nDoing something right because it is the right thing to do\n\nPunctuality\n\nAdherence to the exact time of a commitment or event\n\nPurity\n\nMoral goodness\n\nReason\n\nThe ability to think and make good judgments\n\nRecognition\n\nAn acceptance as true or valid\n\nReconciliation\n\nEnabling two people or groups [to] adjust the way they think about divergent ideas or\npositions so they can accept both\n\nReliability\n\nConsistent performance upon which you can depend or trust\n\nRepentance\n\nRemorse or contrition for past conduct\n\nResilience\n\nThe ability to rebound quickly from misfortune or change\n\nResourcefulness\n\nThe ability to act effectively or imaginatively, especially in difficult situations\n\nRespect\n\nPolite attitude shown toward someone or something that you consider important\n\nResponsibility\n\nThat for which someone is responsible or answerable\n\nRighteousness\n\nThe state of being morally upright; without guilt or sin\n\nSacrifice\n\nTo give up something for something else considered more important\n\nSelf-control\n\nControl of personal emotions, desires, or actions by one\xe2\x80\x99s own will\n\nSelf-discipline\n\nMaking yourself do things when you should, even if you do not want to do them\n\nSensitivity\n\nAwareness of the needs and emotions of others\n\nSerenity\n\nCalmness of mind and evenness of temper\n\nSharing\n\nTo allow others to participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns\n\nSincerity\n\nGenuineness, honesty, and freedom from duplicity\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 48\n\nSobriety\n\nHabitual freedom from inordinate passion or overheated imagination; calmness; coolness;\nseriousness\n\nStamina\n\nThe physical or mental strength to do something for a long time\n\nStewardship\n\nThe careful conducting, supervising, or managing of something\n\nSupportive\n\nFurnishing support or assistance\n\nThoughtfulness\n\nThe tendency to anticipate needs or wishes\n\nTolerance\n\nRecognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others\n\nTranquility\n\nA state of calm and peacefulness\n\nTrustworthiness\n\nThe trait of deserving confidence\n\nUnderstanding\n\nKnowing how something works or a positive, truthful relationship between people\n\nValues\n\nCore beliefs that guide and motivate attitudes and actions\n\nVirtue\n\nDoing something right because it is the good thing to do\n\nWisdom\n\nThe ability to make good judgments based on what you have learned from your experience\n\nWork\n\nPerform as intended or desired\n\n\x0c3.3 Solving Ethical Dilemmas\n\nWith values as focal point, the National Association of Social Workers has created a framework that\n1\nis used by social workers to address ethical dilemmas. The framework includes six steps:\n1. Determine whether there is an ethical issue or/and dilemma. Is there a conflict of values, or\nrights, or professional responsibilities?\n2. Identify the key values and principles involved. What meanings and limitations are typically\nattached to these competing values?\n3. Rank the values or ethical principles which \xe2\x80\x93 in your professional judgement \xe2\x80\x93 are most\nrelevant to the issue or dilemma. What reasons can you provide for prioritizing one\ncompeting value/principle over another?\n4. Develop an action plan that is consistent with the ethical priorities that have been determined\nas central to the dilemma. Have you conferred with clients and colleagues, as appropriate,\nabout the potential risks and consequences of alternative courses of action? Can you support\nor justify your action plan with the values/principles on which the plan is based?\n5. Implement your plan, utilizing the most appropriate practice skills and competencies. How\nwill you make use of core social work skills such as sensitive communication, skillful\nnegotiation, and cultural competence?\n6. Reflect on the outcome of this ethical decision making process. How would you evaluate the\nconsequences of this process for those involved: client(s), professional(s), and agency(ies)?\nIn comparison, Evans and MacMillan (2014) have developed a framework involving 10 steps to make\nethical decision-making efficient and practical. This framework is specific to law enforcement officers\nand addresses the consideration of laws, regulations, policy, and procedures that other frameworks\nassume will be followed, but in law enforcement are very important to avoid charges and allow cases\nagainst suspects to proceed. The framework concludes with a follow-up to determine the effectiveness\nof the course of action taken by the officer.\nAs a simple alternative to these frameworks, students should consider the following framework:\n1. Establish the facts surrounding the ethical dilemma.\nFacts are important in law enforcement. To investigate all cases, officers must rely on facts to\nguard against misinformation and cognitive biases. This is also true in ethical dilemmas that\nwe face. If the facts are not known to us, we must investigate everything that surrounds the\ndilemma to ensure we are acting on the right information. Avoid acting on rumours and\ngossip by verifying information through factual information and evidence.\n2. Determine your legal obligations and duties.\nWe must be sure what our professional and legal obligations are. Professional and legal\nobligations will likely allow us to easily decide on a course of action to take in an ethical\n1. Taken in whole from the National Association of Social Workers.\n\n49\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 50\n\ndilemma. However, while professional and legal obligations may not always require a course\nof action that coincides with these obligations, our awareness of any professional and legal\nobligations must be known to allow us to be fully cognizant of the consequences of our\nactions should we choose to ignore professional or legal obligations.\n3. Establish the interested participants involved.\nIt is important to know who will be impacted by the course of action that we decide upon.\nOften the primary participants are easy to identify and it is the secondary participants that are\noften not considered. These may include friends, families, or employees that are related\nsomehow to the primary participants in the ethical dilemma. Knowing the impact of the\ndecision made to secondary participants may be particularly important for a decision made\nwith utilitarian underpinnings; where the rights of those who are not part of the majority may\nnot be considered.\n4. Determine the ethical values of each participant.\nDetermining ethical values is important to allow us an understanding of what is truly at stake.\nA participant in an ethical dilemma may value loyalty as the most important value. However,\nanother participant may value equality as the more important value. When considered, the\nvalue of loyalty may not compare with equality, depending upon the ethical dilemma.\n5. Consider normative ethical theories as an aide to determine a course of action.\nWhen considering options, normative ethical theories may assist us in determining the\nconsequences of actions, or the duties we may be obligated to follow that fall outside of the\nlaws, rules, and procedures. We may also assess whether the decision we are considering is\nrational from another perspective we have not considered. We may also settle on an option,\nand rely on an ethical theory to assist us in articulating the reasoning behind the option we\nhave chosen.\n6. Consider options that would be ethically sound.\nThere may be several options to consider, and each option ought to be considered critically\nby determining what harm it would cause and what values the person being harmed\nholds. The participant should consider the positives and negatives of the decision and\ndetermine the risks and benefits associated with each option, as well as the benefits of each\naction, with these values in mind.\n7. Consideration of the possible negative and positive outcomes of each possible option.\nTry to predict what may otherwise be unintended consequences of your decision. These\nconsequences may not be readily apparent, but they require a critical analysis of the\nconsequences of your decision. To help with this, try asking the following questions:\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Would the action taken be well received if it was on the front page of a newspaper?\nWhile this should be a consideration, keep in mind that often the right decision may\nbe the least popular in public opinion.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 If the decision is job-related, would the agency or company you work for still hire\nyou if it knew you would make this decision? If the answer is yes, then this should\ngive weight to the decision you are about to make.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 If the decision is not job-related, would the agency you would like to work for still\nhire you if it knew all the facts surrounding the dilemma and the decision you\nwould make? If the answer is yes, then this should give weight to the decision you\n\n\x0c51 Chapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of Effective Resolution\n\nare about to make.\nImplement options after considering steps 1-7.\n\n\x0cReferences\n\nCrank, J. P., & Caldero, M. A. (2004). Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause (2nd ed.). Anderson\nPublishing Company (OH).\nEthics Resource Center, (2009). Definitions of values. Ethics & Compliance Initiatives. Retrieved from:\nhttp://www.ethics.org/resource/definitions-values\nEvans and MacMillan (2014). Ethical issues in criminal justice and public safety (4th ed). Edmond\nMontgomery Publications.\nPollock, J. (2010). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.\n\n52\n\n\x0cChapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law\nEnforcement\n\n53\n\n\x0c4.1 Ethical Issues\n\nThere are numerous ethical issues that arise in law enforcement that are particular only to law\nenforcement. While widespread systemic corruption and lawbreaking by law enforcement officers in\nCanada is relatively rare, although it does occur from time to time. Such infractions include a clear\nviolation of federal, provincial, or municipal statutes, and for the sake of brevity, they do not warrant\ndiscussion in this text. However, readers should look at such issues critically to gain an understanding\nof the variables that surround them. It is important to look beyond the obvious moral, ethical, and/or\nlegal violations of the main actor and to critically assess the ethical issues that can, at times, surround\nthe case peripherally. For example, Vancouver police officer Constable Hodson was arrested for selling\ndrugs from his police car and threatening his former informant. This is a clear-cut violation of numerous\nstatutes, including the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Nonetheless, the\nfollowing questions may be asked relating to the case:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What questions arise about the ethics of the Vancouver Police Department investigating\nHodson?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the Vancouver Police Department choose to ignore warning signs that Hodson was\nbecoming increasingly involved in immoral behaviour?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Should the Vancouver Police Department have conducted integrity testing of members\nmaking drug arrests?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What can the Vancouver Police Department do to avoid such a serious breach in the future?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Should the Vancouver Police Department have detected this moral flaw in Hodson before\nhiring him?\nKey ethical issues that face law enforcement are not easy to identify at times, and when they are\nidentified, they are open to interpretation. Often in law enforcement, a high-profile decision made by an\nofficer in a millisecond is analyzed over months and sometimes years. Even with this ability to analyze\nthe decision over years, a consensus is often not reached about whether the law enforcement officer\xe2\x80\x99s\nactions were ethical or not. It is for this reason that it is important to look at all ethical issues in law\nenforcement with a critical mind, so we can understand both sides of each issue. It is also why this\ntext will focus on those issues that are not clearly ethical or unethical, but nonetheless are deserving of\ndebate.\n\n54\n\n\x0c4.2 The Ethics of Power and Authority\n\nLaw enforcement officers possess enormous amounts of power, which can be used against citizens to\ndeprive them of their freedom, search them and their dwellings, seize their property, and use force\nagainst them. These powers are legally permitted under specific circumstances, and law enforcement\nofficers are trained to know when these powers can be legally applied. As law enforcement officers\nrank among the most powerful occupations in society, what compounds their ability to use their power\nis that they are often in contact with relatively powerless and disenfranchised citizens who may be\nunable to resist an officer\xe2\x80\x99s illegitimate use of that power. These powers are legally prescribed, and law\nenforcement officers are well aware of them. It is important that law enforcement officers not misuse\ntheir power for the following reasons.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Because of the psychology of citizenship.\nCitizens, for the most part, want to participate in the \xe2\x80\x9csocial contract,\xe2\x80\x9d to be a part of\nmainstream society and carry out their citizenship responsibilities. They want to belong to\nsociety and will do what they think is required by authorities to accomplish this. As a result,\nthey will often try very hard to respond to what law enforcement requires and may be\nsusceptible to unreasonable requests by law enforcement.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 To maintain due process.\nEvery law enforcement officer should acknowledge the importance of due process. The abuse\nof power runs directly contrary to the notion of due process, and officers who misuse their\npower are creating an environment in which due process cannot flourish. Ideally, all officers\nin the criminal justice system should be focused on due process, and the police have a role in\naccomplishing due process by being fact finders and apprehenders (Manning, 2010). Along\nwith this, law enforcement officers who are under pressure to charge a suspect must resist the\npower they are afforded when charges or other actions such as search and seizure are not\nwarranted (Reiner, 2010). Police officers, in particular, face the challenge of weighing crime\ncontrol against due process, in which they are faced with opportunities to misuse their power.\nOfficers must make decisions on when and in what situations they should use their power.\nOfficers must reflect on how the use of their power would look in a court of law under close\nscrutiny.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 To safeguard discretionary power and therefore efficiency.\nAs mentioned previously, law enforcement officers exercise power through discretion.\nRadical criminologists propose that the police have too much discretion, with the end result\nbeing \xe2\x80\x9ctoo much street justice\xe2\x80\x9d for the poor, while ignoring crimes of the powerful, of which\nthe police are a member (Box, 2008, p.274). Box argues that the way to eliminate this lack of\ndue process is to place restrictions on discretion. Should law enforcement officers desire to\nmaintain the discretion that they have, which is critical for efficiency, they must not abuse\ntheir power.\nPower and authority are tools that law enforcement officers must use judiciously and ethically. Without\n\n55\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 56\n\nan ethical life, this power will be misused, creating a power imbalance that is bad for the officer, the\nagency, and society.\n\n\x0c4.3 The Milgram Experiment\n\nTo demonstrate the ease with which power can be used to coerce people, Stanley Milgram conducted\na scientific experiment that demonstrated how far people will go when confronted with someone who\nhas power and is in a position of authority. In this instance, subjects often performed actions that were\nunethical when ordered to by a person in authority. Milgram\xe2\x80\x99s experiment demonstrated the power of\nauthority and how someone in a position of authority can influence people to behave unethically and\nagainst their wishes.\n\nMilgram\xe2\x80\x99s Studies on Obedience to Authority\nThe powerful ability of those in authority to control others was demonstrated in a remarkable set of\nstudies performed by Stanley Milgram (1963). Milgram was interested in understanding the factors that\nlead people to obey the orders given by people in authority. He designed a study in which he could\nobserve the extent to which a person who presented himself as an authority would be able to produce\nobedience, even to the extent of leading people to cause harm to others.\nLike his professor Solomon Asch, Milgram\xe2\x80\x99s interest in social influence stemmed in part from his\ndesire to understand how the presence of a powerful person\xe2\x80\x94particularly the German dictator Adolf\nHitler who ordered the killing of millions of people during World War II\xe2\x80\x94could produce obedience.\nUnder Hitler\xe2\x80\x99s direction, the German SS troops oversaw the execution of 6 million Jews as well as\nother \xe2\x80\x9cundesirables,\xe2\x80\x9d including political and religious dissidents, homosexuals, mentally and physically\ndisabled people, and prisoners of war. Milgram used newspaper ads to recruit men (and in one study,\nwomen) from a wide variety of backgrounds to participate in his research. When the research participant\narrived at the lab, he or she was introduced to a man who the participant believed was another research\nparticipant but who was actually an experimental confederate. The experimenter explained that the\ngoal of the research was to study the effects of punishment on learning. After the participant and the\nconfederate both consented to participate in the study, the researcher explained that one of them would\nbe randomly assigned to be the teacher and the other the learner. They were each given a slip of paper\nand asked to open it and to indicate what it said. In fact both papers read teacher, which allowed the\nconfederate to pretend that he had been assigned to be the learner and thus to assure that the actual\nparticipant was always the teacher. While the research participant (now the teacher) looked on, the\nlearner was taken into the adjoining shock room and strapped to an electrode that was to deliver the\npunishment. The experimenter explained that the teacher\xe2\x80\x99s job would be to sit in the control room and to\nread a list of word pairs to the learner. After the teacher read the list once, it would be the learner\xe2\x80\x99s job to\nremember which words went together. For instance, if the word pair was blue-sofa, the teacher would say\nthe word blue on the testing trials and the learner would have to indicate which of four possible words\n(house, sofa, cat, or carpet) was the correct answer by pressing one of four buttons in front of him. After\nthe experimenter gave the \xe2\x80\x9cteacher\xe2\x80\x9d a sample shock (which was said to be at 45 volts) to demonstrate\nthat the shocks really were painful, the experiment began. The research participant first read the list of\nwords to the learner and then began testing him on his learning.\n\n57\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 58\n\nThe shock panel, as shown in [the figure],\xe2\x80\x9cThe Shock Apparatus Used in Milgram\xe2\x80\x99s Obedience Study,\xe2\x80\x9d\nwas presented in front of the teacher, and the learner was not visible in the shock room. The experimenter\nsat behind the teacher and explained to him that each time the learner made a mistake the teacher was to\npress one of the shock switches to administer the shock. They were to begin with the smallest possible\nshock (15 volts) but with each mistake the shock was increased by one level (an additional 15 volts).\n\nOnce the learner (who was, of course, actually an experimental confederate) was alone in the shock\nroom, he unstrapped himself from the shock machine and brought out a tape recorder that he used to\nplay a prerecorded series of responses that the teacher could hear through the wall of the room. As\nyou can see in [the figure], \xe2\x80\x9cThe Confederate\xe2\x80\x99s Schedule of Protest in the Milgram Experiments,\xe2\x80\x9d the\nteacher heard the learner say \xe2\x80\x9cugh!\xe2\x80\x9d after the first few shocks. After the next few mistakes, when the\nshock level reached 150 volts, the learner was heard to exclaim \xe2\x80\x9cGet me out of here, please. My heart\xe2\x80\x99s\nstarting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out!\xe2\x80\x9d As the shock reached about 270 volts, the learner\xe2\x80\x99s\nprotests became more vehement, and after 300 volts the learner proclaimed that he was not going to\nanswer any more questions. From 330 volts and up the learner was silent. The experimenter responded\nto participants\xe2\x80\x99 questions at this point, if they asked any, with a scripted response indicating that they\nshould continue reading the questions and applying increasing shock when the learner did not respond.\n\n\x0c59 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nThe Confederate\xe2\x80\x99s Schedule of Protest in the Milgram Experiments\n75\nvolts\n\nUgh!\n\n90\nvolts\n\nUgh!\n\n105\nvolts\n\nUgh! (louder)\n\n120\nvolts\n\nUgh! Hey, this really hurts.\n\n135\nvolts\n\nUgh!!\n\n150\nvolts\n\nUgh!! Experimenter! That\xe2\x80\x99s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart\xe2\x80\x99s starting\nto bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart\xe2\x80\x99s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let\nme out!\n\n165\nvolts\n\nUgh! Let me out! (shouting)\n\n180\nvolts\n\nUgh! I can\xe2\x80\x99t stand the pain. Let me out of here! (shouting)\n\n195\nvolts\n\nUgh! Let me out of here! Let me out of here! My heart\xe2\x80\x99s bothering me. Let me out of here! You have\nno right to keep me here! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out of here! My heart\xe2\x80\x99s\nbothering me. Let me out! Let me out!\n\n210\nvolts\n\nUgh!! Experimenter! Get me out of here. I\xe2\x80\x99ve had enough. I won\xe2\x80\x99t be in the experiment any more.\n\n225\nvolts\n\nUgh!\n\n240\nvolts\n\nUgh!\n\n255\nvolts\n\nUgh! Get me out of here.\n\n270\nvolts\n\n(agonized scream) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out. Do you\nhear? Let me out of here.\n\n285\nvolts\n\n(agonized scream)\n\n300\nvolts\n\n(agonized scream) I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can\xe2\x80\x99t hold me here.\nGet me out. Get me out of here.\n\n315\nvolts\n\n(intensely agonized scream) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. My heart\xe2\x80\x99s bothering me. Let me\nout, I tell you. (hysterically) Let me out of here. Let me out of here. You have no right to hold me here.\nLet me out! Let me out! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out!\n\nBefore Milgram conducted his study, he described the procedure to three groups\xe2\x80\x94college students,\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 60\n\nmiddle-class adults, and psychiatrists\xe2\x80\x94asking each of them if they thought they would shock a\nparticipant who made sufficient errors at the highest end of the scale (450 volts). One hundred percent\nof all three groups thought they would not do so. He then asked them what percentage of \xe2\x80\x9cother people\xe2\x80\x9d\nwould be likely to use the highest end of the shock scale, at which point the three groups demonstrated\nremarkable consistency by all producing (rather optimistic) estimates of around 1% to 2%.\nThe results of the actual experiments were themselves quite shocking. Although all of the participants\ngave the initial mild levels of shock, responses varied after that. Some refused to continue after about\n150 volts, despite the insistence of the experimenter to continue to increase the shock level. Still others,\nhowever, continued to present the questions, and to administer the shocks, under the pressure of the\nexperimenter, who demanded that they continue. In the end, 65% of the participants continued giving\nthe shock to the learner all the way up to the 450 volts maximum, even though that shock was marked\nas \xe2\x80\x9cdanger: severe shock,\xe2\x80\x9d and there had been no response heard from the participant for several trials.\nIn sum, almost two-thirds of the men who participated had, as far as they knew, shocked another person\nto death, all as part of a supposed experiment on learning.\nMilgram\xe2\x80\x99s study is important in a law enforcement context for the following reasons:\n1. Officers must be careful in exercising authority, especially to those that are most vulnerable.\n2. Officers can also be greatly influenced by the negative/unethical actions of fellow officers\nand their own supervisors. It is important for senior officers to understand that Milgram\xe2\x80\x99s\nstudy strongly suggests that the actions of senior officers will coerce the same action in junior\nofficers. While senior officers may think they are not being copied, or are manipulating the\njunior officer, Milgram\xe2\x80\x99s study suggests that they may be doing so.\n3. Law enforcement officers are commonly involved in extraordinary situations, where\nheightened stress and perceived danger are high. In this environment, even those most strongwilled individuals may be vulnerable to coercion.\n4. When a person is being arrested, his or her perception of losing freedom may provoke a\nreaction to the officer, despite the officer\xe2\x80\x99s position of power.\nIt is important for any person who possesses power to understand and be aware of the coercive nature of\npower; that power and authority are easily used to make people do things they otherwise would not do.\nIt is within this paradigm, that abuse of power can occur, and officers must be aware of their power and\nthe ease with which it can be abused.\nText Attribution\n\nThe following description of Milgram\xe2\x80\x99s experiment comes from the chapter \xe2\x80\x9cObedience, Power, and\nLeadership\xe2\x80\x9d from the open textbook book Principles of Social Psychology: 1st International\nEdition. and is licensed CC BY 4.0. All references cited on this page can be found at the end of the\nchapter of Obedience Power and Leadership.\nMedia Attributions\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Milgram_Experiment_v2 \xc2\xa9 Fred the Oyster is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution\nShareAlike) license\n\n\x0c4.4 Person, Gender, and Cultural Differences in Conformity\n\nPerson Differences\nEven in cases in which the pressure to conform is strong and a large percentage of individuals do\nconform (such as in Solomon Asch\xe2\x80\x99s line-judging research), not everyone does so. There are usually\nsome people willing and able to go against the prevailing norm. In Asch\xe2\x80\x99s study, for instance, despite the\nstrong situational pressures, 24% of the participants never conformed on any of the trials.\nPeople prefer to have an \xe2\x80\x9coptimal\xe2\x80\x9d balance between being similar to, and different from, others (Brewer,\n2003). When people are made to feel too similar to others, they tend to express their individuality, but\nwhen they are made to feel too different from others, they attempt to increase their acceptance by others.\nSupporting this idea, research has found that people who have lower self-esteem are more likely to\nconform in comparison with those who have higher self-esteem. This makes sense because self-esteem\nrises when we know we are being accepted by others, and people with lower self-esteem have a greater\nneed to belong. And people who are dependent on and who have a strong need for approval from others\nare also more conforming (Bornstein, 1992).\nAge also matters, with individuals who are either younger or older being more easily influenced than\nindividuals who are in their 40s and 50s (Visser & Krosnick, 1998). People who highly identify with the\ngroup that is creating the conformity are also more likely to conform to group norms, in comparison to\npeople who don\xe2\x80\x99t really care very much (Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1997; Terry & Hogg, 1996).\nHowever, although there are some differences among people in terms of their tendency to conform (it\nhas even been suggested that some people have a \xe2\x80\x9cneed for uniqueness\xe2\x80\x9d that leads them to be particularly\nlikely to resist conformity; Snyder & Fromkin, 1977), research has generally found that the impact of\nperson variables on conformity is smaller than the influence of situational variables, such as the number\nand unanimity of the majority.\n\nGender Differences\nSeveral reviews and meta-analyses of the existing research on conformity and leadership in men and\nwomen have now been conducted, and so it is possible to draw some strong conclusions in this regard. In\nterms of conformity, the overall conclusion from these studies is that that there are only small differences\nbetween men and women in the amount of conformity they exhibit, and these differences are influenced\nas much by the social situation in which the conformity occurs as by gender differences themselves.\nOn average, men and women have different levels of self-concern and other-concern. Men are, on\naverage, more concerned about appearing to have high status and may be able to demonstrate this\nstatus by acting independently from the opinions of others. On the other hand, and again although\nthere are substantial individual differences among them, women are, on average, more concerned with\nconnecting to others and maintaining group harmony. Taken together, this means that, at least when\n61\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 62\n\nthey are being observed by others, men are likely to hold their ground, act independently, and refuse to\nconform, whereas women are more likely to conform to the opinions of others in order to prevent social\ndisagreement. These differences are less apparent when the conformity occurs in private (Eagly, 1978,\n1983).\nThe observed gender differences in conformity have social explanations\xe2\x80\x94namely that women are\nsocialized to be more caring about the desires of others\xe2\x80\x94but there are also evolutionary explanations.\nMen may be more likely to resist conformity to demonstrate to women that they are good mates.\nGriskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, and Kenrick (2006) found that men, but not women, who\nhad been primed with thoughts about romantic and sexual attraction were less likely to conform to the\nopinions of others on a subsequent task than were men who had not been primed to think about romantic\nattraction.\nIn addition to the public versus private nature of the situation, the topic being discussed also is important,\nwith both men and women being less likely to conform on topics that they know a lot about, in\ncomparison with topics on which they feel less knowledgeable (Eagly & Chravala, 1986). When the\ntopic is sports, women tend to conform to men, whereas the opposite is true when the topic is fashion.\nThus it appears that the small observed differences between men and women in conformity are due, at\nleast in part, to informational influence.\nBecause men have higher status in most societies, they are more likely to be perceived as effective\nleaders (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; Rojahn & Willemsen, 1994; Shackelford, Wood, &\nWorchel, 1996). And men are more likely to be leaders in most cultures. For instance, women hold only\nabout 20% of the key elected and appointed political positions in the world (World Economic Forum,\n2013). There are also more men than women in leadership roles, particularly in high-level administrative\npositions, in many different types of businesses and other organizations. Women are not promoted to\npositions of leadership as fast as men are in real working groups, even when actual performance is taken\ninto consideration (Geis, Boston, & Hoffman, 1985; Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995).\nMen are also more likely than women to emerge and act as leaders in small groups, even when\nother personality characteristics are accounted for (Bartol & Martin, 1986; Megargee, 1969; Porter,\nGeis, Cooper, & Newman, 1985). In one experiment, Nyquist and Spence (1986) had pairs of sameand mixed-sex students interact. In each pair there was one highly dominant and one low dominant\nindividual, as assessed by previous personality measures. They found that in pairs in which there was one\nman and one woman, the dominant man became the leader 90% of the time, but the dominant woman\nbecame the leader only 35% of the time.\nKeep in mind, however, that the fact that men are perceived as effective leaders, and are more likely\nto become leaders, does not necessarily mean that they are actually better, more effective leaders than\nwomen. Indeed, a meta-analysis studying the effectiveness of male and female leaders did not find\nthat there were any gender differences overall (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995) and even found that\nwomen excelled over men in some domains. Furthermore, the differences that were found tended to\noccur primarily when a group was first forming but dissipated over time as the group members got to\nknow one another individually.\nOne difficulty for women as they attempt to lead is that traditional leadership behaviors, such as showing\nindependence and exerting power over others, conflict with the expected social roles for women. The\nnorms for what constitutes success in corporate life are usually defined in masculine terms, including\n\n\x0c63 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nassertiveness or aggressiveness, self-promotion, and perhaps even macho behavior. It is difficult for\nwomen to gain power because to do so they must conform to these masculine norms, and often this\ngoes against their personal beliefs about appropriate behavior (Rudman & Glick, 1999). And when\nwomen do take on male models of expressing power, it may backfire on them because they end up\nbeing disliked because they are acting nonstereotypically for their gender. A recent experimental study\nwith MBA students simulated the initial public offering (IPO) of a company whose chief executive was\neither male or female (personal qualifications and company financial statements were held constant\nacross both conditions). The results indicated a clear gender bias as female chief executive officers were\nperceived as being less capable and having a poorer strategic position than their male counterparts.\nFurthermore, IPOs led by female executives were perceived as less attractive investments (Bigelow,\nLundmark, McLean Parks, & Wuebker, 2012). Little wonder then that women hold fewer than 5% of\nFortune 500 chief executive positions.\nOne way that women can react to this \xe2\x80\x9cdouble-bind\xe2\x80\x9d in which they must take on masculine\ncharacteristics to succeed, but if they do they are not liked, is to adopt more feminine leadership styles, in\nwhich they use more interpersonally oriented behaviors such as agreeing with others, acting in a friendly\nmanner, and encouraging subordinates to participate in the decision-making process (Eagly & Johnson,\n1990; Eagly et al., 1992; Wood, 1987). In short, women are more likely to take on a transformational\nleadership style than are men\xe2\x80\x94doing so allows them to be effective leaders while not acting in an\nexcessively masculine way (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Egen, 2003).\nIn sum, women may conform somewhat more than men, although these differences are small and limited\nto situations in which the responses are made publicly. In terms of leadership effectiveness, there is no\nevidence that men, overall, make better leaders than do women. However, men do better as leaders on\ntasks that are \xe2\x80\x9cmasculine\xe2\x80\x9d in the sense that they require the ability to direct and control people. On the\nother hand, women do better on tasks that are more \xe2\x80\x9cfeminine\xe2\x80\x9d in the sense that they involve creating\nharmonious relationships among the group members.\n\nCultural Differences\nIn addition to gender differences, there is also evidence that conformity is greater in some cultures than\nothers. Your knowledge about the cultural differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures\nmight lead you to think that collectivists will be more conforming than individualists, and there is some\nsupport for this. Bond and Smith (1996) analyzed results of 133 studies that had used Asch\xe2\x80\x99s linejudging task in 17 different countries. They then categorized each of the countries in terms of the degree\nto which it could be considered collectivist versus individualist in orientation. They found a significant\nrelationship: conformity was greater in more collectivistic than in individualistic countries.\nKim and Markus (1999) analyzed advertisements from popular magazines in the United States and\nin Korea to see if they differentially emphasized conformity and uniqueness. As you can see in\n[the figure], \xe2\x80\x9cCulture and Conformity,\xe2\x80\x9d they found that while U.S. magazine ads tended to focus on\nuniqueness (e.g., \xe2\x80\x9cChoose your own view!\xe2\x80\x9d; \xe2\x80\x9cIndividualize\xe2\x80\x9d) Korean ads tended to focus more on\nthemes of conformity (e.g., \xe2\x80\x9cSeven out of 10 people use this product\xe2\x80\x9d; \xe2\x80\x9cOur company is working toward\nbuilding a harmonious society\xe2\x80\x9d).\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 64\n\nCulture and Conformity\n\nKim and Markus (1999) found that U.S. magazine ads tended to focus on uniqueness whereas Korean\nads tended to focus more on conformity.\nIn summary, although the effects of individual differences on conformity tend to be smaller than\nthose of the social context, they do matter. And gender and cultural differences can also be important.\nConformity, like most other social psychological processes, represents an interaction between the\nsituation and the person.\n\nPsychological Reactance\nConformity is usually quite adaptive overall, both for the individuals who conform and for the group as a\nwhole. Conforming to the opinions of others can help us enhance and protect ourselves by providing us\nwith important and accurate information and can help us better relate to others. Following the directives\nof effective leaders can help a group attain goals that would not be possible without them. And if only\nhalf of the people in your neighborhood thought it was appropriate to stop on red and go on green but\nthe other half thought the opposite\xe2\x80\x94and behaved accordingly\xe2\x80\x94there would be problems indeed.\nBut social influence does not always produce the intended result. If we feel that we have the choice\nto conform or not conform, we may well choose to do so in order to be accepted or to obtain valid\nknowledge. On the other hand, if we perceive that others are trying to force or manipulate our behavior,\nthe influence pressure may backfire, resulting in the opposite of what the influencer intends.\nConsider an experiment conducted by Pennebaker and Sanders (1976), who attempted to get people to\nstop writing graffiti on the walls of campus restrooms. In some restrooms they posted a sign that read\n\xe2\x80\x9cDo not write on these walls under any circumstances!\xe2\x80\x9d whereas in other restrooms they placed a sign\nthat simply said \xe2\x80\x9cPlease don\xe2\x80\x99t write on these walls.\xe2\x80\x9d Two weeks later, the researchers returned to the\nrestrooms to see if the signs had made a difference. They found that there was much less graffiti in the\nsecond restroom than in the first one. It seems as if people who were given strong pressures to not engage\nin the behavior were more likely to react against those directives than were people who were given a\nweaker message.\n\n\x0c65 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nWhen individuals feel that their freedom is being threatened by influence attempts and yet they also have\nthe ability to resist that persuasion, they may experience psychological reactance, a strong motivational\nstate that resists social influence (Brehm, 1966; Miron & Brehm, 2006). Reactance is aroused when our\nability to choose which behaviors to engage in is eliminated or threatened with elimination. The outcome\nof the experience of reactance is that people may not conform or obey at all and may even move their\nopinions or behaviors away from the desires of the influencer.\nReactance represents a desire to restore freedom that is being threatened. And an adult who feels that\nshe is being pressured by a car sales representative might feel the same way and leave the showroom\nentirely, resulting in the opposite of the sales rep\xe2\x80\x99s intended outcome.\nOf course, parents are sometimes aware of this potential, and even use \xe2\x80\x9creverse psychology\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x94for\nexample, telling a child that he or she cannot go outside when they really want the child to do so, hoping\nthat reactance will occur. In the musical The Fantasticks, neighboring fathers set up to make the daughter\nof one of them and the son of the other fall in love with each other by building a fence between their\nproperties. The fence is seen by the children as an infringement on their freedom to see each other, and\nas predicted by the idea of reactance, they ultimately fall in love.\nIn addition to helping us understand the affective determinants of conformity and of failure to conform,\nreactance has been observed to have its ironic effects in a number of real-world contexts. For instance,\nWolf and Montgomery (1977) found that when judges give jury members instructions indicating that\nthey absolutely must not pay any attention to particular information that had been presented in a\ncourtroom trial (because it had been ruled as inadmissible), the jurors were more likely to use that\ninformation in their judgments. And Bushman and Stack (1996) found that warning labels on violent\nfilms (for instance, \xe2\x80\x9cThis film contains extreme violence\xe2\x80\x94viewer discretion advised\xe2\x80\x9d) created more\nreactance (and thus led participants to be more interested in viewing the film) than did similar labels that\nsimply provided information (\xe2\x80\x9cThis film contains extreme violence\xe2\x80\x9d). In another relevant study, Kray,\nReb, Galinsky, and Thompson (2004) found that when women were told that they were poor negotiators\nand would be unable to succeed on a negotiation task, this information led them to work even harder and\nto be more successful at the task.\nFinally, within clinical therapy, it has been argued that people sometimes are less likely to try to reduce\nthe harmful behaviors that they engage in, such as smoking or drug abuse, when the people they care\nabout try too hard to press them to do so (Shoham, Trost, & Rohrbaugh, 2004). One patient was recorded\nas having reported that his wife kept telling him that he should quit drinking, saying, \xe2\x80\x9cIf you loved me\nenough, you\xe2\x80\x99d give up the booze.\xe2\x80\x9d However, he also reported that when she gave up on him and said\ninstead, \xe2\x80\x9cI don\xe2\x80\x99t care what you do anymore,\xe2\x80\x9d he then enrolled in a treatment program (Shoham et al.,\n2004, p. 177).\nPerson, gender, and cultural differences in conformity are important in a law enforcement context for the\nreasons discussed below.\nCitizens may not obey a lawful order by a police officer when the officer uses power lawfully. This may\noccur when the citizen perceives the officer is eliminating the citizen\xe2\x80\x99s right to engage in the behavior\nthey wish to. This, according to Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry, may lead people not to\nconform, or obey an order, and may indeed lead the citizen to oppose the officer who is trying to make a\nlawful order.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 66\n\nFurthermore, while person variables may predict conformity, situational variables are usually more\nimportant. This would suggest that the behavior and action of the officers may have a strong role to play\nin determining whether or not the citizen will conform.\nText Attribution\n\nThe following discussion comes from the chapter \xe2\x80\x9cPerson, Gender, and Cultural Differences in\nConformity\xe2\x80\x9d from the textbook Principles of Social Psychology: 1st International Edition. and is\nlicensed CC BY 4.0. All references cited on this page can be found at the end of the chapter \xe2\x80\x9cPerson,\nGender, and Cultural Differences in Conformity\xe2\x80\x9d\nMedia Attributions\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Culture and Conformity \xc2\xa9 "Principles of Social Psychology"\n\n\x0c4.5 Ethical Issues during an Investigation\n\nCaseload Management\nLaw enforcement officers who are in investigative roles are often confronted with ethical issues during\nthe investigative process. Officers who have a heavy caseload are expected to determine which case\nto investigate at the expense of other cases. Officers often rely on the solvability of the case, and\nconcentrate on that case, which means that cases that may be slightly more difficult to solve are never\nsolved. This is a consequentialist perspective, in which the end result is seen as the most important aspect\nof the investigation.\nSome officers may do an assessment of the victim, coupled with other investigative variables that allow\nthe officer to decide which case is ultimately more serious and more important to work on. The difficulty\nwith this approach is that the officer\xe2\x80\x99s values are taken into account and are weighed against the rights\nof all victims. Problems arise when victims who may not be considered high on the investigator\xe2\x80\x99s valued\nlist (for example an officer who does not value sex-trade workers), do not receive the same level of\nservice that other, favoured victims do. Officers must be cognizant of their personal biases and ensure\nthat they consider other variables, such as solvability, continuation of the offence, serial offences of the\nsuspect, seriousness of the injury, and perishable evidence.\n\nLies, Deception, and Tricks\nInvestigators walk a line between being tenacious in their investigations and being overzealous in\nrefusing to give up a case that ought to be closed due to a lack of evidence. Officers must be aware not\nto allow their personal feelings to interrupt objective, critical and reflective consideration of the case.\nInvestigators should routinely ask themselves how a case would look in court when all the facts are\nknown by the defence counsel and the judge. Would their credibility suffer as a result? If the answer is\nyes, investigators need to address this and decide whether they should continue along their investigative\npath, or stop.\nThe Supreme Court of Canada does permit officers to use \xe2\x80\x9ctricks\xe2\x80\x9d to solve crimes. In Regina v. Rothman,\nthe Supreme Court ruled that police can use tricks, so long as they do not shock the community. Such\nshocking or \xe2\x80\x9cdirty\xe2\x80\x9d tricks include things such as impersonating a priest or a lawyer to gain a covert\nconfession.\nTricks that officers are able to use include posing as gangsters or drug dealers in undercover operations\nin order to obtain covert confessions. Other tricks that officers may use are lies in interviews to bond\nwith subjects. Lying in law enforcement is allowed in certain circumstances, but is strictly forbidden in\nother circumstances. These include, but are not limited to:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Creating evidence or planting evidence\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lying in court (testifying)\n67\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 68\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lying in reports, notebooks, or other administrative or investigative reports\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lying in any administrative or civil proceedings\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lying to fellow officers or supervisors\nThe scope for lying is very narrow and it should be used sparingly for serious investigations by officers\nwho know the boundaries and what would be accepted in court. However, the ethics around lying lead\nsome officers to discount it as a tactic. Some of the reasons they cite for the unacceptability of lying\ninclude:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lies destroy confidence in the police. Both the suspect and the community at large will not\nbelieve even truthful information brought forward in the future by an officer who uses lying.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lies are immoral because they are an illegitimate means to an ends. It goes against Kant\xe2\x80\x99s\ncategorical imperative that we should never lie, regardless of the consequences of not getting\na confession in what may be an important case.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The courts may disallow the evidence because the courts may determine that the evidence\nwas obtained through tactics not warranted under Regina v. Rothman.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The officer\xe2\x80\x99s religious beliefs and scripture prohibit or strongly discourage lying for\ninterviews and criminal investigations.\nSome officers have little issue with lying to suspects, taking a utilitarian and legalistic approach. They\nargue the following:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 It is for the greater good because lying justifies the end result (a classic utilitarian perspective\nthat maximizes happiness).\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The positive consequence of lying to find evidence outweighs the consequence of not lying\nand thus not retrieving evidence.\nOther officers take a different perspective, arguing:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 It is their duty to do what they can to solve a crime. However, lying does not follow Kantian\nlogic because the act itself is wrong. The duty is to solve crime, not to lie. Furthermore, Kant\nwould argue that the officer is using the person as a means to an end to get a confession.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Solving a crime means you have to play at the criminal\xe2\x80\x99s moral level at times, and that as\nlong as the evidence is admissible, anything goes. This perspective brings officers\ndangerously close to crossing the ethical line, venturing into noble-cause corruption. Officers\nmust, in this case, be aware of the limits allowed by the court and not be tempted to surpass\nthese limits.\nOther investigative tricks include undercover operations ranging from simple stolen property\ninvestigations to elaborate and lengthy operations for murder and drug conspiracies. Essential in\nundercover operations is the need for an undercover officer to establish credibility with the suspect\nor target. In doing so, the officer may have to commit, or appear to commit, a crime. This may\ninclude stealing or damaging property, selling and handling drugs, or selling and handling restricted\nweapons. The actions of undercover officers have limits, such as officers not engaging in drug use,\n\n\x0c69 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\ncrimes of violence, or sex-related activities. Section 25.1 of the Criminal Code protects officers against\nprosecution as long as they are in the lawful execution of their duty and can account for the need to\n\xe2\x80\x9cbreak the law.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\x0c4.6 Gratuities\n\nFor the purpose of discussion surrounding ethics in law enforcement, a gratuity is the gift of an item to\nanother person based solely on their occupation. A gratuity is most often given to officers by workers\nin the service industry, such as waiters and bartenders. Additionally and problematically, gratuities are\ngiven for services expected and services already rendered; free coffees for law enforcement officers\noften come with strings attached, or at the very least, as an insurance policy to gain favours in the\nfuture should the need arise. A cynic would argue that offering free coffee is not an altruistic gesture,\nbut rather an insurance policy for security in the future. A law enforcement officer who receives free\ncoffee from a restaurateur will likely be expected to provide extra service to the restaurant should it be\nrequired. Conversely, a law enforcement officer who removes a drunk person from a restaurant can often\nexpect a free coffee after the drunk has been removed. Four main reasons that gratuities are given to law\nenforcement officers are:\n1. Because of the theory of reciprocity, where people feel they owe something to the giver. In\na law enforcement context, this will be collected after the gift (the free coffee) is given.\n2. To ensure future cooperation, where the gift-giver may want the services of the officer in the\nfuture. This can include gaining biased support of officers in spite of the facts surrounding an\nissue.\n3. To use the presence of police officers, attracted by free coffee, as an advertisement to\npotential patrons that the environment is safe.\n4. To use the presence of police officers, attracted by free coffee, as a way to dissuade\npotentially problematic patrons from patronizing the restaurant.\nGratuities are often seen as the first step on the slippery slope toward major corruption (Coleman,\n2004), and it is for this reason that accepting gratuities is always frowned upon by law enforcement\nagencies. Coleman argues that while each step is, on the slippery slope, individually insignificant, it\nis the cumulative effect of the steps that draws and pushes officers to more serious forms of unethical\nbehaviours. Once an officer starts on the slippery slope, pne step leads to another: the coffee leads to\na coffee and a donut, which eventually leads to a free dinner. The cumulative effect of these gratuities,\naccording to Coleman (2004), leads to a situation that is difficult for the officer to stop doing or turn\naround.\nColeman (2004) also identifies an absolutist perspective in which the free-coffee gratuity is viewed the\nsame as receiving a thousand dollar bribe. They are both wrong regardless of the financial gain received\nby the officer. It can be argued that the intent of the officer should be considered. If the officer\xe2\x80\x99s intent in\nreceiving the free coffee is to build community cohesion and better relations with the police, that should\nalways be considered. However, if the intent is unethical, such as to save money by using the officer\xe2\x80\x99s\npower position, then this too should be considered.\nIn a controversial paper, Kania (1998) proposes that the police should be allowed to exercise discretion\nand decide the appropriateness of receiving minor gratuities such as free coffee. This, he argues, is\n70\n\n\x0c71 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nsimilar to other professions and is a way to foster community relations; refusing minor gratuities such\nas coffee strikes at the core of building bridges with the community and can have an adverse effect on\nrelationships. Kania (1998) offers little more than anecdotal evidence of this and recalls incidents in his\nown policing career in which he observed noble officers rejecting free coffee to the consternation of the\nprovider, thus creating a rift between police and the community.\nThe most balanced view on gratuities belongs to Pollock (2007), who draws a sharp distinction between\na gift and a gratuity. The gift refers to an exchange in which there are no strings attached, whereas a\ngratuity would likely be given for future favour, however subtle (Pollock, 2007). The difficulty is in\ndetermining what is and is not a gift versus a gratuity. Pollock utilizes ethical systems to make this\ndetermination.\nA deontological perspective would suggest that if all businesses were to give all police gratuities, the\nramifications would not be desirable (Pollock 2007). In essence, Rawls\xe2\x80\x99 (1999) principles of justice\nwould be subverted by a system in which only those who pay are entitled to service. Pollock (2007) also\nsuggests from a formalism perspective that the motive of the giver would be paramount and that the giver\nwho has good intentions would make the gift morally permissible. Conversely, utilitarianism would\nsuggest that the negatives outweigh the positives and, as a result, the gratuities would be unethical;\nhowever, act utilitarianism would judge each act on its own merits, allowing for gratuities to be accepted\nwhen the consequences are good for all concerned (Pollock, 2007). Rule utilitarianism, on the other\nhand, would determine that the long-term consequences of gratuities would be damaging to more people\nthan they would aid, and therefore would not be morally permissible (Pollock, 2007).\nKania\xe2\x80\x99s (1998) perspective would fall under an ethics of care approach, in which gratuities would be\nethical if there were a positive social relationship already formed between the giver and the taker. The\nethics of virtue would be concerned only with the virtues of the receiving officer (Pollock, 2007).\nIn conclusion, while other professions, such as doctors, are free to receive gratuities, law enforcement\nofficers must be careful when receiving gratuities for the following reasons:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Police are professionals and professionals don\xe2\x80\x99t take gratuities.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 People will expect different treatment.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Gratuities could erode public confidence.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 There is the slippery slope potential; the receipt of gratuities can be a gateway for more\ncorruption.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Police get paid by the public to treat everyone equally.\n\n\x0c4.7 Use of Force Philosophy Theory and Law\n\nIntroduction\nOne of the most contentious issues facing peace officers, including police, corrections and sheriffs, is\nthe use of force on citizens being arrested or citizens under an officer\xe2\x80\x99s custodial care. Officers who use\nforce are subject to scrutiny in the following ways:\n1. Court. In the courts (criminal and civil), officers who use force, where it is determined the\nforce is unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances, are subject to criminal charges\nor lawsuits in civil court. The force used by the officers does not have to result in injury to\nthe subject for charges or civil action to result. The key is if the use of force is determined to\nbe unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances. Charges in criminal court can range\nfrom first degree murder to assault. In civil court, officers may be held accountable for their\nactions and be found liable for the damages they have caused.\n2. Internal Investigations. Officers may be subject to investigations conducted by their own\npolice department\xe2\x80\x99s investigators within the department\xe2\x80\x99s professional standards unit. The\ninvestigation will determine whether a criminal offence has been committed, but also\nwhether the officer has breached the Police Act and/or departmental policy and procedures.\nWhen it has been determined that an officer has breached the Police Act or a departmental\npolicy, the consequences may range from a verbal reprimand to suspension to termination of\nemployment.\n3. Media Coverage. With the prevalence of cameras in the community, officers\xe2\x80\x99 actions will\noften be captured on video. Even the most legitimate use of force can appear to be ugly,\nunnecessary, overly violent, and troubling. Video coverage of a use of force event is often\nbiased and misrepresentative of the whole incident, or has been taken out of context. The\nNovember 6, 2014 incident, in which a Vancouver police officer broke a car window of a\nmotorist to arrest the driver, was portrayed as excessive use of force against a driver for a\ndriving violation. The police state that the window was broken after the driver failed to\ncomply with the officer, and the officer broke the window to allow him to make a drug arrest\nin a potentially dangerous situation. The depiction by the media was somewhat balanced,\nincluding views from the police. However, the dissenting view in the article suggested that\nthis type of action would eventually lead Canada to become a \xe2\x80\x98totalitarian\xe2\x80\x99 country. The\nofficer\xe2\x80\x99s picture was presented in the media, regardless of the final findings of the\ninvestigation into the levels of force the officer used. While media is an excellent vehicle for\naccountability, officers must be mindful that their actions will be publicized and ensure that\nthey appear in a positive light, exercising proper discretion, control, and minimal use of\nforce.\nOther Officers. Officers who use excessive force will often find themselves the subject of a complaint\nby another officer who witnessed the use of force action. Contrary to the perspective of many outsiders\nto law enforcement, officers will report and initiate a formal complaint against other officers who use\n72\n\n\x0c73 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nexcessive force. Instead of formally reporting the officer, other officers who witness excessive force may\nchoose not to work with the officer or advise other officers not to work with the officer. While this is\nnot a desirable outcome, officers using excessive force must be aware that other officers are scrutinizing\ntheir conduct, and that the repercussions can range from facing criminal charges to being ostracized.\n\nHistory of Force in a Sovereign State\nThe use of force is an unfortunate but necessary component of state governance. Without the ability of\nthe state to use force legitimately, the state would fall into anarchy or, as Hobbes suggests, a state of\nnature. Force should only be used by the state in a limited fashion and in limited circumstances. Max\nWeber observed that the state should be the only source that uses force legitimately, and that the use\nof force must be a tool available for the state to ensure it survives (Waters, 2015). Weber suggests that\nthere is a need for violence to be used against citizens periodically by the state in order for a sovereign\nstate to ensure order (Waters, 2015).\nNozick (1974) concurs, suggesting that the state must claim monopoly on the legitimate use of force\nand the ability to punish those who use force illegitimately. In the end, for a state to function, force is\nexpected to be used against the citizens of that state from time to time. The inevitable tension arises\nwhen trying to determine the actions that constitute legitimate force as opposed to illegitimate force.\nThe police use force at times as part of the social contract in which force is required to ensure peace.\nAs citizens, it is ironic that we expect the use of force to be used at times to ensure peace and keep\nus from a state of nature, however, we collectively agree that there are times in which force will be\nused against anyone who threatens the peace, or who has victimized someone else. The consequences\nof not allowing the government, and by extension the police, to create and execute laws, would be a\nsociety that would be, as Locke describes \xe2\x80\x9csolitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short\xe2\x80\x9d (Hobbes, 1950, p.\n104). However, the costs of the social contract can at times lead to abuse of authority, in which the\ncontract is abused on behalf of the government and police. Governments, and, in particular, the police\nare in a position under the social contract theory to abuse this trust under the guise of protecting society,\nand must be overseen by accountability measures to ensure that the force used is appropriate and not\nexcessive. Force, therefore, must be used against citizens only when appropriate and with the consent of\nsociety as a whole. In support of the notion of social contract theory, Sir Robert Peel\xe2\x80\x99s nine principles\ninclude the necessity to recognize that the use of force by the police is at times necessary. While Peel\xe2\x80\x99s\nidea was to have a non-military force keep public order, it was necessary to account for the need to use\nforce when necessary. Peel recognized that force must be a last resort, and used only to the minimum\nrequired to achieve police objectives.\nThe issue with Peel\xe2\x80\x99s ideas is the subjective nature determining the action considered minimal force.\nPolice officers in Canada differ from officers in the United States and the UK. Officers in the USA are\nconfronted on a daily basis with a culture that considers the second amendment (Amendment 11: \xe2\x80\x98A\nwell-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and\nbear arms, shall not be infringed\xe2\x80\x99) a sacred right. Interpretation of this amendment entitles Americans to\npossess firearms for lawful purpose. In the United States, gun possession is common, and police must\nbe mindful that many persons they deal with may be in possession of a gun. In the UK, gun ownership\nis uncommon, and police do not expect to encounter a person in possession of a gun; as a result, the\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 74\n\nlevel of force they use on a day-to-day basis is expected to be lower than that used by their American\ncounterparts.\nCanadian police officers\xe2\x80\x99 use of force would fall somewhere between the UK and the US. Canadian\npolice officers are required to be diligent when interacting with citizens, while remaining cognizant that\nthere are fewer guns in Canada than the US, but more than in the UK.\nIn using force, officers are provided with a range of tools that are at times controversial. Each of these\ntools must be used sparingly, and only when deemed necessary against subjects who pose threats to\nthemselves or others. Conducted energy weapons, more commonly referred to as Tasers, are an example\nof a weapon used by police officers that has garnered much controversy. The issue of \xe2\x80\x98creepage\xe2\x80\x99 is a\nconcern. This is the notion that, when officers are given and trained in a compliance tool, they tend to\nuse it too liberally, and only once there is official follow up in a judicial inquiry do they become more\njudicious in the use of the weapon. We also saw this happen when OC, or pepper spray, was introduced.\nThe use of such tools increases in frequency. This trend is prevalent, until there is official oversight\nadmonishing the liberal use of the tool. The use of Tasers, in cases in which the subject is not a threat\nto the officer or to another person, constitutes torture, as defined by UN Convention against Torture and\nOther Cruel, inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. As such, Tasers cannot be used to modify\nsubject behavior; for example, a Taser should not be used when a subject is loudly expressive and angry.\nOnly when the officer feels the subject is a threat and there are no other lesser means available should\nthe Taser be deployed.\nA police officer is inherently at risk of being the victim of violence, and the state has a responsibility to\nminimize the risk of violence. Likewise, police officers in democratic nations have rights as employees\nand as individuals, and as such they are entitled to do what they must to ensure their safety (Smith,\n2009).\nHicks (2004) further attributes the abilities of police in modern democracies to use lethal force as per\nthe ancient traditions of the \xe2\x80\x98Just War Doctrine\xe2\x80\x99 (jus ad bellum), which \xe2\x80\x9cwas utilized to draw a moral\nboundary between those wars deemed appropriate and necessary and those uses of force deemed morally\nreprehensible.\xe2\x80\x9d (Hicks,2004: 256). Nations considering waging a just war must abide by the following\ncriteria, according to Hicks (2004: 258):\n\xe2\x80\x98(a) competent authority, indicating the need for a sovereign entity to wage war versus a single\nindividual; (b) just cause, which incorporates the proportionality between the just cause and the means of\npursuing it; (c) just intent, of which the ultimate aim is peace; (d) last resort, indicating an absence of the\navailability of other means of resolving the conflict; and (e) reasonable hope of success, a requirement\nthat any morally just conflict must have a semblance of hope for achieving a peaceful resolution.\xe2\x80\x99\nThese criteria closely align with the use of force continuum developed within the use of force models\nthat officers in the USA must adhere to. Hicks (2004) feels that force is necessary only when it can be\nconsidered just, and thus provides the moral underpinnings that enable war. The requirements for a just\nwar are therefore similar in nature to use of force models that are used by police officers. While Canada\ndoes not have a Use of Force Continuum, Canada has a National Use of Force Framework that contains\nthe National Use of Force Model (graphic).\n\n\x0c75 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nUse of Force Theory and Background\nPolice officers in Canada have a common law duty to protect life and property. To fulfill this duty, they\nmust at times use force; to not use force to protect life is a dereliction of duty that may result in the officer\nbeing charged under the Police Act or under the Criminal Code. While the use of force is not expressly\nsanctioned under common law, it includes an understanding that force may at times be required.\nPolice officers in Canada are also authorized to use force by federal statute, provincial statute, and\ndepartmental policy and procedure. The theory of use of force is guided by the National Use of Force\nFramework.\n\nHistory\nGraphic models describing use of force by officers first began to appear in the 1970s in the United\nStates. These early models depicted a rather rigid, linear-progressive process, giving the impression that\nthe officer must exhaust all efforts at one level prior to being allowed to consider alternative options.\nA frequent criticism of these early models was that they did not accurately reflect the dynamic nature\nof potentially violent situations, in which the entire range of subject behaviour and police force options\nmust be constantly assessed throughout the course of the interaction.\nIn Canada, use of force models first began appearing in the 1980s. As part of a comprehensive use of\nforce strategy, Ontario developed a provincial use of force model in 1994; some provinces and the Royal\nCanadian Mounted Police followed suit shortly thereafter.\nIn 1999, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) endorsed an initiative involving a\nproposal to develop a national use of force model. In April of the same year, use of force experts and\ntrainers from across Canada met at the Ontario Police College to create one model encompassing the\nbest theory, research and practice for officers\xe2\x80\x99 use of force. The model would be dynamic, support officer\ntraining, and facilitate professional and public understanding of officer use of force.\n\nCore Values of the Use of Force Framework\nThe use of force framework revolves around a series of core principles with which all strategies, tactics\nand protocols must align. For example, any new tactic developed by use of force experts for officer\nsafety must align with these values. The following values form the framework of the use of force model:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The primary responsibility of a peace officer is to preserve and protect life.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The primary objective of any use of force is to ensure public safety.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Police officer safety is essential to public safety.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The National Use of Force Model does not replace or augment the criminal, civil and case\nlaw; the law speaks for itself.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The National Use of Force Model was constructed in consideration of (federal) statute law\nand current case law.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 76\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The National Use of Force Model is not intended to dictate policy to any agency.\nThe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly establishes that everyone has certain basic rights.\nEveryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof\nexcept in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Police officers are duty-bound to adhere\nto this Charter. However, to implement the mandate given to police officers within the limits set by law,\nit may become necessary for an officer, in some circumstances, to breach certain rights and individual\nliberties. Further, while engaged in the duties of policing, such as maintaining law and order, preventing\ncrime, and protecting the public and/or officers themselves, police officers may be called upon to use\nforce.\nCanadian Society specifically acknowledges that in certain circumstances police officers are justified,\non reasonable grounds, to use the appropriate level of necessary force in order to apply or execute the\nlaw. The officer is protected by law, as long as his or her actions are justifiable, and that the use of force\nremains in accordance with the law, human rights, professional ethics, and organizational and social\nvalues.\n\nThe National Use of Force Model\nThe National Use of Force Model (NUFM) was developed to assist in the training of police officers, and\nas a reference when making decisions and explaining officers\xe2\x80\x99 actions with respect to the use of force.\nThe model does not justify an officer\xe2\x80\x99s actions; rather it identifies to officers the steps they must take\nto ensure that the actions they take are appropriate and measured. The use of force model is a tool that\nassists officers in knowing what level of force is appropriate.\n\n\x0c77 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nSituation:\nWith every situation, an officer must do three things, before, during, and after the incident is concluded:\nAssess: The officer must consider all elements of the situation. He/she needs to know the nature of the\ncall, the suspect(s) involved, if he/she has backup available, what his/her physical abilities are, what the\nterrain at the location will be like, weather conditions, and so on.\nPlan: The officer must formulate an action plan, bearing in mind that all situations are dynamic\nand constantly changing. Remember, every action has a reaction, so contingency plans must also be\nconsidered.\nAct: Once on scene, the officer must put his/her plan into action.\nIt is important to remember that oftentimes officers must assess, plan, and act in a fraction of a second,\nas in the case of a spontaneous assault on the officer.\nSubject Behaviour\nThe level of force that officers use is contingent upon the subject\xe2\x80\x99s behavior. Subject behavior is\ncategorized in the following levels, ranging from complete cooperation to potentially lethal acts:\nCooperative: This type of subject is referred to as \xe2\x80\x9cyes people\xe2\x80\x9d because oftentimes seeing the police, or\na simple gesture or request to leave will achieve voluntary compliance.\nPassive Resistance: Subjects displaying this type of behavior do not do anything to hinder the police, but\nthey also do not do anything to help the police. They may simply become dead weight and are typically\nseen at sit-in type protests.\nActive Resistance: Subjects who actively resist will typically pull arms away from controlling officers,\nrun away, hold onto fixed objects, and brace themselves in doorways or \xe2\x80\x9cturtle\xe2\x80\x9d by pulling their arms\ninto their chest area, resisting officers\xe2\x80\x99 attempts to straighten the arms.\nAssaultive: Assaultive subjects will strike or kick at officers. They may spit, swear, or yell threats at\nofficers and display various pre-assaultive cues that signal a possible physical assault on the officer,\nincluding, but not limited to:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 ignoring the officer;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 repetitious questioning;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 aggressive verbalization;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 emotional venting;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 refusing to comply with lawful request;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 ceasing all movement;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 invasion of personal space;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 adopting an aggressive stance; and\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 78\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 hiding.\nGrievous Bodily Harm/Death: Subjects in this category are attacking the officer with intent to injure\nor kill the officer, with or without weapons. This is the highest and most dangerous level of subject\nbehavior and may result in the subject\xe2\x80\x99s death.\nResponse Options\nOfficers have five response options available to them. It is important to remember that, while these are\nnot levels of force, each category of response options has levels of force, ranging from implied to lethal\nforce.\nOfficer Presence: There are many elements of officer presence, including the officer\xe2\x80\x99s appearance\nin uniform, his/her perceived level of fitness, size, sex, number of officers, available equipment,\netc. Included in this category are perception (all officers see a given situation uniquely) and tactical\nconsiderations (any available options to confront the situation, see below).\nCommunication: This category includes verbal and non-verbal communication; once the communication\ncommences, it should continue throughout the incident.\nPhysical Control: Physical control is sub-divided into two categories: soft and hard. Soft physical\ncontrol includes joint locks and manipulations, and takedowns. Hard physical control techniques\ninclude strikes, stuns, kicks, and neck restraints. All techniques in this category are typically performed\nwith empty hands, and were formerly referred to as Empty Hand Control Tactics. These techniques\nrange from implied to deadly force in context.\nIntermediate Weapons: These \xe2\x80\x9cgadgets\xe2\x80\x9d that are available to police officers include: Conducted Energy\nWeapons, OC Sprays and other chemical agents, batons, impact energy weapons (ARWEN, bean bag,\netc.), vehicles, weapons of opportunity, noise/flash diversionary devices, and the list goes on. As with\nother response options, levels of force in this category range from implied to deadly force.\nLethal Force: This category includes all of the other options available in the preceding categories, as\nwell as the various firearms available to the police.\n\nPerception and Tactical Considerations\nPerception and Tactical Considerations are two separate factors that may affect the officer\xe2\x80\x99s overall\nassessment. Because they are viewed as interrelated, they are graphically represented in the same area\non the model. They should be thought of as a group of conditions that mediate between the inner two\ncircles (Subject Behavior and Response Options) and the responses available to the officer.\nThe mediating effect of the Perception and Tactical Considerations circle explains why two officers\nmay respond differently to the same situation and subject. This is because tactical considerations\nand perceptions may vary significantly from officer to officer and/or agency to agency. Two officers,\nboth faced with the same tactical considerations, may assess the situation differently and therefore\nrespond differently, because they possess different personal traits or have dissimilar agency policies or\n\n\x0c79 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nguidelines. Each officer\xe2\x80\x99s perception will directly impact their own assessment and subsequent selection\nof tactical considerations and/or their own use of force options.\nPerception\nHow an officer sees or perceives a situation is, in part, a function of the personal characteristics he or she\nbrings to the situation. These personal characteristics affect the officer\xe2\x80\x99s beliefs concerning his or her\nability to deal with the situation. For various reasons, one officer may be confident in his or her ability\nto deal with the situation, and the resulting assessment will reflect this fact. In contrast to this, another\nofficer, for equally legitimate reasons, may feel that the situation is more threatening and demands a\ndifferent response. The following list includes factors unique to the individual officer, which interact\nwith situational and behavioral factors to affect how the officer perceives and ultimately assesses and\nresponds to a situation.\nFactors that may be unique to the individual officer include but are not limited to:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 strength/overall fitness;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 personal experience;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 skill/ability/training;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 fears;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 gender;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 fatigue;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 injuries;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 critical incident stress symptoms;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 cultural background; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 sight/vision.\n\nTactical Considerations\nAn officer\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of a situation may lead to one of the following tactical considerations.\nConversely, these same factors may impact an officer\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of a situation.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 disengage and consequences**;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 officer appearance;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 uniform and equipment;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 number of officers;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 availability of backup;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 availability of cover;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 geographic considerations;\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 80\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 practicality of containment, distance, communications;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 agency policies and guidelines; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 availability of special units and equipment: canine, tactical, helicopter, crowd management\nunit, command post, etc.\n** Note: An officer\xe2\x80\x99s primary duty is to protect life and preserve the peace, however, when a situation\nescalates dangerously or when the consequences of continued police intervention seriously increase\ndanger to anyone, the option to disengage may be considered appropriate. It is also recognized that,\ndue to insufficient time and distance or the nature of the situation, the option to disengage may be\nprecluded. If the officer determines the option to disengage to be tactically appropriate, the officer may\nconsider disengagement with the goal of containment and consideration of other options such as seeking\nalternative cover, waiting for back-up, specialty units, etc.\nThe National Use of Force Model (NUFM) represents the process by which an officer assesses, plans\nand responds to situations that threaten public and officer safety. The assessment process begins in the\ncenter of the model with the Situation confronting the officer. From there, the assessment process moves\noutward and addresses the Subject Behavior and the officer\xe2\x80\x99s Perceptions and Tactical Considerations.\nBased on the officer\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of the conditions represented by these inner circles, the officer selects\nfrom the use of force Response Options contained within the model\xe2\x80\x99s outer circle. After the officer\nchooses a response option s/he must continue to Assess, Plan and Act to determine if his or her actions\nare appropriate and/or effective, or if a new strategy should be selected. The whole process should be\nseen as dynamic and constantly evolving until the Situation is brought under control.\nAuthority to use force separates law enforcement officials from other members of society, and the\nreasonable use of force is central to every officer\xe2\x80\x99s duties. The National Use of Force Model provides a\nframework that guides the officer in that duty.\n\nRisk Assessment\nAn officer uses a risk assessment process to choose a response option. In order to choose the appropriate\nlevel of force for the situation before them, an officer must continue risk assessment throughout the\nsituation. Observing only the demonstrated behavior of the subject and any related threat cues may not\nalways be enough to justify using a particular level of force. There may be other times when valuable\nrisk assessment information can be gathered and analyzed, prior to responding.\nStages of Risk Assessment\nRisk Assessment should include two factors that officers must take into consideration:\n1. The likelihood someone or something might be hurt or damaged.\n2. Whether the police officer should intervene given the seriousness of the harm or damage that\nappeared imminent.\n\n\x0c81 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nThese are often difficult decisions, and the more adept the officer is at assessing risk, the more readily\nand appropriately they will respond under urgent circumstances.\nAssessing the risk the officer may be exposed to during a call may begin very early in the evolution of\nthe call.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The officer should gather as much information as possible when the call is first received.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The who, what, when, where and why of the call.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Continue while enroute to the call.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Upon arrival at the scene.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 During the officer\xe2\x80\x99s approach while at the scene.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 While entering onto the immediate scene.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 While in the interior of the scene.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 While exiting the scene.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 While handling prisoners at the scene and in a jail setting.\nThe officer\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of the risk will constantly evolve as more information is received. The closer\nto the scene the officer gets, the better their assessment may be. While on scene they must continue to\nassess the risk. If they have controlled the risk, they must maintain control with the effective method.\nThey must not afford the subject the opportunity to re-escalate. Even while exiting the scene, the officers\nshould monitor the possible risks that may occur from bystanders or associates. In some instances, the\nofficer(s) may be afforded very little initial risk assessment information. Spontaneous attacks, by their\nnature, afford the officers very little initial risk assessment opportunities.\n\nLegal Justification for the Use of Force\nOfficers may have plenty of operational discretion, however in use of force, discretion is limited by the\ncriminal code. An officer\xe2\x80\x99s ethical values, in relation to use of force, must closely align with the criminal\ncode and the legal parameters set out. If the officer\xe2\x80\x99s values do not align, the officer is destined for either\nlegal consequences for excessive use of force or injury for not using the appropriate level of force. The\nlaw is very clear regarding the limits placed on an officer\xe2\x80\x99s use of force and the legal consequences for\nofficers who use excessive force. The use of force must satisfy the following two tests. It must be:\n1. Subjectively reasonable (based on the officer\xe2\x80\x99s genuine thoughts, feelings and beliefs). Here\nthe officer is given some leeway, in that they may have mistakenly used force against an\nunarmed subject in the belief that the subject was armed. This may be because the subject\nappeared to be reaching for a gun in their pocket after acting in a suspicious manner. The\ncourts may believe that this was subjectively reasonable.\n2. Objectively reasonable (facts that would convince an ordinary reasonable person that the\nofficer acted reasonably). Here the courts may compare the officer against what would be\nexpected of a reasonable person. In this way the courts determine whether or not the actions\nare consistent with those of a reasonable person.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 82\n\nWhat the courts actually require is for judges to apply the \xe2\x80\x9cdoppelganger test.\xe2\x80\x9d Here, a judge will \xe2\x80\x9cgo\xe2\x80\x9d\nwith the officer from the time the officer was first sent to the place where the incident took place, and\nconsider that officer\xe2\x80\x99s training and experience, to determine if the officer acted reasonably. The judge\nmust then consider what a reasonable officer with the same training and experience as the officer who\ntook action would have done. This is significantly different from a judge considering what he or she\nwould have done.\nThe discretion police have regarding the use of force is controlled by law. The primary authorization in\nlaw that allows police officers to legally use force on a person is contained in Section 25 of the Criminal\nCode. It reads as follows:\n25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or\nenforcement of the law\n(a) as a private person,\n(b) as a peace officer or public officer,\n(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or\n(d) by virtue of his office,\nis, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in\nusing as much force as is necessary for that purpose.\n(2) Where a person is required or authorized by law to execute a process or to carry out a sentence,\nthat person or any person who assists him is, if that person acts in good faith, justified in executing the\nprocess or in carrying out the sentence notwithstanding that the process or sentence is defective or that\nit was issued or imposed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.\n(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using\nforce that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm [1] (Grievous bodily harm\nmeans serious hurt or pain. In determining a defense under this section the jury must be directed to the\ncircumstances as they existed at the time that the force was used, keeping in mind that the officer could\nnot be expected to measure the force used with exactitude) unless the person believes on reasonable\ngrounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under\nthat person\xe2\x80\x99s protection from death or grievous bodily harm.\n(4) A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that\nis intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, if\n(a) the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;\n(b) the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without\nwarrant;\n(c) the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;\n(d) the peace officer or other person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the force is\nnecessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer\nor any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; and\n\n\x0c83 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\n(e) the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.\n(5) A peace officer is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily\nharm against an inmate who is escaping from a penitentiary within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the\nCorrections and Conditional Release Act, if\n(a) the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that any of the inmates of the penitentiary poses a\nthreat of death or grievous bodily harm to the peace officer or any other person; and\n(b) the escape cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.\nPolice officers are required to discharge various duties authorized by legislation, such as preserving life\nand protecting property, preserving the peace, enforcing the law and preventing crime. Under Section\n25(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, police must satisfy three elements to justify the use of force:\n1. Be \xe2\x80\x9crequired or authorized\xe2\x80\x9d by law to do \xe2\x80\x9canything\xe2\x80\x9d in the \xe2\x80\x9cadministration or enforcement\xe2\x80\x9d\nof the law.\n2. The police officer must act on reasonable grounds.\n3. The police officer can only use \xe2\x80\x9cas much force as is necessary\xe2\x80\x9d for the purpose in question.\nAdditionally, the Criminal Code contains the following sections dealing with the use of force, not only\nby peace officers, but also by members of the public:\nSection 27 \xe2\x80\x93 Prevention of a crime\nSection 30 \xe2\x80\x93 Prevention of a breach of the peace\nSection 31 \xe2\x80\x93 Actual breach of peace\nSection 32 \xe2\x80\x93 Suppressing a riot\nSection 34 \xe2\x80\x93 Self-defense against an unprovoked assault\nSection 35 \xe2\x80\x93 Self-defense in case of aggression (property)\nSection 43 \xe2\x80\x93 Correction of a child by force\nSection 45 \xe2\x80\x93 Surgical operations\nWhen considering if the use of force can be justified under law, legal and effective methods of force\noccur when:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 the method is reasonable;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 it is necessary; and\n\xe2\x80\xa2 it is not overly aggressive under the circumstances presented.\nIn order for police to use force to control a subject, three elements MUST exist.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 84\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 A \xe2\x80\x93 Did the suspect have or reasonably appear to have the ABILITY to cause injury or death\nto the officer or others?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 I \xe2\x80\x93 Did the suspect demonstrate INTENT? Did words and/or actions lead the officer to\nbelieve the suspect had the intent to cause injury or death to the officer or others?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 M \xe2\x80\x93 Did the suspect have the MEANS to deliver the perceived threat?\nIf the suspect demonstrates the above noted elements, the officer is justified in using the force option\nmost appropriate to control the suspect. There are several considerations that a police officer must be\naware of when controlling the suspect, such as:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was there a lower level of force available to gain control?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did or could the officer identify he or she as a police officer?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did or could the officer provide the suspect(s) the opportunity to de\xe2\x80\x91escalate his/her level of\nresistance towards the officer? (A warning) There is an onus on the officer, if the situation\nallows, to provide the opportunity to de\xe2\x80\x91escalate. If the suspect de\xe2\x80\x91escalates, the member\nmust de-escalate their use of force.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer identify the proper risk before intervening accordingly?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was the subject isolated? What would the officer hit if the officer missed the suspect?\nIf the officer(s) involved cannot reasonably articulate the reason(s) for their use of force actions, Section\n26 of the Criminal Code (excessive force) may apply:\n26. Everyone who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof,\naccording to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.\n\nTheory Meets Practice and Case Law \xe2\x80\x93 Subject Behaviour\nSubject behavior can be displayed overtly through physical acts of aggression and/or violence toward\nothers, or covertly through gestures, changes in posture, verbal statements, states of intoxication,\ninattentiveness, feigned compliance, and the list goes on.\nA guiding principle in the use of force that officers follow when classifying subject behavior is that if\nthe officer detects two or more pre-assaultive cues, the officer can intervene with force prior to an overt\nphysical assault by the subject. To justify his/her actions as self defense in a civil action, the officer must\nprove two elements:\n1. The circumstances warranted defensive action.\n2. That the force used was not excessive.\nWhen judging the level of force used by an officer, case law anticipates that the use of force is not to\nbe measured to a \xe2\x80\x9cnicety\xe2\x80\x9d and that reasonableness \xe2\x80\x9cfails to be determined in light of the circumstances\nand not through the lens of hindsight\xe2\x80\x9d. What this means is that hindsight is not to be used by the trier\nof fact in determining the reasonableness of an officer\xe2\x80\x99s use of force. While these are both important\n\n\x0c85 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\npoints, special consideration ought to be given to the second point. Those who will judge the use of\nforce actions of the police: lawyers, judges, supervisors, media, peers, family, and the public \xe2\x80\x93 generally\nforget or simply are not aware of this standard. This can be referred to as the \xe2\x80\x9cwould have, could have,\nshould have\xe2\x80\x9d principle.\nWe see the hindsight principle being abused more and more with the availability of video recordings.\nMembers involved in force-related incidents usually provide duty reports and/or statements without the\nbenefit of having seen video of the incident, and they are only required to answer questions about their\nactions and corresponding statements during a frame-by-frame review and analysis of the video. Often\nthe first opportunity for officers to see the video is at trial, and their testimony may conflict with their\ninitial reports and statements.\nIn a recent report published in the Force Science News, Dr. Bill Lewinski asserts that officers should be\nallowed to review video footage of their critical incident and conduct a walk-through of the scene prior\nto giving their official statement of account. Lewinski says, \xe2\x80\x9cAfter a high-stress experience, such as a\nmajor force confrontation, an officer\xe2\x80\x99s memory of what happened is likely to be fragmentary at best,\xe2\x80\x9d\nand added, \xe2\x80\x9cAn incident is never completely recorded in memory.\xe2\x80\x9d\nAccording to Dr. Lewinski\xe2\x80\x99s research into force-related encounters and memory recall, \xe2\x80\x9cThe average\nperson will actually miss a large amount of what happened in a stressful event and, of course, will be\ncompletely unaware of what they did not pay attention to and commit to memory.\xe2\x80\x9d\nCompounding the problem, a participant or witness, \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6may unintentionally add information in their\nreport that was not actually part of the original incident,\xe2\x80\x9d Lewinski explained \xe2\x80\x93 not in a plot to deceive,\nbut rather in a humanly instinctive effort to fill in frustrating memory gaps.\nTiming of the interview is a major factor because an officer\xe2\x80\x99s version of an incident will vary, depending\non whether his/her statement is taken before, after, or without a walk-through or a viewing of a videotape\nof the incident. The most enriched, complete, and factually accurate version of a high-stress encounter\nis most likely to occur after a walk-through and/or after the officer has had at least one opportunity to\nview an available video of the incident.\xe2\x80\x9d\nIdeally, Lewinski believes, a video review should be permitted before an involved officer gives his/her\nofficial statement.\nDr. Lewinski cautions that relying solely on video of a critical incident may be misleading. He cited the\nfollowing reasons to support his research conclusions:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Video cameras generally record only a portion of an incident and are bereft of the context of\nthe event.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Video is a 2-dimensional representation of an incident from a particular perspective and tends\nto distort distance and other aspects associated with depth of field.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Generally, video does not faithfully record light levels and does not represent what a human\nbeing in the incident would perceive.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 A video does not present the incident as viewed through the officer\xe2\x80\x99s eyes.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Video cameras recording at less than 10 frames per second can leave out significant aspects\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 86\n\nof an incident that occur at speeds faster than that.\n\nAllowances for Misconceptions\nPolice officers arresting a suspect are even afforded the privilege of misjudging the degree of force\nnecessary to affect their purpose during the exigencies of the moment. It has also been determined in\ncase law that it is both unreasonable and unrealistic for officers to use the least amount of force which\nmight successfully achieve their objective, as this would result in unnecessary danger to the officer(s)\nand others. Case law confirms that injuries suffered by subjects as a result of a peace officer\xe2\x80\x99s use of\nforce do not necessarily establish the use of excessive force.\nThe use of force is to be judged on a subjective-objective basis. Police actions should not be judged\nagainst a standard of perfection, but according to the circumstances as they existed at the time that the\nforce was used.\n\nUse of Force on Persons Held in Custody\nAs long as the force is reasonably necessary, a constable holding a person in custody is legally authorized\nto use force to the same extent as a constable who seeks to place a person in custody.\nAn officer acting on reasonable grounds who is charged with maintaining lawful custody of a subject\nmay use force to return that subject to their cell if they refuse to comply with the operation procedures\nof the prison.\n\nAuthorization for Use of Mechanical Restraints\nA peace officer who lawfully arrests a subject is entitled to secure his/her prisoner using mechanical\nrestraints to handcuff or bind the subject. The restraint must be performed reasonably and the officer(s)\ninvolved must articulate their reasons for the use of restraints.\n\nSupreme Court\nRecently, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Wood versus Shaeffer (2013 SCC71), ruled that a police\nofficer\xe2\x80\x99s notes are to be written immediately after the incident and without discussion with a lawyer.\nSupreme Court Justice Michael Moldaver, on behalf of the majority residing justices, wrote:\nPermitting officers to consult with counsel before preparing their notes runs the risk that the focus of the\nnotes will shift away from the officer\xe2\x80\x99s public duty toward his or her private interest in justifying what\nhas taken place. This shift would not be in accord with the officer\xe2\x80\x99s duty.\nApplying the SCC rationale in BC, it appears that this decision prevents officers from specifically\ndemanding a right to counsel prior to completing their notes, particularly as there is no specific statutory\n\n\x0c87 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\nentitlement to counsel during a professional standards investigation interview (in BC). However; the\nSCC ruling specifically states:\nnothing \xe2\x80\xa6 prevents officers who have been involved in traumatic incidents from speaking to doctors,\nmental health professionals, or uninvolved senior police officers before they write their notes.\n\nArticulation of the Use of Force\nThere are seven crucial elements that an officer who is involved in a use of force encounter should record\nin their notes. Each element has several questions that must be addressed objectively to fully assist in\narticulating the use of force. They include:\n1. Scope of Employment\nOne of the basic points that must be proven by officers involved in a force-related incident is whether\nor not they were in the lawful execution of their duty and had reasonable grounds to arrest or detain the\nsubject(s) implicated. If excessive force can be proven, the officer\xe2\x80\x99s actions can be considered illegal,\nand s/he could be liable for criminal and/or civil litigation and/or disciplinary action under the Police\nAct. Therefore, it is important that the involved officer(s) clearly articulate their reasonable grounds for\ncontacting the subject and their use of force.\nThe following questions should be considered by the involved officer(s):\nWhat was the work assignment?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What was the date, time, and location of the incident?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Were they in uniform (describe: Patrol, ERT, K9, etc.) or plain clothes (describe)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Where were they when dispatched to the incident?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What was the nature of the assignment or on-view activity of related persons?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What were they told and by whom?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What did they observe?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What was their role in the incident and who assigned them that role?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Who reported the incident and what did they report?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did they identify themselves as a police officer?\n2. Severity of the Crime\nIt is important that an officer have all the vital information about the severity of the crime to enable\na safe and proper approach to the scene. To properly assess the reasonableness of an officer\xe2\x80\x99s actions\nin a force-related encounter, it is necessary to articulate what was known at the time of the incident.\nLikewise, if the offence is minor in nature, the officer should consider the ramifications of using force\nfor a minor infraction.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 88\n\nThe following questions should be considered by the involved officer(s):\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What specific subject behavior was observed?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What were they told that led them to believe a crime was about to occur or had occurred?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What were the elements of the crime?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If the alleged crime was violent in nature, what threat did they perceive to the officer or\nothers?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Prior to the actual use of force, were they aware if the subject had a history of violence or\nweapons?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, how did they learn this information (history with the subject, dispatch, other officers,\netc.)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did they believe that the subject had access to weapons?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, how was this determined?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Were the subject\xe2\x80\x99s actions or behavior connected to criminal activity?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Were there reasonable grounds to believe that the subject\xe2\x80\x99s actions posed a real threat of\nGrievous Bodily Harm or Death to the officer or another?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, how was this determined?\n3. Level of Force Used\nThe level of force used by a police officer must be subjectively and objectively reasonable. Whenever\nreportable force is used by an officer, it must be thoroughly documented in the officer\xe2\x80\x99s notebook.\nOfficers are also obligated to complete a report called a \xe2\x80\x98Subject Behavior \xe2\x80\x93 Officer Response Report\xe2\x80\x99.\nThe following questions should be considered by the involved officer(s):\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What was the specific type and amount of force used?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Why?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer have other reasonable force options available?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer try these other reasonable force options?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If not, why were they not tried?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Specifically, what did the subject do that caused the officer to use force?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Once under control, did the officer handcuff the subject?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did another officer assist in the use of force, or after the force was used?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, who?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Were the handcuffs double-locked to prevent tightening?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Who double-locked the handcuffs?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer tell the subject that s/he was under arrest?\n\n\x0c89 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If not, who did?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer know the subject was lawfully arrestable?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 How did the subject refuse to submit to the arrest?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer use special restraints to control the subject after arrest?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, what were they?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Is the officer trained in that specific restraint device?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, how recently was the officer certified and by whom?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If not, what were the exigent circumstances that prompted the officer to choose that restraint\ndevice?\n4. Warnings\nWarnings are considered an alarm, signal or admonition of a person to stop what is presumed to be\nunlawful or unwanted behavior. Warnings are reasonable and, when appropriate and reasonable to do so,\nshould be given to subjects and by-standers.\nThe following questions should be considered by the involved officer(s):\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was a warning given?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Provide a description of the specific warning (to whom, how many times, specifics, etc.).\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer attempt Crisis Intervention De-escalation (CID) Techniques?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If yes, what was the degree of effectiveness?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If no, why not?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was the officer\xe2\x80\x99s warning consistent with department policy?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Were there any known barriers to the subject\xe2\x80\x99s understanding of the warning (language,\nhearing loss, background noise, etc.)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was the warning tape recorded?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Were other officers aware of the officer\xe2\x80\x99s warning?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was the officer aware of other officers\xe2\x80\x99 warnings?\n5. Nature of the Crime\nIn order to show that the officer\xe2\x80\x99s level of force was subjectively and objectively reasonable, the officer\nmust articulate what he or she knew at the time of the force-related encounter, based on the totality of the\ncircumstances. The officer\xe2\x80\x99s state of mind and facts that were perceived, known, or told to the officer\nare important. The nature of crime dictates the appropriate force response option.\nThe following questions should be considered by the involved officer(s):\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Is the location of the force-related encounter described as a business, residential area, park,\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 90\n\nschool, open area or another type?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What were the environmental conditions in the area at the time of the force-related encounter\n(weather, lighting, footing, terrain, background noise, other parties present, etc.)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was the area of the force-related incident considered to be a high crime area?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Can this be corroborated?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 How many subjects were involved in the incident?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer know the subject(s)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 How did the officer know the subject(s)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was the officer aware of or did he or she suspect the presence of weapons at the scene?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What was the known or suspected crime the officer was investigating?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was it a violent crime?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was anyone injured?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, who, how, and can the officer describe the severity of the injury?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was the suspect armed, suspected of being armed or known to be prone to violence?\n6. Officer\xe2\x80\x99s State of Mind\nUnder current Canadian law, the officer\xe2\x80\x99s use of force is not to be judged with the benefit of 20/\n20 hindsight, but on the totality of the circumstances of the incident, using the objective standard\nand including the facts that would convince an ordinary, reasonable person that the officer acted\nappropriately. Finally, the officer can only use information known to the officer prior to the officer\xe2\x80\x99s use\nof force in the officer\xe2\x80\x99s articulation of the why the officer did what the officer did.\nThe following questions should be considered by the involved officer(s):\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What training relevant to the scope of the officer\xe2\x80\x99s duties (including this incident response)\ndid the officer receive?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Describe any similar experiences the officer has had that can relate to the officer\xe2\x80\x99s response\nto this incident.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer identify themselves as a police officer?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Provide details of why the officer felt threatened, fearful and that the officer\xe2\x80\x99s safety or that\nof others was in jeopardy.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer see a weapon?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 How many subjects were present?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What led the officer to believe that the subject(s) posed a threat of Grievous Bodily Harm or\nDeath to the officer or others (known, perceived, learned)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What was the subject\xe2\x80\x99s state of mind?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the subject appear to be under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both?\n\n\x0c91 Chapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the subject appear to be an Emotionally Disturbed Person (EDP)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the subject appear to be in a state of Excited Delirium (ExDS)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What was the subject\xe2\x80\x99s sex, perceived age, physical size, and perceived abilities (martial arts,\nmilitary, etc.)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 According to the National Use of Force Model, what subject behaviors were demonstrated\n(Cooperative, Passive Resistance, Active Resistance, Assaultive, Grievous Bodily Harm or\nDeath)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Explain the noted behavior(s) in detail.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the subject(s) pose a tactical advantage that adversely affected the officer\xe2\x80\x99s or another\nperson\xe2\x80\x99s safety?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What force options did the officer employ to resolve the situation?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 For each force option used, can the officer describe the effect(s) on the subject(s)?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was tactical repositioning considered or employed?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If not, why?\n7. Medical Care\nAny subject that is injured as a result of an officer\xe2\x80\x99s intervention using force has the absolute right\nto medical assessment and treatment, when it is safe and reasonable to provide it. Simply, the officer\nhas a duty to care for those under the officer\xe2\x80\x99s control. The officer should report and document all\ncircumstances surrounding the need for medical care of the subject(s) as a result of the force-related\nencounter.\nThe following questions should be considered by the involved officer(s):\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer receive any injuries attributable to the force-related encounter?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Who caused the injuries?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What is the nature and extent of the officer\xe2\x80\x99s injuries?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer require medical treatment or hospitalization for injuries?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was the officer aware of any subject injuries prior to the officer\xe2\x80\x99s use of force?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, what was the nature and extent of the injuries?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Did the officer\xe2\x80\x99s application of force result in any injury to the subject?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, which force option?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What was the nature and extent of the injuries caused by the officer\xe2\x80\x99s application of force?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Once the subject(s) and scene were under control, were the injured parties provided first aid?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was PAS summoned?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, by whom?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Is the officer aware whether anyone else was injured as a result of the subject\xe2\x80\x99s actions?\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 92\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, what was the nature and extent of the injuries?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Was PAS summoned?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 If so, by whom?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Who, if any, of the injured parties went to the hospital?\nConclusion\nThe detail that officers are required to use to articulate their use of force is extensive. In the past, legal\ncounsel was provided to police prior to providing written details of the force-related incident. According\nto the Supreme Court of Canada, police are no longer afforded this opportunity.\nOfficers employing force on subjects resulting in serious injury will experience a great deal of mental\ntrauma. Care should be taken that the involved officers provide detailed notes and duty reports that fully\narticulate the nature and scope of the incident and their reasonable attempts at a non-violent resolution.\nIn some cases, a non-violent resolution cannot be achieved; it is for these situations that this guide is\nintended.\nAbove all, remember that if the officer has been involved in a traumatic incident, nothing prevents the\nofficer from speaking to doctors, mental health professionals, or uninvolved senior police officers before\nthe officer writes their notes.\nMedia Attributions\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The National Use of Force Model \xc2\xa9 the RCMP Use of the Conducted Energy Weapon\n(CEW) report is a copy of the version available at https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/archivedrcmp-use-conducted-energy-weapon-cew#figure1.\n\n\x0cReferences\n\nAllarie v. Victoria (City), (1995) 1 W.W.R. 655 at 661 (B.C.S.C.)\nBerntt v. Vancouver (City), (1997) 4 W.W.R. 505, 28 B.C.L.R. (3d)203, 33 C.C.L.T. (2d) 1 (S.C.)\nBox, S. (2008). Crime, power and ideological mystification. In E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie and G. Hughes\n(eds) Criminological perspectives: Essential readings, (pp. 271 \xe2\x80\x93 284). Sage Publishing.\nCeyssens, P., (1999), Legal aspects of policing, (pp. 3-39 \xe2\x80\x93 3-40.). Earlscourt Legal Press, Inc.\nColeman, S. (2004). When police should say no to gratuities. Criminal Justice Ethics, 23(1), 33-43.\nhttps://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2004.9992159\nForce Science Institute, (2009) Should officers see video of their encounters? Force Science states its\ncase, Force Science Institute. Retrieved from https://www.forcescience.org/2009/01/should-officers-seevideo-of-their-encounters/\nFoster v. Pawsey (1980), 28 N.B.R. (2d) 334 at 63 A.P.R. 334 at 345 (Q.B.)\nHache\xe2\x80\x99 v. Tourville, (1994) 145 N.B.R. (2d) 95, 372 A.P.R. 95\nHicks, W. L. (2004). Constraints in the police use of force: Implications so the just war\ntradition. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(2). 255-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885875\nHobbes, T. (1950). Leviathan. E. P. Dutton.\nHoffman, R., Lawrence, C., & Brown, G. (2004) Canada\xe2\x80\x99s national use-of-force framework for police\nofficers. Police Chief Magazine. https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/canadas-national-use-of-force/\nKania, R. (1998). Should we tell the police to say \xe2\x80\x9cyes\xe2\x80\x9d to gratuities? Criminal Justice Ethics 7(2),\n37-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.1988.9991839\nJustice Institute of British Columbia, (n. d.) Police academy, red book: Use of force training.\nManning, P. (2010). The police: mandate, strategies and appearances. In T. Newburn (Ed.), T. Newburn,\nPolicing: Key readings. Willan Publishing.\nNozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Prentice Hall.\nPedersen v. Hansen, (1963) 2 C.C.C. 348\nPollock, J. (2007). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.\nRawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.\n93\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 94\n\nReiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police. Oxford University Press.\nRobinow v. Vancouver (City), (2003) B.C.J. No. 989 at para. 71 (QL) (S.C)\nR. v. Bottrell (1981), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211, 22 C.R. (3d) 371 (B.C.C.A.)\n\nR. v. Bottrell (1981), 60 C.C.C. (2d) 211 at 218, 22 C.R. (3d) 371 at 380 (B.C.C.A.)\nR. v. Cline (1991), 2 W.A.C. 4, 117 A.R. 4 (C.A.)\nR. v. Cunningham and Ritchie (1979), 49 C.C.C. (2d) 390 (Man. Co. Ct.)\nR. v. Devereaux (1996), 112 C.C.C. (3d) 243, 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 108 (Nfld C.A.)\nR. v. Moffitt, (1984) N.W.T.R. 313 (S.C.)\nR. v. Nasogaluak, (2010) 1 S.C.R. 206, 251 C.C.C. (3d) 293\nSmith, R. (2009). Police, the public, \xe2\x80\x98less lethal force\xe2\x80\x99 and suspects: Deconstructing the human rights\narguments. The Police Journal, 82(3), 194\xe2\x80\x93211. https://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2009.82.3.445\nTrepasso v. Police Complaints Commissioner, Ont. Div. Ct., 14 March 1995\nWeber, M. (2015). Politics as a vocation. In T. Waters & D. Waters (Eds. & Trans.), Weber\xe2\x80\x99s Rationalism\nand Modern Society. Palgrave MacMillan\nWeber, M. (1919). Politics as a Vocation.\n\n\x0cChapter 5: Accountability and Investigation\n\n95\n\n\x0c5.1 Autonomy and Accountability\n\nThe police must remain autonomous and free from the influence of government and mass media.\nLaw enforcement executives should not be forced into decisions based upon the dictates of a mayor,\npremier, prime minister, or the media. Law enforcement executives should remain autonomous and\nconcern themselves with the effective and efficient operation of their agencies to achieve an ethical\nlaw enforcement agency with high standards and values. Likewise, officers on the line must remain\nimpartial, and, in doing so, should avoid comment on political and judicial matters. This does not mean\nthat officers do not have the right to comment like everyone else, but that their comments should not be\nmade in their capacity as police officers.\nWhile the independence of law enforcement is important, oversight of law enforcement is also crucial.\nOversight includes ensuring agencies are accountable to the public for resource allocation, are fiscally\nresponsible, and have law enforcement policies and procedures. Law enforcement agencies must balance\nthe need for accountability with the need for independence, but doing so can create tension. According\nto Reiner (2010) there are four ways in which law enforcement is held accountable:\n1. Officers are charged and prosecuted for crimes (under the Criminal Code or the Police Act).\n2. Officers are held civilly liable in court.\n3. Judges ruling on cases find the evidence brought before them is as inadmissible.\n4. Judicial review of policy forces changes upon the police.\nGriffiths (2013, p.58) further identifies six processes that hold police accountable in Canada:\n1. Political accountability to governing authorities\n2. Legal accountability through the courts\n3. Accountability to administrative agencies\n4. Freedom of information legislation\n5. Community policing committees\n6. Special ad hoc mechanisms such as royal commissions\nIn cases that may not warrant a criminal investigation, police officers in British Columbia are governed\nby statutes. In British Columbia, municipal police officers are governed by the Police Act and RCMP\nofficers are governed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Offences alleged under these acts\nare often investigated by police officers in their own agencies. For more serious and/or high-profile\ncases, police officers from other agencies may conduct the investigations. These are known as internal\ninvestigations, professional standards investigations, or police act investigations.\nThese specialized investigations are conducted by units within departments, which are often referred to\nas Professional Standards Units.\n96\n\n\x0c5.2 British Columbia\xe2\x80\x99s Police Act\n\nIn British Columbia, the Police Act allows for complaints against municipal police officers to be made\ndirectly by an aggrieved party or by a complainant who is acting as a third party. The latter, called a thirdparty complaint, allows a person who is otherwise uninvolved in the incident to make a complaint. The\nrationale is to protect those people who have been victimized by police who do not want to complain (or\nare not capable of doing so) to be safeguarded. The third-party complaint rule essentially protects those\nwho do not complain, and in doing so allows for the investigation of officers whose unethical conduct\nmay have otherwise gone uninvestigated.\nComplaints about police misconduct under the Police Act must be related to the following:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Allegations of misconduct by individual police members\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Complaints concerning various aspects of the administration of a municipal police\ndepartment\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Matters that concern the maintenance of discipline within a police department and that do not\ndirectly impact the public\nThe nature of the allegations against police officers under the Police Act is varied; however, two\ncomplaint types that face police officers are corruption and breach of public trust.\nCorruption as defined by the Police Act includes such things as not promptly returning money or\nproperty while performing one\xe2\x80\x99s duty; using or attempting to use the position of police officer for\npersonal gain; and using or attempting to use equipment or facilities for purposes unrelated to duty.\nBreach of public trust encompasses a wide range of activities that are used as a \xe2\x80\x9ccatch-all.\xe2\x80\x9d When an\nofficer engages in behaviour that is unethical, but not against the Criminal Code or other legislation\nunder which civilians would be charged, the officer can be charged under the Police Act. Charges can be\nbrought against an officer for unethical activities such as:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Anything that discredits the reputation of the member\xe2\x80\x99s police department\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \xe2\x80\x9cAbuse of authority,\xe2\x80\x9d referred to as oppressive conduct toward a member of the public\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Using unnecessary force, or detaining or searching a person without good and sufficient\ncause\n\xe2\x80\xa2 On or off duty, when in uniform, using profane, abusive, or insulting language to any person.\nThe language can be used to intimidate people or disrespect them\nThe Police Act states that the regulations detail the expected or code of professional conduct for\nmunicipal police officers within the province of British Columbia. Along with the expectations for\nconduct are the consequences that may occur when an officer commits a disciplinary default.\n\n97\n\n\x0c5.3 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act\n\nThe Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act is comparable to British Columbia\xe2\x80\x99s Police Act in that it\nprovides a legal framework that defines the way in which disciplinary procedures will be administered.\nThe Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act contains two provisions for investigating wrongdoing by the\nRCMP, the External Review Committee, and the Public Complaints Commission.\nThe External Review Committee reviews appeals made by RCMP officers who have been disciplined\nunder the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The Public Complaints Commission is an independent\nteam of civilians that rule on the outcome of investigations of police complaints. Critics suggest that the\ninvestigators will favour the police officer and investigate an offence with bias.\nIn June 2013, the federal government passed Bill C-42, which created the Enhancing Royal Canadian\nMounted Police Accountability Act that is designed to enhance accountability and transparency by:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Creating a new Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC) for the RCMP to\nreplace the existing Commission for Public Complaints (CPC) against the RCMP and\nproviding it with enhanced powers\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Establishing a statutory framework for handling investigations of serious incidents involving\nRCMP members, which will improve the transparency and accountability of these\ninvestigations\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Modernizing the RCMP\xe2\x80\x99s discipline, grievance, and human resource management processes,\nwith a view to preventing, addressing, and correcting performance and conduct issues in a\ntimely and fair manner, which includes enabling the commissioner to establish a specific\nprocess for the investigation and resolution of harassment when a member of the Force is a\nrespondent\nThis following text is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada. The\nreproduction has not been produced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement, of the Government of\n1\nCanada.\nThis enactment enhances the accountability of the RCMP by reforming the Royal Canadian Mounted\nPolice Act in two vital areas. First, it strengthens the RCMP review and complaints body and implements\na framework to handle investigations of serious incidents involving members. Second, it modernizes\ndiscipline, grievance, and human resource management processes for members, with a view to\npreventing, addressing, and correcting performance and conduct issues in a timely and fair manner.\nIt establishes a new complaints commission, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC)\nfor the RCMP. Most notably, it sets out the authority for the CRCC to have broad access to information\nin the control or possession of the RCMP, it sets out the CRCC\xe2\x80\x99s investigative powers, it permits the\nCRCC to conduct joint complaint investigations with other police complaints bodies, and it authorizes\nthe CRCC to undertake policy reviews of the RCMP.\n1. Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2013_18/FullText.html\n\n98\n\n\x0c99 Chapter 5: Accountability and Investigation\n\nIt establishes a mechanism to improve the transparency and accountability of investigations of serious\nincidents (death or serious injury) involving members, including referring the investigations to\nprovincial investigative bodies when possible and appointing independent civilian observers to assess\nthe impartiality of the investigations when they are carried out by the RCMP or another police service.\nIt modernizes the RCMP\xe2\x80\x99s human resources management regime. In particular, it authorizes the\nCommissioner to act with respect to staffing, performance management, disputes relating to harassment,\nand general human resource management.\nIt grants the Commissioner the authority to establish a consolidated dispute resolution framework with\nthe flexibility to build redress processes through policies or regulations. It provides for a disciplinary\nprocess that will empower managers or other persons acting as conduct authorities to impose a wide\nrange of conduct measures in response to misconduct and that requires conduct hearings only in cases\nwhen dismissal is being sought.\n\nJurisdiction of the Current Commission for Public Complaints\nThe Commission for Public Complaints (CPC) has jurisdiction over a complaint from a member of the\npublic that concerns the conduct of an RCMP member while performing a policing duty or function.\nThese duties and functions include criminal investigations, public complaint investigations, policing\npublic events, security assignments, and intelligence operations.\nA complaint must also involve:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 An RCMP member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of the Royal\nCanadian Mounted Police Act.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 An RCMP member or other person who, when the complaint is made, is not deceased,\nretired, or resigned, or has been dismissed from the Force.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Conduct that occurred after September 30, 1988, the date the CPC became authorized to take\ncomplaints.\n\n\x0c5.4 Investigation Models\n\nGriffiths (2013) describes three different models that are used in different jurisdictions to investigate the\npolice: the dependent model, the interdependent model, and the independent model.\nThe dependent model includes police departments in which police officers investigate allegations against\ntheir own members, or members of another police department. The benefits of a dependent model\ninclude the following: the officers being investigated are easily accessible to the investigator; there\nare lower costs associated with the investigation; and the investigators are fluent in the local police\nculture and organizational values and have greater legitimacy among officers. Conversely, the criticism\nassociated with the dependent model of investigation is primarily directed at the lack of accountability\ntoward subject officers. The lack of accountability is a result of investigators being part of the same\nsubculture and therefore not being independent enough to be objective. Without independence, the\ninvestigation can be viewed as biased and therefore not legitimate by society.\nThe interdependent model is a system in which investigators investigate allegations against their own\nmembers, or members of another police department with civilian oversight. One of the benefits of this\nmodel is that it demonstrates independent oversight of the investigation. This enables the community\nto believe that the investigation will be balanced and not in favour of the police or the civilian party.\nAdditionally, the community is able to provide feedback and suggestions regarding the investigation\nfrom a civilian perspective. Criticisms include the inability to gain the cooperation of the police\nshould they decline to participate in the investigation. Furthermore, given their own experiences with\ninvestigations, police officers may be reluctant, in some instances, to follow the directions of civilians\nwho may not be aware of flaws in an investigation\xe2\x80\x99s process.\nThe independent model includes a civilian body of investigators that receive complaints and initiate and\nconduct the complete investigation independently from the law enforcement agency that is involved in\nthe allegation. The public generally views this model as the most effective due to the independence\nof the investigators, which offers greater accountability for the actions of officers. The independent\nmodel allows citizens to feel more comfortable complaining about officer misconduct, without the fear\nof reprisals or the fear of being interviewed in a manner in which they are the \xe2\x80\x9cthem\xe2\x80\x9d in an \xe2\x80\x9cus versus\nthem\xe2\x80\x9d situation. Arguments against an independent model include are that investigators may not have\na full understanding of police techniques and police culture and they may lack experience in criminal\ninvestigations. Additionally, independent investigators will likely be unable to gain trust within law\nenforcement agencies, therefore eliminating such important investigative tools as source information and\nthe necessity to bond with subjects.\n\n100\n\n\x0c5.5 Independent Investigations Office\n\nEnsuring accountability under British Columbia\xe2\x80\x99s Police Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police\nAct is difficult and can often be correlated to the \xe2\x80\x9cmechanics\xe2\x80\x9d of investigations into law enforcement\nmisconduct. To ensure these investigations are carried out fairly and with due process, the Police Act\ndesignates a police complaint commissioner who has the duty and responsibility to oversee municipal\ninternal investigations.\nOperating under Griffiths\xe2\x80\x99 (2013) independent model, the Independent Investigation Office (IIO)\ninvestigates cases that involve serious injury or death resulting from the actions of RCMP or municipal\npolice members. The Police Act designates the IIO as a police force in British Columbia and thus its\nmembers are subject to provisions under the Act.\nThe IIO\xe2\x80\x99s team is composed of ex-police officers and civilians. The civilians are trained at the Justice\nInstitute of British Columbia (JIBC) alongside police recruits. Their training does not include all the\ncurriculum followed by the police recruits, but it does include lessons that cover becoming investigators\nand understanding how the police may act in certain use-of-force scenarios.\nTwo issues to consider:\n1. Is the IIO truly independent when its members are covered under the Police Act?\n2. Many investigators in the IIO are trained at the JIBC in the Police Academy. Does this\ninculcation into police culture make them less independent from the police they are\ninvestigating?\n\n101\n\n\x0cReferences\n\nEnhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, S.C. 2013, c. 18. http://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2013_18/FullText.html\nGriffiths, C (2013). Canadian Police Work. Toronto: Nelson Education.\nReiner, R. (2010). The Politics of the Police. Oxford University Press.\n\n102\n\n\x0cChapter 6: Policing\n\n103\n\n\x0c6.1 Noble Cause Corruption\n\nAccording to Caldero and Crank (2004, p.17) noble cause is a \xe2\x80\x9cmoral commitment to make the world a\nsafer place.\xe2\x80\x9d This commitment is why most people join law enforcement agencies, and while this is an\nadmirable goal, when the commitment to make the world a safer place becomes more important than the\nmeans to accomplish these goals, corruption may result. There are reasons why within law enforcement\nthe means to accomplish the ends are particularly magnified. Caldero and Crank (2004, p.17) describe\nthe \xe2\x80\x9cscent of a victim\xe2\x80\x99s blood,\xe2\x80\x9d which means officers in law enforcement are motivated by the suffering\nof victims and their families. As officers sworn to uphold the law, they are duty bound to stop further\nviolence against other victims. The vivid recollection of victims suffering can, at times, compel officers\nto focus only on the end result of making the world a safer place. Officers generally join law enforcement\nto protect the vulnerable, to help others, and to enforce the law; their cause is generally a noble one,\nfilled with good intent.\nWhen officers reach a point where they are more concerned with the end result, they may resort to\nunethical and even unlawful activities to protect victims from further victimization and other citizens\nfrom becoming victimized. This rationale is an example of teleological thinking where the means are not\nas important as the ends. Utilitarianism would be an example of an ethical system that would be used to\njustify such an action. Ultimately, as Pollock (2010) reminds us, the values that an officer brings to the\njob are those that induce him or her to use unethical means to fulfill the end value: to \xe2\x80\x9cmake the world a\nsafer place.\xe2\x80\x9d\nWhen confronting a situation in which an officer is faced with noble cause misconduct, Pollock (2010)\nsuggests the following questions be considered by the officer:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Is the activity he or she about to partake in illegal?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Is the activity allowed under departmental policy?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Is the activity unethical?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Is the activity acceptable under any ethical system, or just utilitarianism?\nWhile acknowledging that there is a need for tenacity in law enforcement, often the lines may be blurred\nbetween tenacious police work and noble cause corruption. By asking these questions, it is possible to\ndetermine whether the act is good police work, or noble cause corruption.\n\n104\n\n\x0c6.2 Policing Public Demonstrations and Crowd Control\n\nPeaceful public demonstrations are a right in liberal Western democracies. Such demonstrations must\nbe permitted to enable free speech. In Canada, this right is protected under section 2 of the Canadian\nCharter of Rights and Freedoms as a freedom of peaceful assembly and expression. While police officers\nmust respect and allow freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, tension arises when\nthese freedoms are at times contrary to the duty of law enforcement officers to ensure public safety and\nsecurity.\nPolicing public demonstrations is historically difficult. Police reaction to public demonstrations often\nresults in criticism of the police for either being too lax in enforcement, resulting in riotous situations,\nor too restrictive, resulting in the restriction of the rights enshrined under the Charter. Police reaction\nis also criticized when the mere presence of officers escalates a situation or the public perceives their\nuse of force to be excessive. This tension is exacerbated by the nature of public demonstrations, as\ndemonstration groups can range from violent anti-authority groups to groups that historically participate\nonly in peaceful protest.\nBecause of the potential volatility of protest groups, the police use intelligence sources to identify\npotentially aggressive or violent members. Once identified, police may apply a technique called\nstrategic incapacitation to counter the violence that may result from aggressive protesters within\nprotest groups (Gillham and Noakes, 2007). Although this tactic allows police to preserve or restore\nshort-term order, it is also gives them a potential tool to suppress the civil liberties of protesters, which\nmay result in further protest against the police, and turn arrested protesters or protesters who have been\nillegitimately treated by police into martyrs. Techniques used by police are not meant to protect civil\nrights, but to ensure peace, protect property, and safeguard society and the government against a state\nof anarchy. Police strategies include the establishment of no protest zones, increased use of less lethal\nweapons, strategic use of arrests, and the surveillance and infiltration of protest groups (Gillham and\nNoakes, 2007).\nThe establishment of no protest zones was used during the Quebec City Summit of the Americas in\n2001. As protesters from a wide range of causes descended upon Quebec City, large fences were erected\nallowing the meetings of officials to proceed unhindered (King and Waddington, 2005). The fences\nprevented protesters from assembling at any meaningful location, essentially muting their voices to the\ndignitaries attending the summit. To the protesters, these tactics represented a suppression of their right\nto voice legitimate grievances and strengthened their resolve to protest (King and Waddington, 2005).\nSuch actions by police, while increasing the potential for order, served as evidence to protesters that the\npolice and the government did not respect the rights of citizens to protest (Redekop and Pare, 2010). In\nQuebec City, the final conclusion drawn by protesters was that the police were acting illegitimately, thus\nproviding ample ammunition to further their protest (Redekop and Pare, 2010). As protesters penetrated\nthe fence, their grievances spread beyond their original cause to the perceived illegitimacy of police\nactions that denied their rights to express their opinion. The police countered that the protest was not\npeaceful, and thus the protesters\xe2\x80\x99 rights were not protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and\nFreedoms. The severity of these new grievances caused the protesters to focus directly on those officers\nwho, in their minds, were directly responsible for these egregious actions. Therefore, the police must be\n105\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 106\n\nmindful that their actions are constantly observed and weighed as being for or against the democratic\nright to protest, and, when such actions are taken, protesters view the actions as illegitimate even if they\nare legitimate.\nIncreasing the use of less lethal weapons is also fraught when this tactic is used in situations where\nthere is no legitimate threat to safety and property. In Canada, using weapons on crowds is unlawful and\nunjustified under the Criminal Code unless officers feel their lives or the lives of the general public are\nthreatened (Criminal Code, 2015, Sec. 25). Weapons can only be used against the person who is posing\nthe threat as there are no provisions allowing the use of a weapon on a collective mass, no matter how\nbenign the weapon. A protest that is not a riot as defined in the Criminal Code is not an appropriate\nvenue for the police to use weapons. A riot is defined in the Criminal Code as an \xe2\x80\x9cunlawful assembly\nthat has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously\xe2\x80\x9d (Criminal Code, 2015, Sec. 64).\nEven in situations that can be deemed to be a riot, police can face criticisms by the public and the media\nand in judicial reviews. Police can also be subject to civilian lawsuits and criminal charges. In the 2011\nStanley Cup riots in Vancouver, police were criticized for using the Anti Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN)\ngun, which propels plastic batons (Furlong and Keefe, 2011; Lee, 2011). Less lethal weapons, such as\nwater cannons and ARWEN guns, are not approved for use in Vancouver due to concerns with the civil\nlitigation resulting from the first Stanley Cup riot in 1994 (Furlong and Keefe, 2011).\nThe use of non-lethal weapons is also symbolic of repressing the right to protest and can cause police\nto lose legitimacy among the public and the protesters. In the August 2011 riots in England, Peter\nWaddington (Kelly and Fraser, 2011) stated that the use of water cannons and baton rounds symbolically\n\xe2\x80\x9clooks like the end of the world\xe2\x80\x9d and may cause the police to lose \xe2\x80\x9cthe moral high ground,\xe2\x80\x9d and thus lose\nlegitimacy with protesters and the general public. Since the implementation of these weapons is frowned\nupon when used against rioters committing criminal acts, their use against protesters would likely be\neven less acceptable.\nThe strategic use of arrests should only be implemented when there are sufficient grounds for arrest,\nregardless of the context. When police pre-emptively arrest potential agitators on charges that would\nnot normally be entertained, their legitimacy can only be questioned. Arrests were strategically utilized\nin the 1997 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Vancouver. While the arrests\nresulted in incapacitating the protest, they ultimately demonstrated, in the long term, the illegitimacy\nof police and government actions with respect to protesters\xe2\x80\x99 rights (Ericson and Doyle, 1999). Of the\n49 arrests made, only one party was eventually charged for the original arrest, and this charge was\neventually dropped (Ericson and Doyle, 1999).\nIn the APEC example, noted Canadian anti-globalization protester Jaggi Singh was arrested for assault\ndays before the APEC conference was to start (CBC News, 1999 Panitch, 2002). The charge of assault\noccurred as a result of Singh talking through a megaphone and causing temporary damage to a security\nguard\xe2\x80\x99s ear. Singh was imprisoned during the APEC conference, thus suppressing his right to protest\n(CBC News, 1999; Panitch, 2002). Once the APEC conference was over, Crown counsel determined\nthat the charge was not worth pursuing and charges were stayed (CBC News,1 999). This strategy,\nwhile preventing some protesters from protesting, abuses police authority and is demonstrative of the\ntactics used to achieve an end (institutional protest) without regard to the means (legitimate protest). This\nutilitarian example of using any means to justify a peaceful end resulted in the denial of Singh\xe2\x80\x99s rights\nto express his opinion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. From a police standpoint,\n\n\x0c107 Chapter 6: Policing\n\nthis tactic also resulted in the future mistrust of police making legitimate arrests or conducting active\nsurveillance for public safety. While some measure of safety and security may have been accomplished\nby pre-emptively arresting Singh, we will never know whether the consequences of arresting him were\npositive or negative in this regard; we know only that the end result was negative.\nSurveillance of protest groups by police is a tactic used on groups that do not cooperate with the\npolice. This lack of cooperation by some groups results in a lack of intelligence-gathering through\nopen communication (Waddington, 1998). These tactics may include surveillance of protesters before\na protest begins (Waddington, 1998), or the surveillance of online activities of protesters (della Porta,\n2006). della Porta (2006) argues that, when used, these tactics demonstrate a suspension of civil liberties\nand a lack of respect for protesters\xe2\x80\x99 rights, and that their use must be limited to those rare occasions\nwhen police feel the group is threatening the safety of the general public, or, in Canada, where the peace\nwill be disturbed tumultuously (Criminal Code, 2015, Sec. 63).\nThe infiltration of protest groups is a way in which police can gather information about protesters\xe2\x80\x99\nstrategies when there is no communication between the police and protestors. However, tactics such as\nthese were used in the 1960s in the United States, and were widely seen as an abuse of civil liberties\nand are disallowed in some American jurisdictions (Gillham and Marx, 2000). Police, in response to the\nperception of such tactics, must continue attempts to communicate with all protest groups regardless of\nthe cause of the protest or the plans of the protesters.\nTo achieve ethical control of protest groups, communicating with these groups is important because it\nenables law enforcement officers to understand the goals of a protest and to assess the type of protest\nthey will face (Reicher, Stott, Cronin, and Adang, 2004). Reicher et al. (2004) consider communication\nwith protesters to be a vital part of crowd control. Without it, police lack vital intelligence that would\ninform them about how to manage and differentiate the crowd. These are important considerations\nfor police if they are to behave in a manner that will allow protesters their freedom of speech while\nmaintaining public order, which is the end result desired in order for police to fulfill their common law\nduties.\nPolicing all public order events is a difficult task regardless of the groups involved. Protest groups\nare especially difficult to police due to the lack of a hierarchical structure affecting communication.\nIn attempting to police disorder resulting from protest groups, police must continually assess whether\ntheir values lean toward public order or respect of the right to protest and civil liberties. When this\nassessment leans toward public order, tactics of strategic incapacitation may result in the public order\nbeing maintained at the expense of the right to protest in a meaningful way. The tactics used against\nprotest groups may have lasting implications regarding the credibility of the police. Additionally,\ninstitutionalizing protest groups may yield few results immediately, compared to strategic incapacitation,\nbut may result in long-term meaningful protest that is also peaceful. Ultimately, police must demonstrate\ntheir legitimacy through their acceptance of the democratic right to protest. In doing so, police must\nrecognize that their duty is also the protection of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and\nFreedoms, and not merely their duty to uphold the Canadian Criminal Code. Often these two duties are\nat odds with one another, which can create a situation where law enforcement leaders responsible for\ncrowd control and public order face an ethical dilemma that is high profile with high stakes.\n\n\x0c6.3 Sex Offender Notification Laws\n\nSex offender notification laws are an example of how a community attempts to provide a sense of\nsecurity for its citizens against horrific crimes that often target the most vulnerable in society (Sample\nand Kadleck, 2008). These laws are predominantly found in the United States. Levenson and Cotter\n(2005, p.50) generally view U.S. notification laws as \xe2\x80\x9cintended to enhance community safety from\nsexual violence through awareness and education combined with vigilant surveillance and collaboration\nbetween law enforcement agents and citizens.\xe2\x80\x9d Thomas (2003, p.217) further strengthens this link\nbetween community safety strategies and notification laws by asserting that American notification laws\nare \xe2\x80\x9ca form of regulation to achieve greater community safety and public protection.\xe2\x80\x9d Notification\nlaws, he asserts, are not additional punishment but rather regulation used to enhance the safety of the\ncommunity. Gilling (2001) adds that risk and the management of risk are required to protect vulnerable\nvictims, and the management of risk is a theme of community safety, which is the stated goal of\nAmerican notification laws (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker, 2007; Sample and Kadleck, 2008).\nNotification laws in the American context are laws that require offenders to register and make the\noffender\xe2\x80\x99s information available to the community. In Canada, there is no such legislation; however,\nnotification is made on a case-by-case basis, which requires a subjective analysis to determine which\noffenders to notify the public about.\nIn the United States, notification laws have evolved from the Jason Wetterling Crimes Against Children\nand Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, which requires sex offenders to register with the police\n(Levenson et al., 2007). Commonly known as Megan Laws after murdered child Megan Kanka, offender\ninformation contained in sex offender registries is made available to the public ostensibly to enhance\nthe safety of children and in theory to limit the risk of the offender reoffending (Anderson and Sample,\n2008; Levenson et al., 2007). Megan Laws are administered at the state level where individual states are\nleft to decide the manner in which the information will be made public (Levenson et al., 2007). However,\nthere is inconsistency in the application of such laws as some states circulate information about all sex\noffenders, while other states use risk assessment tools to determine whether the offender is a risk and\nwhether or not the public is notified (Small, 1999).\nWhile sex offender registries seem on the surface to make sense, they may motivated more by politics\nthan public safety. As such, the democratic freedoms and the rehabilitative ability of offenders may\nbe hindered. Initiated by politicians as a response to urging by the media and other interest groups,\nnotification laws in the United States have greatly exaggerated the risk of and the inherent dangers of\nstrangers (Zgoba, 2004). Such laws may cause more harm than good, creating with them a culture that\nviews not only the offender as a risk, but all strangers as risks. As such, these strategies, which are\nheavily influenced by the media, cause moral panic in the community (Sandler, Freeman and Socia,\n2008; Zgoba, 2004).\nMoral panic is an increased sense of danger, which can be a result of the media, entrepreneurs, and\npublic institutions portraying high-profile and disturbing incidents as relatively common place and a risk\nto the public. Such media events capture the attention of the public, and leave some people in a state of\nfear, afraid that this crime could easily happen to them. The reality is that random crimes are very rare\nin our society (Emsley, 2007).\n108\n\n\x0c109 Chapter 6: Policing\n\nSome entrepreneurs contribute to moral panic by suggesting it is critical to have security devices\nsuch as panic alarms installed at home (Emsley, 2007), because without them the public is at risk\nof victimization. As well, police and corrections agencies may add to moral panic by making public\nannouncements about the release of offenders or of crimes committed in the community.\nPoliticians exploit the moral panic climate by using emotive strategies that tap into a community\xe2\x80\x99s fears.\nEmotive strategies rely on emotions of fear that are the result of terrible crimes that frighten the public.\nSuch strategies involve using the names of child victims for laws aimed at protecting the community,\nsuch as Megan\xe2\x80\x99s Law, which evoke emotion and public anger toward all offenders and a general sense of\nmoral panic (Anderson and Sample, 2008; Petrunik, 2002). It is this anger and moral panic that heightens\nthe perceived risk and allows the notion of risk to influence notification laws.\nThe risk of children being abducted or sexually assaulted by strangers is minimal compared to the threat\nthat lies at home or among family and friends (Quinn, Forsyth, and Mullen-Quinn, 2004; Small, 1999;\nZgoba, 2004). In spite of this, moral panic causes the community to exaggerate the risk from outside\noffenders (Petrunik, 2002; Zgoba, 2004).\nEthical considerations include weighing the rights of the offender, in spite of the heinous crimes that\nhe or she has committed, against the safety of the community. The resulting moral panic created is\nperpetuated by the media in the form of non-stop news programs, which heighten the perception of risk,\nand thus perpetuate the demand for extreme laws to control the perceived risk (Sample, 2003, as cited\nin Quinn et al., 2004). While anger may well be justified for any offences against women and children,\nit is the manner in which such anger forces politicians to react by implementing laws that may have no\nempirical evidence to support them.\nAlthough notification laws reflect strong emotions held by the public, there is little to suggest that they\nmake communities safer. Strategies such as notification and registry laws have been shown to have little\neffect on the ability to prevent offences (Anderson and Sample, 2008; Levenson et al., 2007; Vess, 2008).\nIf such strategies were effective, little could be argued against their use if they saved even one child;\nhowever, the unintended consequences of their use may lead to an even greater risk of recidivism than if\nthey hadn\xe2\x80\x99t been employed at all (Levenson et al., 2007).\nCrime prevention programs using such strategies as notification laws are based on utilitarian principles,\nin which consequences are more important than the means to achieve the end results. Such teleological\nprograms are often unethical as they may appear to be noble because of their emotional connection to\nvictims, but they are often not assessed with as much scientific rigour as they ought to be. It is important\nthat such programs be objectively studied so that their true utility can be assessed, rather than assumed.\nAssessing crime prevention programs, such as those using notification laws, demands scientific rigour\nand academic skepticism and auditing (Eck, 2005). Ekblom and Pease (2005) note that it is rarely\npossible for the evaluator to determine an irrefutable conclusion about whether a program is effective\nor not. Programs such as juvenile intervention in the United States seem, on the surface, to appear\nintuitively good; however, a disturbing picture emerges after an empirical review. Such U.S. programs\nwere once thought of as valid tools for preventing at-risk youths from committing future crimes\n(Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, and Finckenauer, 2000). Through the \xe2\x80\x9cscared straight\xe2\x80\x9d program, high-risk\nyouths were identified and required to meet with hard-core offenders in prison (Petrosino, et al., 2000).\nThis program attempted to rehabilitate young offenders and spread rapidly through the United States\nafter the airing of the Scared Straight! documentary. Despite the well-meaning intentions of the program,\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 110\n\nresearch by Petrosino et al. (2000) shows that it has adverse effects and may actually cause participants\nto reoffend more often than those in the control groups. Moreover, in spite of the significant evidence\nabout the harm caused by this program, positive media attention and a political climate conducive to\nreducing risk have ensured its continuation.\nIn much the same way, notification laws have been subject to empirical study, which has failed to\nsupport their stated goals of notifying the public of offenders in the community. The conclusion drawn\n(Levenson et al., 2007) is that notification is not successful in reaching its target audience; therefore,\nnotification laws are unsuccessful. Levenson et al. (2007) have studied residents in Florida and learned\nthat they were not aware of notifications in their community. This study was corroborated by Anderson\nand Sample (2008), who found that the majority of citizens sampled did not access the registry to gain\ninformation about offenders in their area. However, even if notification laws were successful in reaching\ntheir intended audience, it is doubtful whether this information would be taken in the spirit for which it\nwas intended: to lessen the risk of children.\nThe purpose of notifying a community about offenders is to allow parents to adjust their parenting and\nlessen the risk to their child. Anderson and Sample (2008) found that of those who were aware of such\ninformation, only 42% of respondents with children took preventive actions. Consequently, Anderson\nand Sample (2008) conclude that the laws are ineffective at reducing risk, are a response to moral\npanic, and have little empirical evidence to support them. The negative consequences of such ineffective\nlaws affect the offenders and may actually lead to a greater chance of reoffending because they cause\ndifficulties in reintegrating into society (Levenson et al., 2007).\nNotification laws can also cause offenders to suffer unnecessarily. Pratt suggests that strategies such as\npublic notifications serve to \xe2\x80\x9chumiliate, degrade or brutalize the offender before the public at large\xe2\x80\x9d\n(2000, p.418). O\xe2\x80\x99Malley (2010) further argues that the influence of risk on sentencing in the name\nof community safety has, in fact, a negative impact on offenders by creating difficulties that go well\nbeyond the intent of offenders\xe2\x80\x99 sentences. Such difficulties include bouts with isolationism and exposure\nto vigilantism, affecting not only the offender but also the offender\xe2\x80\x99s family. While O\xe2\x80\x99Malley (2010)\nacknowledges that the influence of risk theories on community safety strategies can be positive, in terms\nof using statistical models to predict risk factors, the use of risk-based sentences does nothing to reform\nthe offender and, in fact, turns the community into an extension of the prison system.\nOffenders\xe2\x80\x99 rights must be protected regardless of the offences committed; however, \xe2\x80\x9cThe pendulum of\njustice is now focused on the protection of society, rather than individual rights\xe2\x80\x9d (Quinn et al., 2004).\nWhile certain rights must inevitably come to an end when an offender is identified and convicted,\nbasic human rights should never be eliminated. Ward et al. (2007) identify basic human rights as those\nthat belong to all humans simply because they are members of the human race. The rights that must\nbe afforded to humans include rights that are centred on the \xe2\x80\x9cdignity of persons and their significant\ninterests\xe2\x80\x9d and ought never be extinguished (Ward, Gannon, and Birgden, 2007, p.198).\nAlternatively, from a utilitarian viewpoint, there are circumstances in which basic human rights are\nextinguishable if other rights are overridden (Gerwith, 1981). In the case of notification laws, this would\ninclude the rights of the future victim overriding the rights of the offender. However, as pointed out\nearlier, empirical research has shown that notification laws in the United States are unsuccessful in their\nstated goals; therefore, any such removal of the basic rights of offenders is unnecessary, even from a\nutilitarian perspective. Ward et al. (2007) acknowledge the right of the state to punish and restrict the\n\n\x0c111 Chapter 6: Policing\n\nmovement of sex offenders in the name of community safety but suggest these powers must be balanced\nwithout unnecessarily harming the offender and limiting the potential of the offender to reintegrate\nsuccessfully into society.\nRisk-based strategies that employ limits on basic human rights are neither rehabilitation nor treatment.\nPetrunik (2002, p.484) views such strategies as not only extraneously punitive but also debilitating as a\nresult of extraordinary measures that \xe2\x80\x9coverride conventional understandings of justice and civil rights.\xe2\x80\x9d\nAs risk is determined and used as a basis for community safety, offenders\xe2\x80\x99 rights are diminished. While\nthe rights of the community, victims, and future victims are important, the rights of sex offenders must\nalso be considered, and the two should not be competing interests (Sanders and Young, 2007). The\nrights of the state to protect the community from sex offenders is a right that must be tempered by\njustification and deliberation so that the offender is not subject to obstacles, but rather is helped to\nbecome a contributing member of society.\nBasic human rights protect dignity, security of person, and the right to work, and are essential for\nsuccessful assimilation into society (Ward et al., 2007). Notification laws are the antithesis of such\npositive characteristics because by publicizing an offender\xe2\x80\x99s private information, they can unnecessarily\nsubject the offender to physical assaults and threats from vigilantes, cause the loss of jobs and job\nprospects, and can promote harassment of and indignity for family, friends, and neighbours (Small,\n1999; Tewksberry and Lees, 2006, Thomas, 2003; Ward et al, 2007; Zgoba, 2004). Such violations have\ncaused offenders to be treated as \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6objects, simply as means to other people\xe2\x80\x99s ends rather than ends in\nthemselves\xe2\x80\x9d (Ward et al, 2007, p.199).\n\n\x0c6.4 Ethics of Private Policing\n\nThe private policing sector has grown to take over the security and, by extension, the policing of public\nland. Private police are often seen on public land, providing security to access points of adjacent private\nland. In doing so, private police are acting on behalf of corporate interests, at times against the rights\nof civilians and potentially by using force. Loss prevention officers also act as private police who, in\nthe interests of the corporation that employs them, restrict the liberty and freedom of citizens who are\nobserved breaking the law. This leads to private police using force to apprehend citizens who have been\nidentified as breaking the law. Ultimately, it can be argued, that the private sector should not engage in\nfunctions that will likely result in the use of force, which should be the exclusive domain of the state.\nCohen provides a practical description of the private policing sector by stating: \xe2\x80\x9cThe state ceases to\nprovide a particular service and it is then supplied by the private enterprises which are directly paid\nby the public as a customer\xe2\x80\x9d (Cohen, 1985, p.64). Cohen\xe2\x80\x99s description does not include private sector\nagencies that augment existing and parallel police services.\nPolicing is a practice that may involve authorizing coercive power, and this power must be used\nresponsibly and with accountability (Department of Criminology, 2006/7; Girodo, 2000). The very\nsuggestion of allowing an under-regulated private sector body to police society therefore strikes at\nthe very core of democratic statehood (Marks and Goldsmith, 2006; Pastor, 2003). The importance of\naccountability cannot be minimized as it ensures that policing services are provided in an ethical manner\nand that service providers act with integrity, thus lessening the potential for misconduct (Girodo, 2000).\nThe accountability of the private sector and regulations enforcing that accountability are controversial\nissues and opinions on them are varied. However, some argue that allowing the state to enforce\naccountability on private security is intrusive and unnecessary (Rothbard, 1973).\nRothbard (1973) believes state regulation of private police is not necessary because the free market\nrewards companies that self-regulate. Private police would therefore be answerable to their clients\nand would \xe2\x80\x9cenforce whatever their clients are willing to pay for\xe2\x80\x9d (Rothbard, 1973, p.221). It follows,\ntherefore, that private policing companies, which do not satisfy their clients, would soon find themselves\nout of business due to free market forces. In Rothbard\xe2\x80\x99s view, regulation is provided by market forces\n(not the state), as the market will eliminate companies that do not produce.\nThe most obvious problem with Rothbard\xe2\x80\x99s conception of privatization is his failure to address\naccountability and the goals of the client. Given that the client of a private police service is seeking\nsecurity, the client would be content to see the civil rights of its adversaries diminished, if that meant\nmore security (Davis et al., 2003). The private police\xe2\x80\x99s goal would be to satisfy the client who pays for\nthe services (U.S. Congress Senate Committee on Education and Labor, 1939). Rothbard assumes the\nclient\xe2\x80\x99s goals will be altruistic and that the client will be concerned that justice is served. With this in\nmind, it is useful to look at two examples: one of the need for the state to tightly regulate policing and\nthe other of the consequences when such regulation is absent.\nIn 1939, the U.S. Government held an inquiry into the use of privately paid police to battle protests\nstaged by the burgeoning labour movement. The conduct of the police was anything but altruistic\n112\n\n\x0c113 Chapter 6: Policing\n\n(U.S. Congress Senate Committee on Education and Labor, 1939). The Committee on Education and\nLabour was formed as the result of murder committed by the private police while serving their clients,\nthe embattled corporations. In its final report, the committee concluded that private police systems\nwere \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6created to meet the economic needs and desires of private interests. Because there is no\naccountability other than the criminal code, they cannot be considered as agencies of law and order\xe2\x80\x9d\n(U.S. Congress Senate Committee on Education and Labor, 1939, p.2). The committee recognized the\nneed for police agencies to be accountable in order to protect the interests of the public at large and\nstated that the criminal code \xe2\x80\x93 the only mechanism to enforce accountability among private police \xe2\x80\x93 was\ninsufficient to fulfill this purpose.\nThe consequences of lax regulation were more recently seen in South Africa, where private policing\nresulted in the murder of civilians suspected of being criminals (Baker, 2002; Shearing and Berg,\n2006). The citizens\xe2\x80\x99 group Mapogo-a-mathaamaga consisted of 70,000 members and was considered a\nformal, albeit voluntary, police organization dedicated to assisting public police with the investigation\nof crimes and punishing the transgressors (Shearing and Berg, 2006). Mapogo-a-mathaamaga members\nwere citizens from all walks of life, and the group was formed as an altruistic response to the murder\nof business people by gangsters (Baker, 2002). Without any mechanisms in place to ensure their\naccountability, the Mapogo-a-mathamaga were allowed to do as they wished and act without regard to\ndue process, with the end result being murder. Such abuses are certain to occur when accountability is\nnot required of a policing agency.\nMcLeod (2002), a security company owner, views the private security business as having distinct\nadvantages over public police. From the perspective of crime control, McLeod believes that private\npolice are able to do things public police agencies cannot do because of the complex procedural\nprocesses required by their large bureaucracies and the restraints imposed upon them by the Canadian\nCharter of Rights and Freedoms (McLeod, 2002). These observations demonstrate that due process and\nthe guarantee of statutory rights can only be delivered by a public police agency, which is governed by\nthe state. In McLeod\xe2\x80\x99s (2002) experience, the powers of private security may be at odds with policing in\na democratic society.\nThe problem of private policing accountability is further illuminated by comparing private police\nagencies to public police agencies (Wakefield, 2003). Ceyssens (2000, p.62) outlines the nine principle\nforms of regulation that Canadian public police are bound by: the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter\nof Rights and Freedoms, supervision by independent authorities, internal processes, public complaint\nprocesses, police services, human rights legislation, commissions of inquiry, and coroners\xe2\x80\x99 inquests. In\ncontrast, Canadian private police are bound only by the Criminal Code, market accountability, insurance\nrestrictions, and minimal licensing requirements (McLeod, 2002). McLeod states that private-sector\nentrepreneurs\xe2\x80\x99 greatest responsibility is not accountability to government, but rather the \xe2\x80\x9crequirement\nthat I meet a payroll every two weeks\xe2\x80\x9d (McLeod, 2002, p.60). This standpoint reflects the primary\nshortcoming of private policing, which is its reliance on generating money versus accountability.\nThough government regulation is at times ineffective, private police require more accountability to be\non a par with public police (Davis et al., 2003). Stenning, as cited in Davis et al. (2003), states that\nthe private sector is not only regulated by market pressures but also by civil liability, and that both\ncompensate for the lack of state regulations and controls. While civil litigation may at times be a viable\nmethod to achieve accountability, the cost of legal representation is prohibitive for many citizens. More\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 114\n\nformal, codified sanctions and rules are necessary to provide citizens whose rights have been violated by\nprivate police or security with the proper means of redress.\nState regulations and controls that ensure a measure of accountability are daunting and force public\npolice to obey the law and guarantee the rights of citizens, suspects, and lawbreakers. In Canada, Britain,\nand the United States, public police are required to follow procedures to ensure suspects retain their\nrights. From a Canadian perspective, these rights, enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and\nFreedoms, include the right to retain counsel upon arrest (Department of Justice, 2010). Any statement\ntaken without that right being upheld is potentially inadmissible in criminal courts (Law Commission\nof Canada, 2006). Private police and security officers are exempt from the requirement to uphold\nthe Charter (Hutchinson and O\xe2\x80\x99Connor, 2005; Rigakos and Greener, 2000). Private police officers are\ntherefore able to breach the Charter to gain statements resulting in a value system based not on integrity\nand accountability, but rather on profit and efficiency. Furthermore, market variances affect private\nsector companies and would ultimately dictate the allocation of resources (Johnston, 1992). The more\nlucrative populations can afford more services, while the poor would be left without adequate police\nservice. Loader (1997) refers to this as a two-tier system, which is unbalanced by its very nature. A twotiered policing system would deliver high-quality services to the affluent and lower-quality services to\nthe poor.\nAlleviating the public police\xe2\x80\x99s stretched resources has been heralded as one of the benefits of expanding\nprivate policing. The reasoning behind this is that the private sector is able to augment public policing\nand thereby allow public police to concentrate on activities requiring specialization related to their\nfunction as a servant of the state (Davis et al., 2003). Marks and Goldsmith (2006) assert that the public\xe2\x80\x99s\nacceptance of the private policing phenomenon is an acceptance of private security as an extension of\nthe state. The public sees private police as a part of the policing continuum and believes they are able\nto relieve the police of some of their vital and complex duties (Marks and Goldsmith, 2006). McLeod\n(2002) recognizes the limits of the private security sector and cannot foresee the private sector ever\ntaking over core policing; rather, he sees the private sector absorbing up to 60% of non-core policing. In\nan attempt to find a middle ground, the state has permitted private companies the ability to create private\npolicing agencies at their own costs, with state-imposed conditions.\nThis complex model, known as hybrid policing, allows certain private organizations to obtain official\nstatus as police (Johnston, 1992). However, hybrid policing organizations have been successful as semiprivate entities due to the state\xe2\x80\x99s regulation of their powers. For example, B.C. Transit Police are paid by\nthe transit authority to serve customers who use the transit system and to protect transit system property.\nOfficers are governed by the Police Act, which governs all municipal public police in British Columbia\n(Transit Police, 2009). The state ensures some accountability of the hybrid policing service, but it does\nnot ensure an equitable allocation of the service\xe2\x80\x99s resources.\nUnlike private police or hybrid police, public police are available to all segments of society and will\nrespond to calls no matter where they originate. Police often have a strong presence in urban pockets of\npoor or disadvantaged citizens (Johnston, 1992). The ability of disadvantaged citizens to pay for private\nsecurity is limited, and if they were not served by public police, their communities would be underpoliced or policed by volunteer organizations.\nTo resolve this issue, Rothbard (1973) suggests that private police would be expected to voluntarily\npolice these areas out of goodwill, ignoring the market costs and essentially providing welfare policing.\n\n\x0c115 Chapter 6: Policing\n\nHe furthers his extreme libertarian argument by suggesting that those who don\xe2\x80\x99t pay for security would\nnot receive the service. Here, the poor and disadvantaged would be at the mercy of the goodwill of\nother private police companies and societies formed by police. Even without considering the earlier\nexample of the Mapogo-a-mathaamaga, Rothbard\xe2\x80\x99s perspective is problematic. He does not consider\nhow unlikely it is for police officers to be convinced that they should volunteer a day of their time\nto police-disadvantaged areas or the likelihood of a company donating labour costs to police such\nareas. In addition, policing can be a risky occupation and to expect the private sector and volunteers to\nprovide adequate policing for a specific area, at all hours, is unrealistic and certainly not possible for an\nextended time frame. Consequently, if private sector policing replaced the public police, the impact on\nunderprivileged neighbourhoods would most likely be increased crime and violence, thus increasing the\nlikelihood of the police using force.\nIn their assessment of underprivileged neighbourhoods in South Africa, Koonings and Kruijt (2004)\nfound that the incidence and impact of violence in underprivileged neighbourhoods is disproportionate\nto that in other neighbourhoods. If we accept that disadvantaged neighbourhoods are more prone to\nviolence, it follows that the use of force by policing agencies in these areas is likely to be more common\nthan in affluent neighbourhoods. Private police without accountability should not investigate crimes of\nviolence or be placed in a position where the use of force is probable.\nAlthough private security officers have a right to protect themselves, this right should extend no further\nthan the rights afforded to other citizens. The state should be the only body entitled to legitimately use\nforce, and this entitlement should be granted only to designated state representatives (Walker, 2000).\nThis notion is not only shared by proponents of public police, but also by libertarians such as Nozick\n(1974), who advocate that the use of force be restricted to the domain of the state. Nozick (1974)\nreluctantly draws this conclusion in spite of his desire for a minimalist state that adopts a privatization\napproach in all other areas of public service. He concedes that as a state becomes more powerful or\nextensive, it becomes more coercive and civil rights are increasingly stripped. However, he makes an\nexception to this rule with regard to the use of force:\nA state claims a monopoly on deciding who may use force when; it says that only it may decide who may use\nforce and under what conditions; it reserves to itself the sole right to pass on the legitimacy and permissibility\nof any use of force within its boundaries; furthermore it claims the right to punish all those who violate its\nclaimed monopoly (Nozick, 1974, p.23).\n\nThe second half of Nozick\xe2\x80\x99s statement reveals a second function of policing that should never be\nconducted by the private sector: the investigation of crimes where force was used. The state, as the sole\nlegitimate purveyor of the use of force, should also be the sole investigator and punisher of those who do\nuse force illegitimately. Prominent philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin, as well as Max Weber\nin the 20th century, have also professed the axiom of the state\xe2\x80\x99s sole responsibility for the use of force to\nprotect against internal and external threats. Walker (2000) adds that a \xe2\x80\x9ckey defining feature of statehood\nis ultimate control over the legitimate use of force\xe2\x80\x9d (Walker, 2000, p.228). Surprisingly, Nozick (1974),\nwho argues for minimal state involvement, also concedes that statehood requires those who use force\nwithout the consent of the state be punished in order to legitimize the use of force. Furthermore, it\nis imperative that the arms of the law which are not focused on a profit margin must investigate the\nillegitimate use of force that results in violent crimes. The investigations of such offences need to be\ntightly controlled, highly accountable, and ethical to protect the integrity of the state.\nPrivate security companies not only lack accountability but also likely lack an effective ethical structure\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 116\n\n(Livingstone and Hart, 2003). Ethics are a necessary component of violent crime investigations because\nsuch cases too often present a temptation to tamper with the evidence. While public police organizations\ncannot always guarantee ethical conduct, rules and protocols are in place to maximize it (Livingstone\nand Hart, 2003). Ethical conduct is far less likely to be a concern for private organizations that have to\nanswer to their paymaster. The goal of private companies is ultimately to make profit, and ethics act\nas an impediment to making profit. In his analysis of corporations, Alvarez (2001, p.107) notes that\nmany companies \xe2\x80\x9ccreate cultures of amoral calculation in which values and ethics are less important\nthan eliminating competition and increasing profits.\xe2\x80\x9d This practice of ignoring ethical considerations is\nunlikely in a public policing environment due to the mechanisms of accountability that public policing\nis subject to and the freedom from the need to increase profits.\nThe lack of an ethical code of conduct among the private sector is reflected in private policing agencies\xe2\x80\x99\nlack of commitment to ethical standards. Livingstone and Hart (2003, p.168) have observed that there\nis a need for an \xe2\x80\x9cethical component and commitment on the part of the security sector that goes further\nbeyond strict legality and the pursuit of profit.\xe2\x80\x9d Until the private policing sector is forced to adopt\nstructured ethical constitutions and mechanisms to ensure accountability, it is not qualified to use force\nor be directly involved in the investigation of violent offences.\n\n\x0cReferences\n\nAlvarez, A. (2001). Governments, citizens and genocide. Indiana University Press.\nAnderson, A. and Sample, L. (2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender\ncommunity notification laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(4), 371-396.\nBaker, B. (2002). Living with non-state policing in South Africa: The issues and dilemmas. The Journal\nof Modern African Studies, 40(1), 29-53. doi:10.1017/S0022278X01003809\nCaldero, M. and Crank, J. (2004). Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause.(2nd ed.). Mathew\nBender and Company.\nCBC News (1999). Crown drops charge against APEC protester. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/\nnews/canada/story/1999/02/01/singh990201.html.\nCeyssens, P. (2000). Accountability, oversight and human rights in policing and private security. In J.\nRichardson, (Ed.) Police and private security: What the future holds, (pp. 61-69). Canadian Chiefs Of\nPolice.\nCohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control: Crime, punishment and classification. Cambridge, Polity\nPress.\nCriminal Code, R.S.C. (2015) c. C-1, s. 25\nCriminal Code, R.S.C. (2015), c. C-2, s. 63\nCriminal Code, R.S.C. (2015) c. C-2, s. 64\nDavis, R., Ortiz, C., Dadush, S., Irish, J., Alvarado, A., and Davis, D. (2003). The public accountability\nof private police: Lessons from New York City, Johannesburg and Mexico City, Policing And Society,\n13(2), 197-210.\ndella Porta, D. (2006). Policing transnational protest. In D. della Porta, A. Peterson and H. Reiter (eds),\nThe Policing of transnational police. (1-12). Burlington: Ashgate.\nDepartment of Criminology (2006). Theories of Crime Module. Leicester, Department of Criminology,\nUniversity of Leicester.\nDepartment of Justice (2010). Canadian charter of rights and freedoms (1982). Retrieved from:\nhttp://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I-gb:s_1.\nEck, J. (2005). Evaluation for lesson learning. In N. Tilley (ed), Handbook of Crime Prevention and\nCommunity Safety, (pp. 699-733). Willan Publishing.\n\n117\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 118\n\nEkblom P. and Pease, K. (2005). Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention.\nCrime and Justice, 19, 585-662. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i248075\nEmsley, C., (2007). Historical Perspectives on Crime. In M. Maguire, R., Morgan, and R. Reiner (eds),\nThe Oxford handbook of criminology, (pp. 122-138). Oxford University Press.\nEricson, R. and Doyle, A. (1997). Globalization and the Policing of Protest: The Case of APEC 1997.\nBritish Journal of Sociology 50(4), 589- 608. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.1999.00589.x\nFurlong, J. and Keefe, D. (2011). The night the city became a stadium: Independent review of the 2011\nVancouver Stanley Cup playoffs riot. Victoria, Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety, Province\nof British Columbia. Retrieved from: http://www.vancouversun.com/pdf/riot-review-report.pdf.\nGerwith, A. (1981). Are There Any Absolute Rights. The Philosophical Quarterly, 31(122), 2-16.\nGillham, P. and Noakes, J. (2007). More than a march in a circle: Transgressive protests and the limits\nof negotiated management. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 12(4), 341- 357.\nGillham, P. and Marx, G. (2000). Complexity and irony in policing and protesting: The world trade\norganization. Seattle Social Justice, 27(2), 212- 236.\nGilling, D. (2001). Community safety and social policy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and\nResearch, 9, 381-400.\nGirodo, M. (2000). Preventing misconduct in police and private security. In Richardson, J. (ed) Police\nand Private Security: What the Future Holds, (pp 132-136). Ottawa, Canadian Association of Chiefs of\nPolice.\nHutchinson , S. and O\xe2\x80\x99Connor, D. (2005). Policing the new commons: Corporate security governance\non a mass private property in Canada. Policing And Society, 15(2), 125-144.\nJohnston, L. (1992). The rebirth of private policing. New York, Routledge.\nKelly, J. and Fraser, K. (2011) England riots: What could the police do to stop the disorder? BBC News\nMagazine. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14459127.\nKing, M. and Waddington, D. (2005). Flashpoints revisited: A critical application to the policing of antiglobalization protest Policing & Society, 15(3), 255- 282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460500168584\nKoonings, K., and Kruijt, D. (2004). Armed actors, organized violence and state failure in Latin\nAmerica: A survey of issues and arguments. In (Eds.) Koonings, K., and Kruijt, D., Armed. Actors:\nOrganised Violence and State Failures In Latin America, (pp. 5-15). New York, Zed Books.\nLaw Commission of Canada, (2006). In search of security: The future of policing in Canada. Canada,\nOttawa, Minister Of Public Works And Government Services.\nLee, J. (2011). Vancouver police used prohibited weapon on Stanley Cup rioters: Report. The Vancouver\nSun.\n\n\x0c119 Chapter 6: Policing\n\nLevenson, J. and Cotter, L. (2005). The effect of Megan\xe2\x80\x99s law on sex offender reintegration. Journal\nof Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49-66. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1177/\n1043986204271676\nLevenson, J., Brannon, Y., Fortney, T., and Baker, J. (2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and\ncommunity perception policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 137-161.\nLivingstone, K. and Hart, J. (2003). The wrong arm of the law? Public images of private security.\nPolicing and Society, 13(2), 159- 170.\nLoader, I. (1997). Private Security and the Demand for Protection in Contemporary Britain. Policing and\nSociety, 7(3), 143 -162.\nMarks, M. and Goldsmith, A. (2006). The state the people and democratic policing in South Africa.\nIn (Eds.) Wood. J., and Dupont, B., Democratic society and the governance of security, (pp. 139-165).\nCambridge, Cambridge University Press.\nMcLeod, R. (2002). Parapolice: A revolution in the world of law enforcement. Boheme Press.\nNozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Prentice Hall.\nO\xe2\x80\x99Malley, Pat (2010.) Crime and risk. Sage Publishing.\nPanitch, L. (2002). Violence as a tool of order and change: The war on terrorism and the anti\nglobalization movement. Option Politique, 40-44. Retrieved from: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/\nmagazines/911-one-year-later/violence-as-a-tool-of-order-and-change-the-war-on-terrorism-and-theanti-globalization-movement/\nPastor, J. (2003). The privatization of police in America. Jefferson. North Carolina, McFarland and\nCompany Publishers Incorporated.\nPetrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., and Finckenauer (2000). Well-meaning programs can have harmful\neffects! Lessons from experiments of programs such as scared straight. Crime and Delinquency, 46(3),\n354-379. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128700046003006\nPetrunik, M., (2002). Managing Unacceptable Risk: Sex Offenders, Community Response,and Social\nPolicy in the United States and Canada. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative\nCriminology, 46(4), 483-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128700046003006\nPollock, J. (2010). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.\nPratt, J. (2000). Emotive and ostentatious punishment: Its decline and resurgence in modern society.\nPunishment and Society, 2(4), 417-439.\nQuinn, J., Forsyth, C. and Mullen-Quinn, C. (2004). Societal reaction to sex offenders: A review of the\norigins and results of the myths surrounding their crimes and treatment amenability. Deviant Behaviour,\n25(3), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620490431147\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 120\n\nRedekop, V. and Pare, S. (2010). Beyond control: A mutual respect approach to protest crowd- police\nrelations. Bloomsbury Academic.\nReicher, S., Stott S., Cronin, P. and Adang, O. (2004). An integrated approach to crowd psychology and\npublic-order policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27(4),\n558-572. DOI:10.1108/13639510410566271\nRigakos, G., and Greener, D. (2000). Bubbles of governance: Private policing and the law in Canada.\nCanadian Journal Of Law and Society, 15(2),145-185.\nRothbard, M. (1973). For a new liberty. The Macmillan Co.\nSample L. and Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender laws: Legislator\xe2\x80\x99s accounts for the need of policy\nCriminal Justice Policy Review, 19(1), 40-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403407308292\nSanders, A. and Young, R. (2007). From suspect to trial. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds)\nThe Oxford handbook of criminology, (pp. 952-989). Oxford University Press.\nSandler, J., Freeman, N., and Socia, K. (2008). Does a Watched Pot Boil? A Time-Series Analysis of\nNew York State\xe2\x80\x99s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,\n14(4), 284\xe2\x80\x93302.\nShearing, C. and Berg, J. (2006) South Africa. In Jones, Trevor And Newburn, Tim (eds.), Plural\n\npolicing, A comparative perspective, (pp. 190-221). New York, Routledge.\n\nSmall, J. (1999) Who are the people in your neighborhood? Due process, public protection, and sex\noffender notification laws. New York University Law Review, 74, 1451- 1494.\nTewksberry, R and Lees, M. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences\nand community experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 26(3), 309- 334. https://doi.org/10.1177/\n1079063217700884\nThomas, T. (2003). Sex offender community notification: Experiences from America. The Howard\nJournal, 42(3), 217-228.\nTransit Police (2009). Mandate [online]. Retrieved from: https://transitpolice.ca/about-us/\nU.S. Congress Senate Committee on Education and Labor (1971), Private police systems, U.S.\nCommittee on Education and Labor, New York, Arno Press, Note: Reprint of Senate Document,\nViolations of Free Speech and Rights of Labor: Report of the Committee on Education and Labor,\npursuant to S. Res. 266 (74th Congress). Washington : U.S.G.P.O., 1939.\nVess, J. (2008). Sex offender risk assessment: Consideration of human rights in community protection\nlegislation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 245\xe2\x80\x93256.\nWaddington, P.A.J. (1998). Both arms of the law: Institutionalised protest and the policing of Publicorder. The British Criminology Conferences: Selected Proceedings, Volume 1: Emerging Themes in\nCriminology. Loughborough University, 18-21. Retrieved from: http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume1/\n008.pdf.\n\n\x0c121 Chapter 6: Policing\n\nWakefield, A. (2003). Selling security: The private policing of Public Space. Willan Publishing Co.:\nPortland, OR.\nWalker, N. (2000). Policing in a changing constitutional order. Street and Maxwell.\nWard, T., Gannon, T., and Birgden, A. (2007). Human rights and the treatment of sex offenders. A\nJournal of Research and Treatment, 19(3), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320701900302\nZgoba, K. (2004). Spin doctors and moral crusaders: The moral panic behind child safety legislation.\nCriminal Justice Studies, 17(4), 385-404.\n\n\x0cChapter 7: Discretion, Supervision, and Leadership\n\n122\n\n\x0c7.1 The Ethics Surrounding Discretion\n\nAccording to McGregor (Kleinig,1996), discretion can only be interpreted as those decisions that are\nmade with lawful authority rather than decisions made for illegal reasons. Furthermore, the individuals\nwithin an institution must have lawful authority to make the decisions and must operate under the\nconstraints acceptable to others within the organization or profession. This definition is useful as it\nallows discretion to be considered in a legal context rather than only when police officers operate\nillegally and decide to commit prohibited acts, which is not considered to be lawful discretion. Kleinig\n(1996) accordingly considers these illegal acts not as discretion but rather as a decision to engage in\nforbidden conduct. In a law enforcement context, discretion only concerns decisions that are made in a\nlegal setting. When decisions that are made by officers do not yield the desired positive results, but are\nmade in good faith, these decisions still fall under the umbrella of discretion. Decisions made by officers\nwithout good faith are not classified as discretionary.\nDiscretion in law enforcement, and especially within policing, is critical to both the functioning of the\npolice department and to the relationship with the public the police department serves. It is unusual\nwithin the paramilitary policing environment, due to the inverse relationship between discretion at the\ntop of the rank structure and that of the lower end of the rank structure, compared to military bodies\nand some commercial enterprises (Manning, 2010). Officers who have recently started in patrol exercise\nmore discretion than the chief constable or the highest rank within the department. In comparison, a\ngeneral in the army possess discretionary powers at a much higher level than does a low-ranking soldier.\nThere is an inevitable tension that exists between paramilitary agencies that require members of all\nranks to follow orders and those agencies that acknowledge discretion among members of lower ranks\nis necessary to function. In the military, discretion is seldom used at lower levels. Orders are given\nand are to be followed regardless of the feelings or desires of the subordinate. The move toward more\ndiscretion inevitably leads police services away from the military hierarchical structure to a more organic\nstructure in which decisions are made throughout the organization (Hughes and Newton, 2010). Key to\nthe argument, however, is that some in law enforcement view professionalism as partially gauged on the\namount of discretion that is afforded to an occupation, and it is in this respect that a shift toward more\ndiscretion will result in police services being more professional.\nIt is also important to explain how the term professionalism will be used in the context of law\nenforcement. While arguments persist as to whether or not policing is a \xe2\x80\x9cprofession\xe2\x80\x9d or an \xe2\x80\x9coccupation,\xe2\x80\x9d\nit is important to note that professionalism, within a law enforcement context, is related to the ability\nof police officers to exercise discretion with a level of autonomy (Villiers, 2003). More specifically,\nthe meaning of professionalism in this context is related to the freedom of police to make discretionary\noperational decisions. When discretion is removed from police due to managerialism and accountability,\nprofessionalism decreases. Klofas, Stojkovic, and Kalinich (1990) use the term deprofessionalization to\ndescribe this process. Without discretion, it is argued, an organization loses its professionalism.\nThe shift to more professionalism requires the need for management to proactively promote operational\ndecisions in a manner that is reflective of an organic organization and still be able to control its members\n(Jones, 2008).\n123\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 124\n\nHowever, Sanders and Young (2007) take a dim view of police management\xe2\x80\x99s ability to control the\ndiscretion of operational police officers. Discretion, they argue, has the potential to:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Lead officers to fabricate evidence\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Look for guilt rather than truth\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Summarize statements with bias\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Handle exhibits poorly and fail to disclose evidence\nThe ability to control and provide effective leadership to officers, who possess more discretion and\nautonomy than the management, raises serious implications for police managers.\nCrawshaw, Devlin, and Williamson (1998, p.24) argue that it is due to the discretion afforded to police\nat the operational level that police work is unsupervised and for large amounts of the officer\xe2\x80\x99s day\n\xe2\x80\x9cunsupervisorable.\xe2\x80\x9d Pagon (2003, p.159) refers to this as the \xe2\x80\x9cdiscretionary paradox\xe2\x80\x9d in which police\nofficers are answerable to their superiors even though they operate with a high degree of autonomy and\nout of view of their supervisors.\nAn irony within law enforcement exists because while a law enforcement structure is different from the\nmilitary, the police still have a quasi-military structure. To further complicate matters, within policing\nspecifically, sergeants have an increased role in administration, which has limited their ability to provide\nsupervision on the street. Ultimately, this does not allow for close supervision of junior officers who are\nforced to exercise their discretion often without the benefit of the wisdom of experienced supervisors\n(Butterfield, Edwards, and Woodall, 2005). Lipsky (1980) warns that the need for a high degree of\ncontrol through supervision is critical in allowing discretion to be effective; without such control,\nofficers will make decisions that are self-promoting and in opposition to organizational goals. Direct\nsupervision and control is a difficult task for front-line managers who are faced with an increased\nworkload.\nBecause of the discretionary mistakes that are inevitably made by officers, attempts have been made to\ncontrol operational decision making among police officers (Butterfield, Edwards, and Woodall, 2005).\nLipsky (1980) notes that discretion has been curtailed in regards to domestic assaults where police\nofficers are encouraged to charge offenders rather than informally resolve the situation. In British\nColumbia, the Violence Against Women in Relationships Policy was introduced in 1993 and underwent\nchanges in 2010. The policy makes clear to officers the protocols, roles, operational procedures, and\nresponsibilities they must adhere to when investigating instances of domestic assault (British Columbia\nMinistry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Ministry of Attorney General, Ministry of Children and\nFamily Development, 2010). Policies such as these are regarded as examples of positive arrest policies\n(or legislation) where the intention is to limit discretion in favour of arrests (Rowe, 2007). Since this\npolicy is intended to limit discretion, it ultimately holds officers accountable if they choose not to arrest\nwhile still affording them the facade of autonomy (Rowe, 2007).\nStudies have shown that there are problems with such policies and legislation, and an examination\nof such problems highlights the benefits of a shift to more discretion (Fyfe, 1996; Mastrofski, 2004;\nNeyroud, 2008; Rowe, 2007). In a study of officers\xe2\x80\x99 perceptions of the Domestic Violence, Crime and\nVictims Bill, an equivalent example from Britain, Rowe (2007) found that officers were concerned about\nthe ethics of positive arrest policies in cases where they would not have arrested had it been left to their\n\n\x0c125 Chapter 7: Discretion, Supervision, and Leadership\n\ndiscretion. Officers felt that when they are forced to arrest suspects in cases where they would otherwise\noperationally decide against charges, their ethical standards would be compromised as they believed that\nsuch charges would be unjust. Other problems associated with the legislation included such things as\nincreased workload, reduced professionalism, and the potential for worsening a situation due to the arrest\n(Rowe, 2007). The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill (2003) demonstrates inherent problems\nwhen discretion is curtailed either through legislation or organizational policy; however, it does highlight\nthree benefits that would result from a shift to more discretionary powers in operational decision making,\nnamely greater efficiency or a smaller workload (Davies and Thomas, 2003), professionalism and ethics\n(Villiers, 2003), and leadership within the junior ranks of the service (Bass, 1990).\nIt is impossible for the police to detect all crimes all the time. However, even if the police were able\nto detect every crime, resources would not be sufficient to investigate each one and make an arrest.\nDiscretion is needed to filter offences so that only those that are most important will be investigated,\neven though at times such discretion may be misused (Tillyer and Klahm IV, 2011). Without discretion\nthe police, and indeed the whole criminal justice system, would become overwhelmed with cases,\nresulting in public displeasure (McLaughlin, 2009). Lipsky (1980) further asserts that discretion among\npolice officers will always be mandatory due to the inevitable lack of resources and the need for an\nefficient service. Decisions, ethically made, will allow for charges to be limited to only those that matter\nand will render the police service more efficient in prosecuting only such offences.\nHowever, while efficiency is important in all public organizations, there is the danger that police\nagencies will lose their way if efficiency is promoted over ethical and rightful decisions concerning the\nprotection of the public and if citizens are denied justice. Rawls (1971, p.71), in his seminal theory\non justice, observes that \xe2\x80\x9cthe principle of efficiency cannot serve alone as a conception of justice.\xe2\x80\x9d\nDiscretion, according to Rawls (1971), should not be used as a means of ensuring efficiency but rather as\na way of applying a utilitarianism counterbalance to unjust laws within the justice system. The end result\nshould never be efficiency at the expense of human rights and ethical policing. Dobel (2005, p.161)\nextends this thought process to discretion when noting \xe2\x80\x9cthat the existence of discretion increases the\ntension between liberal democracy and public management and administration.\xe2\x80\x9d The end result of using\ndiscretion as a means to ensure maximum efficiency potentially leads to an abuse of process in which\nthe rights of individuals are superseded by the will to maximize results with minimal resources (Dobel,\n2005).\nTherefore, the goals of the organization can become ambiguous, caught between ensuring democracy\nand individual rights and promoting efficiency. Goal ambiguity can lead to placing the rights of\nindividuals at lower levels of importance and can be further fostered by the different subcultures within\nthe police service (Lipsky, 1980).\nGoal ambiguity is consistent with some of the inherent problems faced by police officers in operational\ndecision making. Lipsky (1980) identifies a conflict that police confront between client-oriented goals,\nsocial-engineering goals, and organizational-centred goals, and spousal-assault policies are an example.\nIn this instance, an officer is mandated to charge where there is evidence even if the officer feels charges\nare not appropriate and go against the goals of the client\xe2\x80\x94for example, if the victim does not wish to\npursue charges (Rowe, 2007). Likewise, an officer who is acting only to comply with policy guidelines\nmay be inclined to perform poorly to compromise the investigation, thereby subverting the charge which\nhe or she was obliged to make, however reluctantly (Lipsky,1980).\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 126\n\nProper use of discretion, within the parameters of McGregor\xe2\x80\x99s definition (as cited in Kleinig, 1996),\nwill effectively allow the state to save resources while enforcing only the violations that the public want\nenforced. According to Reiner (2010), police require the ability to use discretion due to the inevitable\nlack of police resources to enforce all laws all the time. While police services chronically lack the\nresources to formally enforce all laws, they must, as a result, allow officers to determine which laws\nwill be enforced at the operational level (Crawshaw, Devlin and Williamson, 1998; Lipsky, 1980). The\ndiscretion allowed at the lower levels of the hierarchy allows police services to spare precious frontline resources while concentrating on those offences that should be enforced in accordance to the police\nservice\xe2\x80\x99s values and/or the values of the community the agency serves. While discretion creates an\nefficient system, the proper operational decisions must be made at the lower levels of the hierarchy,\nwhich will benefit the agency by fostering leadership throughout the organization.\n\n\x0c7.2 Discretion and Supervision\n\nPolice officers who believe they are professional will more likely act in a professional manner and\ntherefore act with accountability and ethics. In his qualitative study, Rowe (2007) observed that when\ndiscretionary powers are reduced, officers report a feeling of frustration due to the perception that\nsuperiors do not view them as trustworthy enough to make decisions. One could logically infer from\nthis that when discretion increases so too does the feeling of professionalism. Therefore, discretion,\nwhen professionally instructed, will lead to ethical decision making and ultimately an ethical police\nservice (Neyroud, 2008). The alternative is having a police service where trust is not shown to the lower\nranks, which results in officers who do not view themselves as professionals and who likely would not\nconduct themselves so. Neyroud (2008) concludes that although police do possess a large amount of\ndiscretion, unfortunately, the legal framework under which they operate sharply limits their discretion\nand therefore their professionalism.\nProfessionalism in policing is also problematic due to the military hierarchical nature of policing\nstructures previously outlined. This means that the military organizational model of the police is not\ncompatible with a profession that uses discretion as much as it is used by the police (Hughes and\nNewton, 2010).\nIn policing, to further complicate matters, the position of sergeant in the past was that of an operational\npolice officer with some supervisory duties whose principal responsibility included mentoring and\ntraining constables to ensure their welfare, discipline, team leadership, and ultimately controlling\nsubordinates (Butterfield, Edwards, and Woodall, 2005). Currently, there is a devolving of the duties and\nresponsibilities of the executive rank to those of the sergeant rank (Butterfield, Edwards, and Woodall,\n2005). While sergeants were once seen as mentors and experienced practitioners on whom constables\nrelied, they essentially have become office managers who are concerned with budgets and target-setting\nand are unable to spend time monitoring their subordinates (Butterfield, Edwards, and Woodall, 2005).\nThe lessening of the direct supervisory role of the sergeant has had a negative impact on the ability of\nthe police service to rely on the discretion of the individual officer in his or her operational decisions,\nand it is in these conditions that discretion is likely to be misused, thus highlighting the need for more\ncontrol.\nDiscretion among the lower ranks in policing organizations makes control by the organization imperative\nso that the operational decisions represent the organization\xe2\x80\x99s values. Panzarella (2003) suggests that\norganizational control of police discretion is a facade because police officers are an uncontrollable entity\nand that an increase in police discretion will further erode such control and more unethical practices will\nensue. Additionally, Punch (2003) suggests that systemic failures within policing organizations result in\ncorruption: the outcome of a lack of control by managers who, he asserts, are all too willing to let rules\nbe bent or broken. At issue then, according to Panzarella (2003) and Punch (2003), is the inability of\npolice management to monitor and control the inevitability of police discretion.\nWhile police managers have access to technology that enables them to closely monitor the discretion\nexercised by police officers at all times (Alderson, 2003), a manager watching an officer\xe2\x80\x99s every move\nis a superficial solution, which suggests a lack of trust in the ethics and values of the officer. Managers\n127\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 128\n\nmust instead act in ways that promote values that reflect the organization\xe2\x80\x99s goals; they must also pass\nthese values on to their subordinates so that they too will use their discretion in a similar fashion. The\ngoal is to lead officers in enabling the effective use of discretion rather than merely overseeing their\nevery operational decision.\n\n\x0c7.3 Selective Enforcement\n\nLaw enforcement officers are given enormous discretion to choose which laws to enforce and when.\nWhile discretion enables them to decide when and what to investigate, issues arise when an officer\xe2\x80\x99s\ndecision may be questionable. Officers often refer to the \xe2\x80\x9cways and means act\xe2\x80\x9d to explain selective\nenforcement that results in \xe2\x80\x9clegally\xe2\x80\x9d punishing poor behaviour in a way that may not be justified. An\nexample is best used to illustrate this line of thinking.\nA police officer who is accosted by a rude and obnoxious citizen may find an obsolete charge with which\nto charge the person to teach him or her a lesson. The charge is usually something minor, such as riding\na bicycle without a bell. While technically the bylaw may require riders to have a bicycle bell, it may\nvery rarely be used. In addition, the police officer may not have enforced this bylaw in the past and is\naware that numerous people ride bicycles without bells.\nWhile the officer has a legal right to charge the citizen, he or she should reflect on how this case will\nlook if it is taken to court. The officer\xe2\x80\x99s credibility will be questioned after the circumstances of the\ncase are read in court. Typically, the citizen\xe2\x80\x99s obnoxious behaviour, when recalled later on, will pale in\ncomparison to what the court could rule as an abuse of authority by the police officer. Officers must\nbe objective and treat everyone equally, regardless of the behaviour exhibited. When confronted with\nobnoxious citizens, officers must strive to remain unmoved, unnerved, and calm. Using discretion as a\ntool to charge a citizen with obsolete laws and bylaws should be avoided for the good of the officer, the\nagency, and society.\n\n129\n\n\x0c7.4 Loyalty\n\nMost branches of law enforcement are paramilitary, having a formal rank structure while still possessing\nsome traits of a civilian organization. One of the characteristics of a military environment is loyalty\nand camaraderie: loyalty to other members of the agency, loyalty to the system of rank structure, and\nloyalty to the values possessed by the agency. Correction guards and other law enforcement personnel\nwork most of their careers in an unsafe environment, in which they have to rely on one another for their\nsafety. In this context, when a law enforcement member is in danger, that member must be secure in\nthe belief that fellow members will be loyal to him or her, even in dangerous situations or situations\ninvolving emotional risk. Loyalty is critical for ensuring law enforcement members understand that their\ncolleagues will be willing to ignore danger and assist them regardless of the peril. Without loyalty and\ncamaraderie, law enforcement personnel would be ineffective as they would likely be reluctant to put\nthemselves in harm\xe2\x80\x99s way.\nPolice investigators for one agency often assist other investigators in different agencies. Part of this\ncompelling duty to assist in an investigation is because of a sense of loyalty to other members of the\nsame profession. The loyalty felt by officers fosters teamwork in investigations and in general duty or\npatrol work. Loyalty and teamwork in all branches of law enforcement are critical in preventing crime,\ninvestigating crime, and guarding prisoners.\nWhile loyalty is important, there are limitations; officers should be aware of how far their loyalty extends\nbefore they report misconduct. Westmarland (2010) surveyed police officers about corruption and the\n\xe2\x80\x9cblue code\xe2\x80\x9d of silence. Specifically, Westmarland sought the following:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What officers think about violations of rules\n\xe2\x80\xa2 When to inform superiors of rule breaking\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Whether informing superiors of rule breaking is just as bad as the behaviour of the original\nrule breaker\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Behaviour the officer would definitely not report on\n\xe2\x80\xa2 What the appropriate punishment would be for each sort of behaviour\nThe survey included scenarios that ranged in seriousness from off-duty business interests to theft and\nassault. Scenarios varied and included themes that were acquisitive (where greed was the motivating\nfactor, such as theft), administrative or internal disciplinary infringements (rule bending), and noble\ncause corruption. The survey was administered to 171 serving police officers in the United Kingdom.\nBased on the survey results, Westmarland concluded the following:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Acquisitive cases were regarded by the officers as being the most serious.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Officers in judging acquisitive cases severely depended largely on the perceived dollar\namount that was taken.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 It is not clear whether the money amount, or the way the money/property was taken, is\n130\n\n\x0c131 Chapter 7: Discretion, Supervision, and Leadership\n\ncorrelated to the perceived seriousness of the case.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Of the acquisitive scenarios, taking bribes (95% of respondents), stealing at a crime scene\n(99% of respondents), and taking money from a wallet (95% of respondents) were described\nas very serious.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Of these acquisitive scenarios, taking bribes (82% of respondents would report to their\nsuperiors), stealing at a crime scene (95% of respondents would report to their superiors), and\ntaking money from a wallet (88% of respondents would report to their superiors) were highly\nreportable.\nOf particular interest is that some officers who stated that these offences were serious said they would\nnot report them to a supervisor. For example, 95% of officers described taking money from a wallet as\nvery serious. However, 88% stated they would report to their supervisors, meaning 7% who considered\nthis as very serious would not report something that they thought was very serious to their supervisor.\nThis is a demonstration of officers who value loyalty more than the morality of other officers.\nWestmarland also concluded the following:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Officers generally appear to be forgiving of noble cause corruption, brutality, and rule\nbending.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Officers were generally unwilling to report the behaviours related to noble cause.\nWestmarland\xe2\x80\x99s study provokes the following questions:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Are police officers right in grading the seriousness of the infringements?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Are officers who do not report infringements as guilty as those who commit the original\ninfringement?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Does loyalty stop police from reporting infringements?\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Are questionnaires of this nature reliable, or do officers respond only in a way in which they\nthink they should respond?\nPolice officers who breach loyalty to report minor ethical violations may be seen to damage the overall\nteam or structure of a law enforcement agency. The importance of loyalty within law enforcement is\nan inhibitor for reporting instances of ethical misconduct, and law enforcement officers are required,\nat times, to alter their loyalty from individuals in their agency or profession to their agency or society\nat large. This requires a more comprehensive world view that looks past the individual and focuses on\nthe values of the organization or society. The reporting officer will inevitably have his or her loyalty\nquestioned by other officers in the agency; however, it is the loyalty of the officer participating in the\nmisconduct that should be questioned, and that person should be viewed as disloyal to society and to the\ngoals and values of his or her organization.\n\n\x0c7.5 Ethical Leadership\n\nAs we have learned, ethical conduct in law enforcement is critical. Leaders within law enforcement\nagencies play a significant role in determining the ethical orientation of their agency. Specifically,\nleaders must regard ethics as a key component of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s culture in which officers behave ethically\nand respect the rights of others. This can only be accomplished by leaders demonstrating ethical actions\nto all members of the agency.\nZuidema and Duff (2009) believe that agency leadership can facilitate an ethical workforce in the\nfollowing ways:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Incorporate agency values or ideals through mission statements. Mission statements are a tool\nagencies can use to explicitly state their values for all to see. Some agencies develop mission\nstatements and present them to their workers who sign a confirmation that they hold the same\nvalues as the agency and will adopt the values stated in the mission statement. The\nconfirmation is strictly symbolic in nature, but it can be a powerful reminder of the values\nthat are important.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Focus on ethical behaviour as part of formal events and training sessions. Ethical behaviour\nshould be woven throughout all training and stated in lesson plans. Leaders should not\nassume that ethical decisions are made, but rather they should remind and train members that\nethical considerations are a critical component of their daily business activities.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Emphasize ethical behaviour in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s philosophy. The agency must reflect ethics in all\npolicies and philosophies. In law enforcement, agencies must be aware of the problems that\narise when crime control models are too closely adhered to at the expense of ethical\nbehaviour.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Do not tolerate any unethical activities, including unethical behaviour at the executive level.\nThis means that agencies should consider a policy of zero tolerance for any unethical activity\nby executives. Agencies should consider universality as a test for executives: assessing the\nethics of the behaviour by assessing whether the behaviour would be appropriate for every\nmember of the agency.\nMayer et al. (2009) have proposed a \xe2\x80\x9ctrickle down\xe2\x80\x9d model in which the effects of ethical leadership are\nmimicked by workers throughout the ranks and are eventually replicated by employees at all levels of\nthe hierarchy. In a survey administered to employees and leaders in corporations in southeastern United\nStates, Mayer et al. (2009) found:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Top management has an effect on employee behaviour indirectly through supervisory\nleadership.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Employees imitate the behaviour of leaders.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Employees will behave in a manner consistent with what they believe are the values of the\nemployer.\n132\n\n\x0c133 Chapter 7: Discretion, Supervision, and Leadership\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 It is likely that leaders who demonstrate ethical behaviour influence middle managers who\ninfluence all employees.\nMayer et al. (2009) further suggest that these findings have practical implications in large organizations;\nthat is, because of the relationship between leaders and subordinates, it is critical to promote or hire\nethical leaders. Ethics training for management is important for enhancing the ethical decision making\nof leaders, thereby promoting ethical behaviour throughout the hierarchy.\nBy extension, we can extrapolate that employees will replicate the unethical behaviour of leadership. In\nlaw enforcement, this can lead to corrupt practices among patrol officers who model the behaviour of\ncorrupt leaders. The implication is that law enforcement agencies cannot tolerate unethical behaviour\namong members of the lower ranks and especially among those who serve in leadership roles.\nFrisch and Huppenbauer (2014) studied ethical leadership by conducting a series of interviews with 18\nexecutive leaders. They determined that ethical leadership leads to the following outcomes:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Enhanced well-being of themselves, society, nature, and other people\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Financial success of their enterprise due to benefits resulting from a positive reputation\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Satisfaction from customers and employees\n\n\x0c7.6 Transactional and Transformational Leadership\n\nHuberts, Kaptein, and Lasthuizen (2007) found that effective role modelling is especially significant\nin demonstrating moral behaviour, while strictness is especially effective in limiting fraud, corruption,\nand the misuse of resources. As an extension of strictness, the ethics of law enforcement agencies are\nlikely to be greater when there are rules, regulations, and systems of oversight that carefully manage law\nenforcement behaviour. In the case of law enforcement agencies, the behaviour usually occurs on the\nstreet, where street police officers are interacting with civilians without supervision. Because the police\nare out of view and not supervised for much of their working day, leadership must evolve away from\nstrictness as a way to promote ethical conduct.\nThere are two distinct models of leadership that operate within large organizations: transformational and\ntransactional. Historically, due to the paramilitary nature of law enforcement, leadership has largely been\ntransactional. Transactional leadership in law enforcement is a style of management used by those who\nare more oriented toward bureaucracy and maintaining the status quo. Transactional leaders tend to take\nthe decision-making powers away from those they supervise and to make decisions on their own, not\nyielding power to those beneath them in the hierarchy. This leadership style often runs contrary to what is\npractised in law enforcement: the requirement to exercise discretion throughout the ranks (Bass, 1990).\nBowie (2000) asserts that leadership is not effective unless managers empower subordinates to make\ndecisions; however, the empowerment of subordinates is at odds with the military hierarchical system.\nWhat is required is a system that allows subordinates to make operational decisions and leadership\nthat is willing to risk the mistakes that result from these decisions. Mastrofski (2004) suggests the\nway to achieve these goals is through transformational leadership, which guides officers to make the\nright decisions by following the moral lead of their managers who possess the moral standards that are\nshared by the organization. Failure to promote these values will lead subordinates to mirror the unethical\npractices of their leader, resulting in poor decisions. There are risks associated in allowing subordinates\nto use discretion, such as forgetting, missing, or just not adhering to the morals of their leader; risk is\nunavoidable when subordinates are given increased discretion.\nThe risk of poor decisions at the operational level requires strong leadership in which managers not only\nunderstand the risk but also are willing and able to bear the weight of this risk (Villiers, 2003). Such a\nstyle of leadership is difficult within a culture that is so deeply entrenched in a military type of structure,\nwhere following policy and rules are expected throughout the hierarchy. Villiers (2003, p. 28) describes\nthis as \xe2\x80\x9cmechanistic bureaucratization\xe2\x80\x9d in which the policing service operates in an autocratic style,\nwhich is contrary to the autonomy police officers have in exercising their discretion. Villiers (2003)\nfurther argues that a more democratic style of leadership is required in order to effectively lead the\nofficer who exercises more discretion than his or her manager.\nTransformational leadership is conducive to discretionary policing and, in its purest form, empowers\nsubordinates to make moral decisions that are reflective of the organization (Bass, 1990). The\ntransformational leader requires followers to transcend their own interests to uphold the interests of the\norganization by focusing on future and long-term goals instead of short-term satisfaction (Bass, 1990).\nA transformational leader is required to exert his or her organizational morals on subordinates who will\n134\n\n\x0c135 Chapter 7: Discretion, Supervision, and Leadership\n\nin turn make decisions that reflect the leader\xe2\x80\x99s values and therefore the organization\xe2\x80\x99s values. The result\nof such effective leadership is a subordinate who, when confronted with operational decisions, will be\nable to make the same decisions that his or her leader would make. In this way, a transformational\nleader is a \xe2\x80\x9cdeveloper of people and a builder of teams who inspire their followers to act and make\ndecisions\xe2\x80\x9d (Bass, 1990, p.54). Bass (1990) further describes those that possess such qualities as being\nnaturally gifted and suggests that one is either born with the trait or not, which renders them a valuable\ncommodity.\nThe notion that transformational leaders are born, not made, presents a problem for law enforcement\nagencies that need sergeants and other managers to possess both operational knowledge and\ntransformational qualities. The possibility that managers cannot be taught transformational qualities\npotentially eliminates those who hold only operational knowledge as an attribute. Tourish, Craig, and\nAmernic (2010, p.41) describe such leaders as \xe2\x80\x9cexceptional people\xe2\x80\x9d who are also powerful and have\nthe ability to understand organizational values as well as the personalities of their followers. Police\nmanagers, having risen through the ranks, may or may not be capable of developing such attributes and\nas result, require training. In their qualitative study of managers, Hay and Hodgkinson (2006) found\nmanagers who felt that training in these qualities is a difficult prospect and something that cannot\nbe learned in courses. This makes it difficult for those police managers who are not born with these\nqualities to learn and apply them on a regular basis. Courses in leadership are used to train officers\nof all ranks; however, there have been few studies that have determined whether this training leads to\ntransformational leadership or not. The question remains: can competent operational officers learn the\nskills to be transformational leaders?\nThe notion of transformational leadership in policing is sometimes at odds with police culture for the\nfollowing reasons:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Officers are unlikely to embrace the transformational leader due to their inculcation in the\nblame culture where blame is assessed when discretion has failed and a mistake is made\n(Villiers, 2003). The blame culture is a double-edged sword:\n\xe2\x97\xa6 First, operational officers mistrust their superiors, believing that if they make a\nmistake, they will be held accountable.\n\xe2\x97\xa6 Second, managers have difficultly extricating themselves from the blame culture\nwhen assessing the poor discretionary decision of a subordinate.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Police culture is generally characterized by cynicism toward leadership, and this is especially\ntrue toward leaders who are charismatic and are purveyors of transformational leadership\nvalues (Villiers, 2003).\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Transformational leaders must fight the blame culture and be willing to accept the inevitable\nrisk associated with decisions made at the operational level. As discretion increases, so too\ndoes the risk of more mistakes. The manager who assumes the role of transformational leader\nmust accept this risk as a part of officers\xe2\x80\x99 development rather than as an opportunity to\nblame.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 In acknowledging the inevitability of discretion, Mastrofski (2004) maps out transformational\nleadership as the best way to ensure proper and effective control of discretion among\noperational police officers. Transformational leadership convinces officers to make the right\ndiscretionary choices by persuading them to achieve the right goals without the need to\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 136\n\ndirectly supervise them. Officers functioning beyond the view of their superiors will need to\nuse discretion, and if they have adopted the values of their leader (and therefore their\norganization), they will likely make decisions that are based on these shared values (Bass,\n1990).\n\n\x0cReferences\n\nAlderson, J. (2003). Police leadership: A search for principles. In R. Adlam and P. Villiers (eds), Police\nleadership in the twenty first century: Philosophy, doctrine and developments. (pp. 56-67).Waterside\nPress.\nBass, B. (1990). Bass and stodgill\xe2\x80\x99s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial\napplications (3rd ed.). The Free Press.\nBowie, N. (2000). A Kantian theory of leadership. The Leadership & Organization Development\nJournal, 21(4), 185-193.\nBritish Columbia Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Ministry of Attorney General, Ministry\nof Children and Family Development. (2010). Violence against women in relationships policy 2010.\nRetrieved from: http://endingviolence.org/publications/vawir-policy-2010/\nButterfield, R., Edwards, C., and Woodall, J. (2005). The new public management and managerial roles:\nThe case of the police sergeant. British Journal of Management, 16(4), 329\xe2\x80\x93341.\nCrawshaw, R., Devlin, B. and Williamson, T. (1998). Human rights and policing: standards for good\nbehaviour and strategy for change, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.\nDavies, A. and Thomas, R. (2003). Talking cop: discourses of change and policing identities. Public\nAdministration, 81(4), 681-699.\nDobel, P. (2005). Public management as ethics. In E. Ferlie, L. Lynn and C. Pollitt (eds), The Oxford\nhandbook of public management, (pp. 156-181). Oxford University Press.\nFrisch, C. and Huppenbauer, M. (2014). New insights into ethical leadership: A qualitative investigation\nof the experiences of executive ethical leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 23-43. doi:10.1007/\ns10551-013-1797.\nFyfe, J. (1996). Structuring police discretion. In (eds) J. Kleinig, Discretion: Ethical Issues in Police\nDecision Making. (pp. 183-205). Rowman and Littlefeild Publishers, Inc.\nHay, A. and Hodgkinson, M. (2006). Rethinking leadership: A way forward for teaching leadership.\nLeadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 144-158.\nHuberts, L. Kaptein, M. and Lasthuizen, K. (2007). A study of the impact of three leadership styles on\nintegrity violations committed by police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies\n& Management, 30(4), 587-607.\nHughes, O. and Newton, R. (2010). A police force in transition: Bureaucracy or management. Paper\npresented to the 14th IRSPM Conference Berne, Switzerland/April 7-9, 2010.\n\n137\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 138\n\nJones, T. (2008). The accountability of policing. Handbook of Policing. (pp. 693-724). Willan\nPublishing.\nKleinig, J. (1996). Handling discretion with discretion. In J. Kleinig (ed), Handled with discretion:\nEthical issues in police decision making. (pp. 1-12) Rowman and Littlefeild Publishers, Inc.\nKlofas, J., Stojkovic, S. And KalinichD. (1990). Criminal justice organisations: Administration and\nmanagement. Pacific Grove California: Brooke/Cole Publishing Co.\nLipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage\nFoundation.\nManning, P. (2010). The police: mandate, strategies and appearances. In T. Newburn (Ed.), T. Newburn,\nPolicing: Key readings. Willan Publishing.\nMastrofski, S.D. (2004). To better serve and protect: Improving police practices. (W. G. Skogan, Ed.).\nControlling Street-Level Police Discretion. Social Science, The Annals of The American Academy of\nPolitical And Social Science, 593100.\nMayer, D., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., and Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical\nleadership flow? Test of a trickledown Model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,\n108(1), 1\xe2\x80\x9313.\nMcLaughlin, E. (2009). Discretion. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (eds), The Sage Dictionary of\nCriminology, (pp. 134-135). Sage.\nNeyroud, P. (2008). Policing and ethics. Handbook of Policing. (pp. 666- 692). Willan Publishing.\nPagon, M. (2003). The need for a paradigm shift in police leadership. In R. Adlam and P. Villiers (eds),\nPolice leadership in the twenty first century: Philosophy, doctrine and developments. (pp. 157-168).\nWaterside Press.\nPanzarella, R. (2003). Leadership myths and realities. In R. Adlam and P. Villiers (eds), Police\nleadership in the twenty first century: Philosophy, doctrine and developments. (pp. 119-133). Waterside\nPress.\nPunch, M. (2003). Rotten Orchards: \xe2\x80\x9cPestilence\xe2\x80\x9d, police misconduct and system failure. Policing and\nSociety, 13(2), 171\xe2\x80\x93196.\nReiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police. Oxford University Press.\nRowe M. (2007). Rendering visible the invisible: Police discretion, professionalism and decisionmaking. Policing & Society, 17(3), 279-294.\nSanders, A. and Young, R. (2007). From suspect to trial. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds),\nThe Oxford handbook of criminology, (pp. 953-989). Oxford University Press.\nTillyer, R. and Klahm IV, C. (2011). Searching for contraband: Assessing the use of discretion by police\nofficers. Police Quarterly, 14(2), 166-185.\n\n\x0c139 Chapter 7: Discretion, Supervision, and Leadership\n\nTourish, D., Craig, R., & Amernic, J. (2010). Transformational leadership education and agency\nperspectives in business school pedagogy: A marriage of inconvenience? British Journal of\nManagement, 21(special supplement), S40-S59.\nRawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.\nVilliers, P. (2003). Philosophy, doctrine and leadership: Some core values. In R. Adlam and P. Villiers\n(eds), Police leadership in the twenty first century: Philosophy, doctrine and developments, (pp. 15-33).\nWaterside Press.\nWestmarland, L. (2008). Police cultures. In T. Newburn (ed), Handbook of Policing, (pp. 253-280).\nWillan Publishing.\nZuidema, B. V., and Duff Jr., H. (2009). Organizational ethics through effective leadership. FBI Law\nEnforcement Bulletin, 78(3), 8-11.\n\n\x0cChapter 8: The Culture of Law Enforcement\n\n140\n\n\x0c8.1 Police Subculture\n\nAt the root of all that is good and bad in law enforcement, there is a strong subculture that permeates\nmost agencies. While a common theme in academic discourse is that police culture is negative,\nentrenched in cynicism, masochism, loyalty above all else, and an \xe2\x80\x9cus versus them\xe2\x80\x9d mentality, it has\npositive aspects that are often overlooked. Members of the law enforcement subculture share values\nthat enable officers to survive what at times is a difficult and emotionally taxing job. Values such\nas supportiveness, teamwork, perseverance, empathy, and caring enable officers to cope with posttraumatic stress; they are part of team of colleagues who care for their coworkers. The support received\nfrom other officers is the result of shared values within the culture. Officers who are faced with\ndangerous situations are able to rely on their comrades because of other values they believe these\nmembers also possess. Values such as bravery, camaraderie, and sacrifice will embolden members to\nplace themselves in harm\xe2\x80\x99s way.\nThe following table outlines both positive and negative attributes within the police culture.\nTable 8.1 Police Culture: Positive and\nNegative Attributes\nPositive attributes Negative attributes\nSafety\n\nCynicism\n\nCamaraderie\n\nClose-mindedness\n\nEmpathy\n\nBiases\n\nSupport\n\nPrejudice\n\nCaring\n\nNon-scientific tactics\n\nTeamwork\n\nOverly conservative\n\nLoyalty\n\nLoyalty\n\nSacrifice\n\nAlienated\nSuspicion\nAuthoritarianism\n\nIn spite of the positive aspects of police subculture, what society may define as ethical or good conduct\nmay not be viewed within the subculture as relevant to the task, which is, among other things, to continue\nthe mission of \xe2\x80\x9csafe-guarding social order\xe2\x80\x9d (Reiner, 2010, p.120). The tactics that are relevant to the\npolice subculture may include using trickery and lies to elicit confessions and receiving minor gratuities\nto foster community relations (Reiner, 2010). Examining ethics and its relation to the police subculture\nis important to help delineate not only the grey area of ethics but also the grey area within which the\npolice operate.\n141\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 142\n\nOnce selected and hired by municipal police agencies, police recruits are exposed to police subculture\nduring their training partially due to the instruction they receive from police officers who are recently\nretired or seconded to the police academy. However, the choice to become a police officer is not made\nin a vacuum. When recruits start their training, they often think like police officers on a visceral level,\nbecause generally certain individuals are drawn to the occupation (Conti, 2010). In an ethnographic\nstudy observing police recruits at an American police academy, Conti (2010) observed that the evolution\nof recruits into members who reflect the police mindset likely started at an early age when they formed\nthe belief that they would become police officers. As potential officers enter the selection process, they\nbecome involved in an extensive application process, which is their first introduction into the police\nsubculture. Rokeach, Miller, and Snyder (1971) concluded that a police personality distinct from others\ndoes exist, and proposed the idea that individuals come into an occupation with predetermined attributes\nthat are identified with their new occupation. However, Rokeach et al. (1971) also found that this distinct\npolice personality is attributed to predispositions of personality that are present before the recruits\xe2\x80\x99\ninduction into the police subculture. These distinct predispositions are conducive to a career in policing\nand allow the individuals to comfortably choose and fit into the subculture (Conti, 2010; Rokeach et al.,\n1971). While the police subculture is distinct, at times it does attempt to catch up to the norms of the\nmainstream culture and can shift from negative attributes to positive attributes (Skolnick, 2008).\nA historical look at the police subculture offers a view into the changing nature of how police officers see\nthe world. In analyzing the police subculture in the 1940s, Myrdal (1964) observed in an ethnographic\nstudy of police officers in America that officers behaved in an overtly bigoted fashion toward African\nAmericans. Myrdal (1964) observed that these were the norms of the day and that the police subculture\nreflected the attitude of mainstream society toward African Americans. While not supported empirically,\nit would be a logical conclusion that police recruits or rookie police officers would have shared the same\ncultural bigotry as mainstream society and their fellow police officers. More recently, when we see and\nquestion incidents involving police use of force on racial minorities, it is important to look broadly at\nsociety as well. The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, is an example where prominent\ncivic leaders pointed out that the incident was merely a manifestation of a broader issue of racism that is\nwidespread throughout the United States.\nAs society has evolved so too have law enforcement agencies. Ethical conduct and diversity play a\nlarge role in recruiting and are considered important attributes of potential officers. Crank and Caldero\n(2010) have concluded that due to society\xe2\x80\x99s emphasis on ethics and the stringent hiring process, recruits\nare typically very ethical. The subculture, they argue, is not only present but also highly influential;\nthe recruits\xe2\x80\x99 ethical orientations are formed earlier, well before their application process commences\n(Crank and Caldero, 2010). Conversely, Conti (2010) and Banish and Ruiz (2003) argue that the police\nsubculture is present when the officers start at the police academy and that its influence on recruits\xe2\x80\x99\nethics is negative and destructive.\nConti views a recruit\xe2\x80\x99s induction into the police academy as a transformation of the recruit into the\n\xe2\x80\x9corganisational ideal\xe2\x80\x9d (Conti, 2010). It is in this way, Conti (2010) argues, that the police subculture,\never-present at the police academy, assists in the conversion of the recruit from civilian to police officer.\nThese cultural nuances are passed on through a variety of means such as:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Parades and drills (Campbell, 2007)\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Marching (Davis, 1996)\n\n\x0c143 Chapter 8: The Culture of Law Enforcement\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Storytelling (Banish and Ruiz, 2003; Ford, 2003; Newburn and Reiner, 2007).\nStorytelling by instructors in the police academy can be a valuable and effective teaching tool, as\ndemonstrated by Conti\xe2\x80\x99s (2010) study of an American police academy. Stories told by trainers must\nreflect ethical conduct and be relatable to the lesson plan goals and outcomes. Conversely, stories by\ninstructors may inflate the recruits\xe2\x80\x99 perception of danger (Banish and Ruiz, 2003) or cynicism (Ford,\n2003), but instructors\xe2\x80\x99 stories can also serve to relay positive outcomes, such as surviving life and death\nsituations confronted by police (Conti, 2010). Ultimately, storytelling perpetuates the police subculture\nby passing on both truisms as well as not-so-true legends (Newburn and Reiner, 2007). Banish and Ruiz\n(2003) further contend that storytelling affects the police culture negatively by instilling negative traits\nof cynicism, suspicion, conservatism, and authoritarianism.\nThese negative traits are often associated with a police subculture that affects senior police officers,\nand it is specifically these traits that define an individual as a police officer. Skolnick (2008) considers\nthe police vocation as being similar to that of a priest or the clergy: the culture wholly defines what it\nmeans to be a police officer by the traits that police officers share. These traits, according to Skolnick,\ninclude \xe2\x80\x9cskepticism, cynicism, mistrust of outsiders\xe2\x80\x94all are traits observers of police apply to them and\nthat they apply to themselves\xe2\x80\x9d (2008, p.36). Twersky-Glasner (2005) concurs, noting that the police are\nmembers of a unique occupation in which they are the insiders and the rest of society are the outsiders.\nThe insiders are those who are trustworthy while outsiders are viewed with suspicion (Skolnick, 2008).\nThis is reflected not only in the culture in which recruits find themselves, but also in the training they\nreceive and the way in which they as civilians are accepted into the academy to begin training.\nIn a qualitative study of police officers, Loftus (2010) followed officers on the street and determined that\ntwo characteristics are ever-present in the police culture: cynicism and moral conservatism. While older\nofficers exhibit these traits, Loftus (2010) did observe that newer officers are hired from a more diverse\nbackground that includes different sexual orientations, cultures, and races. This may enable the police\nsubculture to adapt and overcome its more negative characteristics.\n\n\x0c8.2 Socialization of Police\n\nIt is through socialization that police recruits are inducted into the police subculture, enabling the\nsubculture to maintain its norms and to continue its existence (Newburn and Reiner, 2007; Volti, 2008).\nSocialization is the process in which recruits are introduced to police officers who impart not only their\nknowledge but also any negative qualities they possess. The influence of socialization is enormous: it\ncan erase the positive influences from training and introduce the recruit to the darker side of the police\nsubculture (Ellwanger, 2012; Volti, 2008). Ironically, within law enforcement the negative aspects of the\nsocialization of officers are also, at times, positive. Two examples are loyalty and solidarity, which can\nbe both positive and negative. The stories told in police academies may lead to confusion about what is\nethical loyalty and solidarity and what is unethical solidarity and loyalty.\nFord (2003) examined this phenomenon in a content analysis study in which he observed the use of\nparables or stories told by experienced police officers to police recruits during lessons, showing that\nshifts in the ethics of the recruits resulted from the socialization process that occurs when introducing\nrecruits to the police subculture. To Ford\xe2\x80\x99s surprise, 85% of the parables were neutral about the law and\nonly 11% referred to illegal activities, such as excessive use of force, unconstitutional searches, and\nlying in court.\nTypical of all studies using content analysis, Ford\xe2\x80\x99s (2003) study contains flaws because it relied\nexclusively on the memory of police recruits. The possibility of poor recollection by police recruits\ncan render the validity of such studies susceptible to bias (Gilbert, 2008). Even police recruits who\ncorrectly recall the parables may be mistaken about their intent and may bias their meaning by failing to\nunderstand what the instructor was trying to convey (Gilbert, 2008).\nSocialization is not just a law enforcement phenomenon. Socialization occurs at all levels of\nemployment, from assembly line workers (Thompson, 2003) to medical students (Becker and Geer,\n2003). In most occupations, socialization is a positive influence, as it is a means of learning unwritten\nrules that help the new worker assimilate into the new work environment (Coffey and Atkinson,\n1994; Harper and Lawson, 2003; Volti, 2008). While some occupations possess a strong organizational\nsubculture, which assists new workers beyond their formal training and education, other occupations\nhave little in the way of socialization to help new workers assimilate into the organization (Volti,\n2008). However, according to Harper and Lawson (2003), the socialization of all workers is a necessary\ncomponent for all occupations and professions. Because police exercise a high level of discretion and at\ntimes operate outside the realm of rules, the policing occupation relies heavily on socialization to help\nits recruits (Volti, 2008).\nTwo primary conditions that Volti (2008) identifies as being associated with higher levels of socialization\nare occupational isolation and danger. While the policing profession is not statistically dangerous, police\nofficers perceive certain aspects of their job as more dangerous than they are (Banish and Ruiz, 2003;\nLoyens, 2009; Twersky-Glasner, 2005). Unlike other more dangerous occupations, police officers are\nsubject to acts of willful harm, in which citizens target them intentionally. These dangers are different\nfrom those faced by other occupations in which accidents occur. The belief by officers that they are\ntargeted by some citizens who mean them harm reinforces the perceived need to protect one another.\n144\n\n\x0c145 Chapter 8: The Culture of Law Enforcement\n\nThe belief in the dangerousness of the police occupation, according to Volti (2008), reinforces the need\nfor socialization in which experienced members of the occupation share information with new recruits\nthat will protect and keep them safe.\nIsolation, as identified by Volti (2008), reflects both physical isolation (as with oil rig workers), and\nsocial isolation (as with shift workers). Police officers, according to Newburn and Reiner (2008), suffer\nfrom isolation based not only on their shift work but also from their subculture, which emphasizes moral\nconservatism, suspiciousness, and internal solidarity (Naus, van Iterson, and Roe, 2007). Together these\nmake for a potentially toxic level of socialization that police recruits confront when they first start on\ntheir journey as police officers. Police officers, as a by-product of their isolation, rely on the solidarity\nand loyalty of other officers, which may cause increased tension between upholding this solidarity and\nperforming ethically (Reiner, 2010).\nPolice socialization is particularly invasive early on due to the dominant nature of a police academy\xe2\x80\x99s\nparamilitary structure (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce, 2010). Police recruits at the B.C. Police Academy,\nlocated at the Justice Institute of British Columbia, are immediately introduced to a formal militarystyle inspection in their first hour. The nature of paramilitary-style education has historically been to\nstrip a person of his or her individuality and force a culture of compliance upon the individual (Chappell\nand Lanza-Kaduce, 2010). In doing so, the individual\xe2\x80\x99s personal values are replaced with those of the\norganization. Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) further argue that such a pervasive culture should be\nclosely examined, and attempts should be made to neutralize it.\nIn spite of the negative aspects of socialization, there can be some benefits to the socialization of\nexperienced police officers with junior officers. Paoline (2004) asserts that while socialization within the\npolice subculture is generally negative, there are values that are learned in the process of socialization\nwith senior police officers. Learning the craft of any complex occupation or profession is enhanced when\nsenior members pass on vital information learned from experience (Paoline, 2004). However, it is critical\nfor the recruit to adhere to the organization\xe2\x80\x99s values even if they conflict with information received\nduring negative socialization (Sato, 2003). Socialization can impart to a recruit values and ethics that are\nnot formally written down, yet are needed for the recruit to function well in the job while on the road\n(Gould and Moore, 2003). A value that recruits learn through socialization is loyalty, which is strongly\nassociated with the military (Loyens, 2009; Sunahara, 2002).\nCampbell (2007) further states that the police academy process institutionalizes the culture of the\norganization in the recruit. This institutionalization is enhanced through the use of artifacts such as\nwearing uniforms and taking part in drill parades, which are overseen by experienced police officers who\nultimately are responsible for enforcing the expectations they have of recruits to adopt the institution\xe2\x80\x99s\nvalues and to prove they are suited to continue on the path of a policing career (Campbell, 2007). This\nis evident at the B.C. Police Academy where police recruits learn how to march and stand for inspection\nunder the watchful eyes of senior officers. The process is designed to ready recruits for ceremonial duties\nand to learn formations that may be applied in situations such as crowd control.\nEllwanger (2012) agrees that recruits are socialized through these means, but sees a more sinister\nside to the police subculture, noting that the process of job socialization and enculturation may both\npurposefully and inadvertently threaten the positive ethical ideals and values brought to the police\nprofession by new recruits. A strong or pervasive deviant subculture, according to Ellwanger (2012),\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 146\n\nmay exist in some instances, which can passively or actively teach unethical behaviours to new police\nofficers.\nChappell and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) add to this concept through their ethnographic study of a police\nacademy in Florida. Here they observed the negative influences of the military nature of the police\nacademy. The attributes of a military-style academy led to periods of socialization in which the recruits\nwere indoctrinated into a paramilitary-style culture whose values included loyalty, solidarity, and dress\nand deportment (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce, 2010). The socialization within the walls of the police\nacademy was sufficient as an introduction to police culture; on the road socialization simply reinforces\nthese ideas. Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) argue that the socialization within the academy is\nso pervasive that it creates an \xe2\x80\x9cus versus them\xe2\x80\x9d mentality, which is contrary to values found in\ncommunity policing. Ellwanger (2012) further suggests that the socialization recruits experience on the\njob unintentionally thwarts the values and ethical practices they develop at the police academy. The\nsubculture, Ellwanger (2012) argues, is responsible for teaching recruits unethical behaviours.\nAdditionally, to demonstrate the importance of socialization, Mastrofski and Ritti (1996) investigated\nthe perspective of officers regarding impaired driver investigations. They found that officers trained in\nimpaired driving investigations who returned to supportive organizations were more likely to follow\ntheir training. Those officers who returned to organizations that did not value impaired driving\ninvestigations eventually considered their training to be \xe2\x80\x9ctechnically irrelevant\xe2\x80\x9d (Mastrofski and Ritti,\n1996, p.318). The implications of these findings suggest that socialization in a negative organization can\nundermine positive training.\nIn taking a different approach, Rokeach et al. (as cited in Twersky-Glasner, 2005) found that\nsocialization plays a secondary role when recruits bring established values into their careers. These\npersonality traits are congruent with those of other experienced police officers, and the socialization\nprocess is minor, likely reinforcing recruits\xe2\x80\x99 long-held beliefs. According to Rokeach et al. (as cited in\nTwersky-Glasner, 2005), these distinctive personality traits are present when the recruit is deciding upon\nhis or her career, and it is these traits that attracts the person to policing.\nThe socialization of police and other law enforcement officers has both positive and negative\ncomponents. The negative components create an atmosphere that may lead some officers to immoral\nand/or unethical conduct that runs contrary to the stated values of the agency. As mentioned previously,\ncitizens who have demonstrated a high level of moral conduct are recruited into policing. Despite\ndemonstrated morality being a key required attribute, a small percentage of officers act immorally on\noccasion. The socialization of some of these officers may be where they learned their immoral behavior.\n\n\x0c8.3 Skepticism and Cynicism\n\nCynicism, as mentioned previously, is a major negative component of the police subculture. Cynicism\nshould not be confused with skepticism as they are vastly different. Skepticism refers to critical\nthinking, which is what we should all strive for. It allows us to question commonly held beliefs that\nmay not be true. It forms the basis of scientific inquiry that has enabled humanity to evolve from\na reliance on superstition to an ability to address difficult questions and problems in society using\nresearch and reasoned approaches. Skepticism is especially important in law enforcement as it is a\ncritical component of being an objective investigator, one who is willing to view issues from a neutral\nperspective. According to Kurtz (2010, p.13) \xe2\x80\x9ca skeptic is one who is willing to question any claim to\ntruth, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence.\xe2\x80\x9d The ability to\nquestion any claims of truth is critical for all law enforcement officers who are confronted on a daily\nbasis with people who are disinclined to tell the truth in order to protect their own interests. Furthermore,\ninvestigators should strive for empirical evidence that eliminates a biased conclusion that can potentially\nlead to wrongful accusations and convictions.\nSkepticism is endangered when we have difficulty distinguishing between \xe2\x80\x9cquestioning truth\xe2\x80\x9d and\n\xe2\x80\x9cquestioning and rejecting truth. Kurtz (2010) defines this as \xe2\x80\x9cnihilistic skepticism.\xe2\x80\x9d In essence, this\nis the assertion that nothing should be believed as truth, because it is unprovable. As such, nihilistic\nskepticism is based upon subjectivity. Nihilistic skepticism is essentially skepticism in which there is\nno basis for \xe2\x80\x9cobjective moral judgment\xe2\x80\x9d (Kurtz, 2010, p.15).\nCynicism is similar to nihilistic skepticism; however, it embodies an element of pessimism toward\neveryday occurrences that may ignore the objective truth. Cynicism can include a negative response to\nmorality that illustrates a contempt for community standards. Truth is unimportant to a cynic, and the\ndistrust that is exhibited by the cynic belies the facts. Specifically, law enforcement officers often see\nthemselves in an \xe2\x80\x9cus versus them\xe2\x80\x9d environment in which officers are attacked from all sides of society.\nOfficers routinely say that the biggest stress they face is not on the streets from dangerous people but in\nthe office before they make it to the streets. This notion is, to a degree, cynical. The objective truth is that\nthe streets are not as safe as the office; however, officers ignore this due to their frustration in dealing\nwith management.\nAnother example of cynicism is the belief some officers have that the only way to remove sex-trade\nworkers from the area they patrol is to verbally abuse them to the point they feel threatened. In cynical\nofficers\xe2\x80\x99 minds, such behaviour is acceptable even though it may be contrary to community standards\nand their agency\xe2\x80\x99s values.\nSunahara (2002) draws a further link between cynicism, alienation, and estrangement from management\nand departmental policy, suggesting that police officers who become alienated are likely to become\ndisengaged from performing their duties and could slip into unethical behaviour. The cause of alienation\nis unclear, raising the possibility that cynicism begets alienation, or that alienation begets cynicism.\nGraves (1996, as cited in Sunahara, 2002, p.12) describes police cynicism as \xe2\x80\x9can attitude of\n\xe2\x80\x98contemptuous distrust of human nature and motives.\xe2\x80\x99 A cynic expects nothing but the worst in human\n147\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 148\n\nbehaviour.\xe2\x80\x9d The feeling of alienation stems from this attitude as officers shield themselves from those\nthey believe they cannot trust and from those who are potentially dangerous to them and their families.\nThis feeling is likely the result of working in a negative environment in which officers see and do\nthings that mainstream society is not privy to. Police officers often talk about happenings on the job that\n\xe2\x80\x9cyou couldn\xe2\x80\x99t write in a movie script, because they are so unbelievable.\xe2\x80\x9d Much of what police officers\nsee is rarely talked about in mainstream society because it is alarming and disturbing. Yet officers are\nconfronted with these issues not only on a daily basis but multiple times a day, depending on where the\nofficer works. It is little wonder that officers in this environment tend to want to alienate themselves\nfrom society, and little wonder why alienation, at the very least, isn\xe2\x80\x99t coupled with cynicism.\n\n\x0c8.4 Moral Culpability versus Legal Culpability\n\nMoral culpability is loosely tied to mens rea, meaning that there is an explanation for the intent of the\nactor. However, with moral culpability, the explanation put forth by the actor may excuse the immoral\naction from being caused due to intentional immorality. An example would be a mother who has killed\nher infant while suffering postnatal depression. The mother would not be charged with murder, as would\na stranger who killed the same infant, or a mother who is not suffering postnatal depression who killed\nher infant. However, because the mother suffers from a medical diagnosis of postnatal depression,\nshe would be charged with the lesser offence of infanticide. A mother with postpartum depression is\nsuffering an illness, and her decision to kill her infant is not a moral one, rather it is a decision she\nhas made due to her illness. A further example would be a person who kills someone because he\nthreatened serious bodily harm to another person. Although the action is homicide, there may be no\nmoral culpability because the intent was first to save another person even though the mens rea may have\nexisted to kill the victim in order to stop him. Because the moral culpability is less than if someone killed\nfor his or her own gain, a manslaughter charge would be used instead of a murder charge. Here we weigh\nmoral culpability against legal culpability.\nA police officer on the street may, in some instances, use his or her discretion when determining moral\nculpability or legal culpability for minor investigations. Where a suspect of a crime may be charged with\nan offence, the officer may decide not to charge because of diminished moral culpability. An example is\na minor theft in which a homeless suspect steals a blanket in order to survive a frigid night on the streets.\nThe officer may choose to forgo charges and locate a shelter for the homeless suspect.\nThe distinction between moral culpability and legal culpability is at times blurred; law enforcement\nofficers must be aware that what may be legally permissible may not be morally permissible. While\nit is true that in solving ethical dilemmas, officers should consider the laws or regulations that are\napplicable, so too must they consider the moral culpability in all their actions regardless of the lack of\nlegal restrictions. An example in a law enforcement context may be an officer who ignores a homeless\nperson waving her hand for assistance. While there may be no policy or legal infraction, the officer\xe2\x80\x99s\nconduct may be regarded as morally culpable if the homeless person is later harmed when the officer\xe2\x80\x99s\nassistance may have protected her from harm. The officer who ignored the person may be regarded as\nmorally culpable for the injury by not assisting the person. Another example would be an officer who\nfails to investigate a crime due to a heavy caseload. Should the omission of the investigation lead to a\npreventable assault, the argument may be made that the investigator\xe2\x80\x99s decision not to investigate made\nhim or her morally culpable, depending on the reasoning behind the officer\xe2\x80\x99s decision. If the officer\ndecided that the case was not as serious as others, then it may be determined that the officer was not\nmorally culpable. However, if the officer\xe2\x80\x99s decision was based upon the ethnicity of the victim, then the\nofficer would be morally culpable for the assault that occurred as a result of the officer\xe2\x80\x99s decision.\n\n149\n\n\x0cReferences\n\nBanish, H. and Ruiz, J. (2003). The anti-social police personality: a view from the inside. International\nJournal of Public Administration, 26(7). 831-881. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019322\nBecker, H. and Geer, B. (2003). The fate of idealism in medical school. In D. Harper and H. Lawson\n(eds.), The cultural study of work, (pp. 65-74). Rowman and Littlefield>\nCampbell, M. (2007). Applying communities of practice to the learning police. Learning and Sociocultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskin Perspectives\xe2\x80\x99 Workshop, 1(1). Retrieved from:\nhttp://ro.uow.edu.au/llrg.\nChappell, A. and Lanza-Kaduce, L. (2010). Police academy socialisation: Understanding the lessons\nlearned in a paramilitary organisation. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(2), 187-214.\nhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0891241609342230\nCoffey, A. and Atkinson, P. (1994). Occupational socialization and working lives. Ashgate Publishing\nCo.\nConti, N. (2010). Weak links and warrior hearts: A framework for judging self and others in police\ntraining. Police Practice and Research, 12(5), 410\xe2\x80\x93423.\nCrank, J. and Caldero, M. (2010) Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause. Mathew Bendre and\nCompany.\nDavis, M. (1996). Police, discretion, and professions. In J. Kleinig (Ed.), Handled with discretion:\nEthical issues in police decision making. (pp. 1-35). Rowman and Littlefield.\nEllwanger, S. (2012). How police officers learn ethics. In M. Braswell, B. McCarthy, and B. McCarthy\n(eds.). Justice, crime and ethics (7th Ed). (pp. 45-71). Elsevier.\nFord, R. (2003). Saying one thing, meaning another: the role of parables in police training. Police\nQuarterly, 6(1), 84-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611102250903\nGilbert, N. (2008) Researching social life (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.\nGould L. and Moore, C. (2003). Comparison of the MMPI-2 and Niederhoffer: Cynicism scales\nfor a sample of police academy trainees. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 18(2), 20-27.\nhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF02807244\nHarper, D. and Lawson, H. (2003). Introduction. In D. Harper and H. Lawson (Eds.). The Cultural Study\nof Work, (xi-xviii). Rowman and Littlefield.\nLoftus, B. (2010). Police occupational culture: classic themes, altered times. Policing & Society, 20(1),\n1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460903281547\n150\n\n\x0c151 Chapter 8: The Culture of Law Enforcement\n\nLoyens, K. (2009). Occupational culture in policing reviewed: a comparison of values in the public and\nprivate police. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(6), 461-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/\n01900690902861688\nMastrofski, S. and Ritti, R. (1996). Police training and the effects of organizations on drunk driving\nenforcement. Justice Quarterly, 13(2), 291-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829600092951\nMyrdal, G. (1964). An American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy (Vol. 2),\nMcGraw-Hill.\nNaus, F, van Iterson, A. & Roe, R. (2007). Organizational cynicism: Extending the exit, voice, loyalty,\nand neglect model of employees\xe2\x80\x99 responses to adverse conditions in the workplace, Human Relations,\n60(5), 683-718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707079198\nNewburn T. and Reiner, R. (2007). Policing and the police. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner,\nThe Oxford Handbook of Criminology (4th ed.). (pp. 910-952). Oxford: Oxford University Press.\nPaoline, E. (2004). Shedding light on police culture: An examination of officers\xe2\x80\x99 occupational attitudes.\nPolice Quarterly, 7, 205-236.\nReiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police. Oxford University Press.\nRokeach, M., Miller, M.G. and Snyder, J.A. (1971). The value gap between the police and the policed.\nJournal of Social Issues, 27, 55-171.\nSato, M. (2003). Police recruits\xe2\x80\x99 training and the socialisation process: from the network perspective.\nThe Police Journal, 76, 289-303.\nSkolnick, J. (2008). Enduring issues of police culture and demographics. Policing & Society, 18(1)\n35-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460701718542\nSunahara, D.F. (2002). A social-psychological model of unethical and unprofessional police behaviour.\nCanadian Police College.\nThompson, W. (2003). Hanging tongues: A sociological encounter with the assembly line. In D. Harper\nand H. Lawson (Eds.). The cultural study of work. (pp. 313-334). Rowman and Littlefield.\nTwersky-Glasner, A. (2005). Police personality: What is it and why are they like that? Journal of Police\nand Criminal Psychology, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02806707\nVolti, R. (2008). An introduction to the sociology of work and occupations. Pine Force Press.\n\n\x0cAppendix. The British Columbia Police Code of Ethics\n\nThe people of British Columbia expect the police to serve with courage, fairness, impartiality and\nintegrity and to apply democratic principles that honour human dignity in the pursuit of justice.\nRecognizing that the policing profession is distinguished by the character and values of the individuals\nwithin it, the British Columbia Police Code of Ethics reflects the commitment of all Police Officers in\nBritish Columbia, regardless of their rank or position, to ethical principles and values, and acceptance\nof the responsibilities and privilege that accompany public service. Moreover, it is recognized that the\nPolice Code of Ethics applies both individually and collectively, and as such applies equally to the\norganizations and agencies that make up the policing profession in British Columbia.\n\nFundamental Principles\nPolice Officers in the Province of British Columbia, along with their respective organizations and\nagencies, embrace the following Fundamental Principles, which underpin the Guiding Values, Primary\nResponsibilities and Decision-Making framework.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 democracy & the rule of law\n\xe2\x80\xa2 justice & equality\n\xe2\x80\xa2 protection of life & property\n\xe2\x80\xa2 safeguarding the public trust\n\xe2\x80\xa2 that the police are the public and the public are the police\n\xe2\x80\xa2 the principles of the Constitution of Canada\n\xe2\x80\xa2 the rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights & Freedoms\n\nGuiding Values\nPolice Officers in the Province of British Columbia, along with their respective organizations and\nagencies, look to the following Guiding Values, which should direct all our decisions. Moreover, we\nrecognize that our decisions will be judged according to how well they correspond to these values.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 citizenship\n\xe2\x80\xa2 courage\n\xe2\x80\xa2 fairness\n\xe2\x80\xa2 impartiality\n\xe2\x80\xa2 integrity\n\xe2\x80\xa2 loyalty\n152\n\n\x0c153 Steve McCartney and Rick Parent\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 public service\n\xe2\x80\xa2 respect\n\nPrimary Responsibilities\nPolice Officers in the Province of British Columbia affirm the following Primary Responsibilities, which\nare defined in terms of three key relationships. First, there is the Public, for whom we serve. Next there\nare Professional Partners, with whom we work, and ourselves Personally, to whom we must be true.\nMoreover, we recognize that responsibility occurs personally and collectively, and that accountability\nmust accompany responsibility for it to be effectual.\n\nThe Public\nOur basic policing duties are to protect lives and property, preserve peace and good order, prevent crime,\ndetect and apprehend offenders and enforce the law, while at the same time protecting the rights and\nfreedoms of all persons as guaranteed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fulfilling these duties,\nwe must strive for excellence, which includes the exercise of professional discretion and judgment in\na manner consistent with our Fundamental Principles and Guiding Values. Recognizing, however, that\nthe ability of the police to perform their duties is dependant upon public approval, support and willing\ncooperation, we must also provide open, responsive, impartial and accessible service. In other words, to\nsafeguard the public trust, we will be responsible to the public and accountable publicly for what we do.\n\nThe Policing Profession and Partners\nConsistent with our duties and responsibilities to the public, we are also responsible to the policing\nprofession. First, we must always respect and to the best of our abilities abide by the standards of the\nprofession, while at the same time seeking to improve them. To accomplish this, we will demonstrate a\nwillingness to engage in open dialogue, which raises important issues and significant opportunities that\ncan advance the profession for the purpose of providing better policing service to the public. This entails\nan openness to change and recognition of the need for the policing profession to develop informed,\ncollaborative and participative police officers.\nIn addition to the policing profession, we are responsible to other professions that also serve the public.\nWe must always cooperate with other police and law enforcement professionals, and with all those in\nthe criminal justice system, in order to develop an open, just, and impartial justice system. As well, we\nmust always strive to cooperate with other public service professionals in order to advance the public\ngood. This involves the sharing of information in a relationship-building manner that celebrates the\ninterdependent nature of professionals in promoting the goals of the justice system. This information\nsharing must balance confidentiality needs and due process with the needs of professionals, who are\nworking for justice and the common good.\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 154\n\nPersonally\nWe accept personal responsibility for acting legally and ethically. The Police Officer is a model of\ndiscipline under trying circumstances, but to achieve this we must practice humility and a desire to learn\nfrom our experiences and mistakes and those of others. As individuals we must have a clear idea of how\nto separate private advantage from public service and to make decisions that avoid conflicts of interest\nand the appearance of personal gain. As well, ethical behavior entails duties that we owe to ourselves\npersonally. In addition to reflecting upon what is right and what is wrong in the context of policing, we\nmust as individuals develop a proper balance between our work and our personal life.\n\nEthical Decision-Making\nActing responsibly towards the Public, the Policing Profession and its Partners, and to ourselves\nPersonally, will reduce the number and severity of ethical difficulties faced in policing, but it will not\neliminate them. Ethical difficulties emerge when Police Officers, either as individuals or collectively, act\nin a way that is not defensible on legal and ethical grounds. To avoid such difficulties, Police Officers,\nalong with their respective organizations and agencies, should ask themselves the following questions,\nwhich help to identify ethical issues and to test decisions on ethical grounds.\n1. Is the activity or decision consistent with organizational policy and the law?\n2. Is the activity or decision consistent with the British Columbia Police Code of Ethics?\n3. What are the outcomes or consequences resulting from the activity or decision and whom do\nthey affect?\n4. Do the outcomes or consequences generate more harm than good? Do they create legitimate\ncontroversy?\n5. Is the activity or decision likely to raise actual or perceived conflicts of interest where a\npersonal advantage is gained because of one\xe2\x80\x99s professional position?\n6. Can the activity or decision be justified legally and ethically? Would the activity or decision\nwithstand public scrutiny on legal and ethical grounds if it resulted in problems that became\nknown generally?\nIf the answers indicate that there may be a question of professional ethics, then consultation should occur\nwith someone trustworthy and experienced who can provide reasonable direction and advice.\nPolicing is serious work and there are important issues at stake. It requires not only technical competence\nbut also a willingness to take difficult action in trying times. As well, it requires a recognition that we\nmust act with a concerted commitment to serve and protect using democratic principles in the service of\nthe law while honouring human dignity in the pursuit of justice. And it is this commitment to principled\npolicing that distinguishes us as professionals, both to ourselves and to the public.\n\n\x0c155 Steve McCartney and Rick Parent\n\nBritish Columbia Police Code of Ethics\n[PDF].(January 2005)\n\n\x0cAbout the Authors\n\nSteve McCartney, MSc, retired from the Vancouver Police Department after 28 years of service. While\nwith the V.P.D. he served in a variety of capacities including patrol, Detective Constable with Strike\nForce, Sexual Offence Squad, the Provincial Unsolved Homicide Unit, and VPD Homicide Unit. After\nleaving the V.P.D., he was seconded to the B.C. Police Academy at the Justice Institute of British\nColumbia as an instructor in Investigation and Patrol. Upon retiring from the V.P.D., he became the\nProgram Chair of Law Enforcement Studies at the Justice Institute of British Columbia, where he\ncurrently teaches Applied Ethics in Law Enforcement and Law Enforcement Communication Skills.\nRick Parent, PhD, is an Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University, School of Criminology \xe2\x80\x93 Police\nStudies. Rick completed 30 years of service as a police officer and is a former police recruit instructor at\nthe B.C. Police Academy. His research and expertise is in the area of police ethics and accountability and\nthe police use of lethal force including the phenomena of \xe2\x80\x9csuicide by cop.\xe2\x80\x9d Dr. Parent is also the subject\nmatter expert/author of the Canadian Police Knowledge Network course entitled \xe2\x80\x9cPolice Ethics and\nAccountability,\xe2\x80\x9d the co-author of the book entitled \xe2\x80\x9cCommunity-Based Strategic Policing in Canada,\n4th edition and, a senior researcher for the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and\nSociety (TSAS).\n\n156\n\n\x0cVersioning History\n\nThis page provides a record of edits and changes made to this book since its initial publication in the\nB.C. Open Textbook Collection. Whenever edits or updates are necessary, we make the required changes\nin the text and provide a record and description of those changes here. If the change is minor, the version\nnumber increases by 0.01. However, if the edits involve substantial updates, the version number goes up\nto the next full number. The files on our website always reflect the most recent version, including the\nPrint on Demand copy.\nIf you find an error in this book, please fill out the Report an Open Textbook Error form.\n\n157\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 158\n\nVersion\n\nDate\n\nChange\n\n1.00\n\nMarch 14, 2015\n\nBook added to the B.C. Open\nTextbook Collection.\n\n1.01\n\nJune 6, 2019\n\nUpdated the book\xe2\x80\x99s theme.\n\nDetails\n\nThe styles of this book have been\nupdated, which may affect the page\nnumbers of the PDF and print copy.\nAccessibility remediation:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Image descriptions added.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Tables reformatted for\naccessibility.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Link text edited to be\ndescriptive.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Headings added.\n\n2.00\n\nJuly 11, 2019\n\nEntire book revised for accessibility.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Added an Accessibility\nStatement\nOther changes:\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Added List of Links by\nChapters for Print Users\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Added pop-up definitions\nfor key terms in webbook\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Moved media attributions\nto end of each section\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Added additional\npublication information.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Updated copyright\ninformation.\n2.01\n\n2.02\n\nJuly 23, 2019\n\nSeptember 9, 2021\n\nApplied a number of changes as part\nof a project to standardize\nBCcampus-published books.\n\nNew content added\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Added a Versioning\nHistory page.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Renamed the \xe2\x80\x9cAbout the\nBook\xe2\x80\x9d section to \xe2\x80\x9cAbout\nBCcampus Open\nEducation\xe2\x80\x9d and updated\nthe content.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Added 4.7 Use of Force\nPhilosophy Theory and\nLaw.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 References formatted to\nbe APA.\n\n\x0cList of Links by Chapters for Print Users\n\nAccessibility Statement\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Contact us: https://open.bccampus.ca/contact-us/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Download this book in another file format: https://opentextbc.ca/foodsafety/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Report an open textbook error: https://open.bccampus.ca/reporting-an-open-textbook-error/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Web version of Modern Pastry and Plated Dessert Techniques: https://opentextbc.ca/\nfoodsafety/\n\nAbout BCcampus Open Education\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Adoption of an open textbook: https://open.bccampus.ca/use-open-textbooks/tell-us-youreusing-an-open-textbook/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 BCcampus: https://bccampus.ca/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 BCcampus Open Education: https://open.bccampus.ca/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills & Training:\nhttps://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/organizational-structure/ministriesorganizations/ministries/advanced-education-skills-training\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Creative Commons licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Hewlett Foundation: http://www.hewlett.org/\n\nChapter 3: Ethical Dilemmas and the Process of Effective Resolution\n\xe2\x80\xa2 BC Corrections: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/corrections/about-us/core-values.htm\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA): http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/\nreports-rapports/acc-resp/code-eng.html#a_1_5\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Framework that is used by social workers to address ethical dilemmas:\nhttps://www.naswma.org/page/100/Essential-Steps-for-Ethical-Problem-Solving.htm\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP): http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/about-ausujet/missioneng.htm\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Ethics Code Center: http://www.ethics.org/resource/definitions-values\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Vancouver Police Department core values: http://vancouver.ca/police/recruiting/policeofficers/recruitment-standards.html\n159\n\n\x0cEthics in Law Enforcement 160\n\nChapter 4: Key Ethical Issues within Law Enforcement\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Obedience Power and Leadership from Principles of Social Psychology: http://opentextbc.ca/\nsocialpsychology/chapter/obedience-power-and-leadership/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Person, Gender, and Cultural Differences in Conformity from Principles of Social\nPsychology: http://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/person-gender-and-culturaldifferences-in-conformity/\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Confederate\xe2\x80\x99s Schedule of Protest in the Milgram Experiments: http://opentextbc.ca/\nsocialpsychology/chapter/obedience-power-and-leadership/#table6.1\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The Shock Apparatus Used in Milgram\xe2\x80\x99s Obedience Study: http://opentextbc.ca/\nsocialpsychology/chapter/obedience-power-and-leadership/#figure6.9\n\nChapter 5: Accountability and Investigation\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-10\n\nAppendix. The British Columbia Police Code of Ethics\n\xe2\x80\xa2 British Columbia Police Code of Ethics [PDF]: https://www.nwpolice.org/wp-content/\nuploads/BC-Police-Code-of-Ethics-Document.pdf\n\n\x0c'