Defining Police Ethics

Police Ethics
Name:
Instructor:
Institution:
26th July 2015.
They are conventionally supposed to be the upholders of law and order, the keepers and advocates of morality. The police are a very integral part of law enforcement. It is always their fundamental duty to serve and protect, with no compromise or favoritism. In the United States, and many other countries in the world, the police have been charged with the duty to provide internal security, as the army does the external duties from the borders. They are guided by the oath of office that they take upon getting their chance to serve, and the code of conduct, as per the respective code of ethics that guides the police force and the entire disciplined forces. It is often more important to look at the duties of a police officer through the basic fabric or skeleton that in entails. They have got the power to deny life, freedom or expression of an individual if they duly feel such is the best thing to do.
As a result, their role is more often connected to the society, and the two are more or less interconnected and interrelated. However, even with the guiding blocks of the code of conduct and ethics, the police have been traditionally accused of numerous cases of misconduct and unethical behavior for so long in the past. High up among these include corruption, brutality and unreasonable search. It is out of such things that there is raised the question of ethical observation within the police force. A number of arguments, criticisms and examples associated with ethics, and lack of it thereof, are going to be discussed in this paper, in order to offer a deeper insight into what plagues this very vital security department.
The general image painted in the eyes and minds of the public about the police is that of a corrupt, brutal and senseless juggernaut that is out to wreak havoc. A relentless machine that has been given more power and authority than it can handle, was unprepared for, or is utterly in awe of its capability. When the police system is looked at carefully, there is a genuine assumption, or benefit of doubt, given by authorities as far as delegation of police duties is concerned. As a result, there are so many loopholes left in the system, which results to a number of rogue officers to exploit the system for their own personal interests (Perez & Moore, 2013).
This begs so much upon the ethical standards of the individual police officers as well as their respect for their professional code of ethics. It is arguably more valid to state that the ethical competence of a police officer, and his or her diligence to duties, is a direct reflection of their own personal ethics. It is because of this that the police recruitment takes a rigorous process to hire new officers, based on their ethics. The problem is that the authorities do not have a well structured system of dealing with these officers who misbehave in their respective capacities, and in most cases, tend to sweep it under the carpet (Barker, 2011).
Ethics can be defined as the general conduct of an individual when they are not under supervision, or when they are alone. The manner in which a police officer conducts himself when alone speaks quite a lot about the levels of personal ethics and discipline that they have. The code of ethics governing the police, also known as the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, has a number of statements governing how an individual should conduct himself. The first is to uphold the constitutional rights of all individuals as far as justice, freedom and fairness is concerned. The method in which an officer is supposed to do this is by enforcement of the law. An officer is bound to prevent the social vices, ranging from; protecting innocents from violence, protecting their lives as well as property from damage or complete destruction, and the disadvantaged from oppression or unfair mistreatment (Barker, 2011).
The second expectation from the code is that the officer is expected to live a life that is an example to the rest of the society. By this, an officer is supposed to ensure that he steers clear of all activities that might stain his name, at both individual as well as formal capacities. Considering that an officer is supposed to be the enforcer as per the first requirement, therefore, an officer is supposed to stand out in the face of calamity or danger, and not to cower in its face. He should also obey the law as granted by the constitution and keep every official command with himself, confidentially. Third, an officer is not supposed to act unfairly under any circumstance. Unfairly here includes all those situations where an officer can be tempted to compromise .These include situations such as those that involve dealing with friends, partners or close relatives such as family (O’Connor, 2011).
Additionally, enemies too are a factor that can risk affecting the decision making process of an officer. However, the expectation is that they act with fairness under all circumstances. Finally, an officer is supposed to appreciate and recognize that the badge given to him, on his professional attire, is a symbol of public belief and trust .As a result, it is expected of the officer to uphold such trust while serving in the public office.
The most outstanding topic when it comes to police ethics is trust, and the most outstanding issue affecting trust is the general misconduct by police. There are three main types of misconduct done by police officers. These include malfeasance, nonfeasance and misfeasance. Malfeasance is whereby; an officer performs some act for which his professional description refutes. Under malfeasance, a police officer carries out duties that are indeed very okay and justified from his own personal perspective, but are against the duties handed to him under the badge (O’Connor, 2011).A good example here is where an officer carries out personal activities using office resources. It is good to do one’s own businesses and activities, but is it against the profession, to carry out such activities in guise of office .Police officers have no right under the law, to carry out personal duties under official pretence. This is a gross misconduct constituting malfeasance, and is supposed to be punishable.
Misfeasance is where an officer performs his duties in a manner that he is not supposed to. For example, doing duties like handling criminals in an improper or a negligent, careless manner. Unlawful or careless search of suspects, or reckless driving of police cars and other equipments under the department, all fall under this misconduct. Nonfeasance, on the other hand, is the complete failure to perform the duties delegated to an officer under the law. It involves the cases where an officer fails by choice or ignorance, to do what he is supposed to do. Such can be seen from the impacts of the act. For example, when an officer fails to be as keen as it is supposed to be, there might be a security breach. Failing to file a report as required by the office as well constitutes this misconduct (O’Connor, 2011).
It is somehow a surprise that as much as these types of misconduct are done by some members of the police on a regular basis, there seems to be some failure from the authorities in charge, to punish the officers. On the contrary, these officers get protected by the said authorities. Such acts play a huge role in determination of how much trust is gained, or most likely, lost, between the police, and the general public. The public will continuously lose faith and trust, on an institution that makes unlawful arrests, performs unwarranted searches on private property, or handles suspects brutally without proof that they are guilty (Barker, 2011).
In some cases, the police can even take away the life or lives of innocent ci...