Decision Making

After listening to my partner and what took place during his initial interrogation it would be my decision to take the next step of questioning and challenging his actions about the incident in the interview room. This would be my attempt at getting him to understand his wrong doing and give him a chance to correct those actions before taking the incident to someone of higher authority. During this conversation I would inform my partner of his ethical responsibilities as a police officer and an investigator. In doing so I would remind him of the yearly ethical training that we are required to attend and what we are taught during this training. I would also remind him of those virtues that had been instilled within us over the course of years on the job.

In order to support my decision I look to the understanding and teaching of deontological ethics which teaches that an action is only ethical if it follows those laws that haven been set forth that govern (Young, 2012). The actions taken by the partner go against all the teachings of deontological ethics. “Right theories suggest that an action is ethical if it respects the rights which all humans have” (Young, 2012). The suspects we not afforded the rights that all other suspects have been and would be afforded. We can also look at the situation from the standpoint of utilitarianism also known as consequentialist ethics which emphasizes on the consequences rather than the rules when determining rather an action is considered ethical (Young, 2012). We need to weigh the consequences of the actions of the officer in this case to determine if his actions are justified.

By law and in line with deontology ethics; by not following the law of having a guardian present or the taping done during the interview process, the detective has in turn put not only his career but the outcome of the case in jeopardy. By doing this the consequences could lead to two criminals being released back into society to possibly commit