Ethics in Organizational Structure

The First Amendment awards all individuals freedom of association and privacy. However, in most states, law enforcement officers face certain problems with regard to existing or pre-existing relationships with former felons and other groups like gangs and cartels. Most officers have lost their employment due to this fact and most courts including the Court of Appeal argue that these employment regulation decisions of suspension, termination of employment among others, do not infringe the officers’ First Amendment Rights.

The organization culture behind law enforcement is the government, whether state or federal. It is the duty of the government to maintain law and order and therefore, correctional officers and law enforcement officers are under the wing of the government. The government is also behind the formulation of policy; the limitation of relationships with former felons and members of certain groups has an ethical as well as an unethical touch. First, former felons may corrupt the morals of law enforcers. It is also probable that the felon may be using the relationship to further illegal agendas or crimes. Therefore, according to this angle of thought, limitation of relationships is ethical as it protects the public. However, it is also unethical because the government seems to be passing judgment on both the enforcer and the felon. It shows that the government has no faith in its own system. Former felons are those who have been convicted and rehabilitated in prison, and hence, by this measure, have changed into better individuals who should not be judged by their past mistakes. (Police Officer, n.d).

The norms of the organization that created this limitation policy, that is, the government, include its dependency on the courts of law to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court has laid out three standards by which government conduct, which limits rights guaranteed by the Constitution, must be analyzed. These are rational relation, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. The structure is such that, the Executive branch, through the Legislature passes a policy and the Judiciary interprets it. (Stone, 2007)

In a certain case: Fugate vs. Phoenix Civil Service Board, a certain group of police officers engaged in sexual activity with prostitutes and paid for the services using public funds. They were consequently dismissed of their duties, and filed suit for wrongful termination. The court found in favor of the defendant stating that the law prohibited the police officers from engaging in such behavior. This explains the organizational culture. It is common for many public servants including law enforcement officers to take advantage of their position and use it to satisfy their own selfish needs. Due to this nature, the government formulated this limitation policy in order to keep law enforcers and other civil servants in check from committing crimes themselves. (American University, n.d)

It is evident that the limitation policy is an issue of liberty as it inhibits the privacy and freedom of association of the law enforcement officers. In order to formulate a solution, it is important to go through the following steps outlined through the ethical decision-making model (“Ethical Decision Making Model” n.d.)

i. Identify the problem: this means that both the makers of policy and the officers should discuss the problem created by the policy.

ii. Outlining of potential issues; this specifically relates to the abuse of office, aiding crime, committing crime and failure to perform duty.

iii. Review of relevant ethical and legal codes: this includes reviewing the impact of the potential issues on the officers, the law, and society in general.

iv. Obtaining solution: it is important for a compromise to be reached. This may be that the officers agree to disengage relationships with ex-felons and certain groups, or the government permits these relationships fully with no attached consequences.

In conclusion, I believe that the actions of man cannot be limited by the word of the law, if it were so; there would be no crime in the world. While the moral argument for the limitation policy is sound, it is my opinion that it is unethical and this limitation could cause negative feelings among the enforcers and may encourage them to allow or aid crime. Every person deserves a second chance in society and once it has been accorded, law enforcers, like other members of the public, should be allowed to engage in such relationships, as long as it does not affect the integrity of their work or the performance of their duties.

References

American University Washington DC. (n.d.). The National Institute of Corrections Project. Retrieved from http://www.wcl.american.edu/endsilence/documents/11.Anti-Fraternization.pdf

Ethical decision making model. (n.d.). Csustan.edu. Retrieved from http://psyc.csustan.edu/kbaker/3790/ethical%20decision%20making%20%28Corey%20et%20al%29.pdf

Police Officer. (n.d.). Minotd.org. Retrieved from http://www.minotnd.org/pdf/hr/pd%20off%20desc.pdf

Stone, M. (2007). Associating with Known Criminals. AELE Law Library of Case Summaries, 1, 1.