Ethical Dilemma Interview Paper

Assignment Brief

CJCU 415- Ethics in Criminal Justice Signature Assignment Ethical Dilemma Interview Paper

SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT WEEK 7 PLO 2

Ethical Problem Solving

Apply ethical problem solving strategies within the criminal justice environment. ILO 3- Civic Engagement: Describe insights gained from engaging physically and/or intellectually with activities of personal and public concern that are both individually life enriching and socially beneficial to the community. When conducting your interview, inform the interviewee you are enrolled in CJCU 415 Ethics in Criminal Justice at Brandman University. Advise the interviewee that, with the exception of their general title, they may remain anonymous. Inform them that any information they share will only be used for purposes of this assignment, will not be shared outside of the course, and is not for publication. Instructions: Submit a 6-8 page paper addressing all three components below. Be sure to fully and completely answer all questions and respond to all prompts. Use headings for each section.

Interview

Conduct an interview of any criminal justice professional who has faced an ethical dilemma in their career. Describe in detail the ethical dilemma and how the interviewee resolved that ethical dilemma. Provide, at a minimum, all of the following information:

1. Whom did you interview? (Please protect the anonymity of the interviewee and do not provide their name and title) Profession, gender, years on the job, work site, and any other relevant information.

2. What was the situation? Who, what, when, where, etc. of the situation related to the ethical dilemma.

3. What was the ethical issue, and why did it create a dilemma?

4. What were the possible choices of actions to take that the professional considered in the situation? e. Did the professional consult with others about this issue? What advice did they receive?

5. What action did the professional take to resolve the dilemma? Why did they choose that action over others they considered?

6. What was the outcome of that action? Was the dilemma solved in a positive way? Why or why not?

7. Would the professional do anything differently in hindsight? Why or why not? 

Ethical Code

Find and identify the ethical code or standards for the profession of the interviewee. From that ethical code/standards, identify at least two standards or codes (whichever language is used by the profession) and do the following (Use references as appropriate for this section.):

1. State each standard and describe in detail how it applies to the situation from your interview.

2. Discuss whether or not the professional’s actions met each of the ethical standards described above. Why or why not? 

Alternative Action

Using the same ethical code you used for number two, do the following:

1. Provide an alternative action a professional could take to ethically solve the dilemma described in your interview.

2. Discuss how this alternative action would meet the ethical code for the interviewee’s profession.

You may reference other standards/principles from the ethical code other than the ones you used in Section Two, or use the same ones you used in Section two, or both. The paper will be typed double spaced in Arial using 12-point font with 1” margins in APA format. Make sure to reference any source you used including your interview and the ethical code in APA format. Save your paper as a .doc with your name and the assignment name in the file, using Last Name_Assignment. So, if your name were Alicia Jackson, and this is Essay 1, you would title it Jackson_Essay 1. You can interview any criminal justice professional you wish. Some examples could be professionals from child and adult protective services, police, courts, corrections, fish and wildlife, or any other criminal justice agency not listed.

Sample Answer

Ethical Dilemma Interview Paper

Interview

Interviewee Background

For this assignment, I interviewed a male law enforcement professional who has served in a mid-sized city police department for approximately fifteen years. To protect his anonymity, I will refer to him as “Officer M.” He currently works in the patrol division and has previously been assigned to both community policing and narcotics enforcement units. His agency employs around 200 officers and serves a diverse population. Throughout his career, Officer M has faced several ethical challenges, but one particular incident stood out as a genuine ethical dilemma that tested his values and professional standards.

Description of the Situation

The situation occurred around five years ago while Officer M was part of a narcotics task force investigating drug trafficking in the city. During one of the operations, a confidential informant provided credible evidence that a local business owner, well known in the community, was heavily involved in money laundering. However, this individual was also a strong supporter of the police department, contributing regularly to charity events and community safety initiatives.

The dilemma arose when a senior officer, who had a personal friendship with the business owner, suggested delaying the investigation until “more evidence” could be gathered. Officer M and his team already had sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant, but the request to delay appeared to be more about protecting the individual’s reputation than ensuring proper evidence collection.

The conflict placed Officer M in a difficult position. Proceeding with the warrant could strain relationships within the department and the community, while delaying action risked compromising the integrity of the investigation.

Nature of the Ethical Issue

The ethical dilemma revolved around professional integrity versus internal loyalty. Officer M had to decide whether to prioritise fairness and justice, as required by his professional duty, or comply with the informal pressure from a superior officer to delay the case. The ethical issue was further complicated because law enforcement officers are expected to follow the chain of command, yet they are also bound by duty to uphold the law impartially.

Possible Choices of Action

Officer M considered several possible actions. The first was to comply with his superior’s suggestion and delay the warrant. This would preserve workplace harmony but would clearly undermine the principles of impartial justice. The second option was to proceed with the warrant request immediately, risking internal tension and possible retaliation. The third option was to consult an external supervisor or internal affairs for guidance, which could escalate the situation but ensure transparency.

Consultation and Decision

Officer M chose to seek confidential advice from the department’s legal advisor, explaining the situation without naming the senior officer involved. The advisor confirmed that sufficient evidence existed to apply for the warrant and advised proceeding according to protocol. Following this advice, Officer M and his team executed the warrant lawfully. The subsequent search uncovered evidence of money laundering and tax evasion, leading to the business owner’s arrest.

Outcome and Reflection

Although the case was successful and resulted in a conviction, the decision strained Officer M’s professional relationships. The senior officer who had advised against immediate action distanced himself from him, but the department leadership later commended Officer M for maintaining professionalism. In hindsight, he stated he would not change his decision, as it reinforced his belief that ethics in policing should not depend on social connections or community status. Upholding integrity, even when it causes internal discomfort, is essential to maintaining public trust.

Ethical Code

The relevant ethical code for this case is the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, developed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Two specific standards apply directly to the dilemma Officer M faced.

Standard 1: Impartial Enforcement of the Law

This standard requires officers to “enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favour, malice or ill will” (IACP, 2020). The principle emphasises that personal relationships, wealth, or social influence must never affect an officer’s decision to uphold the law. In Officer M’s case, delaying the warrant to protect a community figure would have violated this principle. By proceeding with the investigation despite informal pressure, Officer M demonstrated adherence to this ethical standard.

Standard 2: Integrity and Accountability

This standard states that officers must “maintain a high level of integrity, acting in a manner that promotes public confidence and trust in the police service” (IACP, 2020). Integrity requires consistency between one’s ethical beliefs and professional actions. Officer M upheld this standard by making a decision that prioritised justice and transparency. His decision strengthened the public’s trust that the police act without bias, even when the subject of an investigation is well connected.

Continued...