The death sentence first attracted ethical dissent, with those for it citing its retributive justice and deterrent power. On the other hand, opponents raise problems about its moral implications, fairness, and Fallibility. Kort-Butler & Ray (2019) point out that more than 60 % of Americans back the idea of the death penalty as a type of retribution for murder convictions. Wills (2019) says that attitudes toward the death penalty have changed over time, and in 1936, support for it stood at 59 %, while opposition was at 38 %. One must consider the ethics of the death penalty’s advantages and disadvantages. One ethical justification for the use of capital punishment is based on retributive justice. They argue that the death penalty is the ultimate revenge for terrible crimes, and the severity of the sentence should be proportionate to how serious an offense was. From this standpoint, the death penalty is a deterrent, deflecting potential criminals from committing capital crimes. Society has the right to pursue justice for victims.
However, opponents of the death sentence point to several ethical problems, the most important being the possibility of irreversible error. The criminal justice system is not perfect; it has been known to wrongfully convict innocent people and sentence them to receive the death penalty. Given that the death penalty is irreversible, there are solid ethical questions about innocent people being executed (Wills, 2019). The death penalty involves such high stakes that the legal system might not always be able to provide the certainty needed.
In addition, the moral connotations of capital punishment are closely related to questions about socioeconomic and racial inequality. Studies show over and over again that the facts determine who will be executed (Wills, 2019). Because of this, the inequity has raised questions about justice and fairness. The ideal should be an impartial criminal justice system, and these iniquities attached to the death sentence cast doubt upon this notion.
Another issue against the morality of capital punishment is the financial consequences. According to research, capital cases are more expensive than non-capital ones. The duration of appeals, the need for experienced lawyers, and the complexity of death sentences contribute to these costs. In 2005, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that one in three violent felons released from prison re-offended within five years (Kort-Butler & Ray, 2019). The funds could boost crime prevention and rehabilitation. Inmate expenses on death row are included. One study revealed that death row inmates cost $1.12 million, more than life without parole (Kort-Butler & Ray, 2019). With such financial consequences, one must ask if the death penalty is worth its budget implications.
In conclusion, the morality of capital punishment is highly contentious. Opponents believe the death sentence is risky, not entirely administered in racial and socioeconomic equality, and expensive. Its defenders stress that it is just retribution for the worst crimes and is a deterrent. The changing face of history To summarize, historical patterns show how public opinion on the death penalty has changed over time and that the moral questions surrounding its application remain an open topic. This debate about whether the death sentence is honest will probably continue as long as society has an interest in issues of justice, fairness, and human sacrifice. It will make us think about the values underlying our criminal justice system.
A great divisive feature of the criminal justice system is that prosecutors work on the principle of all suspects as guilty. This idea raises questions about how it affects fairness, due process, and the pursuit of justice. This is one viewpoint, with proponents and opponents. It may also be called a “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. Going through the pros and cons of this method brings to light some of the difficulties inherent in reconciling individual rights protection with efficiency in law enforcement.
Those who favor a premise of guilt in the prosecutorial processes argue that it stimulates careful investigation. They say that this way of thinking makes prosecutors dig even deeper into the evidence so that they don’t leave any stone unturned to get a complete picture from which leads can be identified. It is believed that the due diligence practiced through this method strengthens cases, making it more likely that lawful criminals will be brought to justice. Another advantage this “all are guilty” theory is thought to have for public safety. Many believe cases with the presumption of guilt are essential examples of social control and should be prosecuted aggressively (Chalmers et al., 2022). Under this model, prosecutors strive to get criminals off the streets as quickly as possible so they can’t go on and commit more crimes. This promotes the overriding goal of protecting communities from harm and preserving public safety.
The third benefit flowing from the assumption of guilt is operational efficiency. Under such a strategy, prosecutors may act decisively, simplifying court cases and investigations. This efficiency is perhaps best when applied to situations where rapid action can prevent harm or the escape of a suspect. Proponents say some criminal justice system policies require a more aggressive and immediate approach. Also, that all are guilty is a point that motivates prosecutors (Chalmers et al., 2022). Those using this method might be more thorough in their work, demonstrating the cumulative effect of their research and determination to get things done. Justice and closure for victims and the criminal justice system depend on such judgment.
Immoral and ineffective “all are guilty” prosecutions are used by some prosecutors. The rise in haste and bigotry worries me most. Presuming guilt, attorneys may overlook all evidence and jump to conclusions. This rush contradicts the fundamental principle of innocence until proven guilty, which supports justice. Miscarriages of justice are more likely. This approach may be unethical. If prosecutors seek guilt without thinking, they may manufacture documents or tamper with evidence (Scherr et al., 2020). These behaviors degrade case integrity, legal system credibility, and principles.
The “all are guilty” mindset may bias the prosecution. Favoring one theory or suspect and disregarding exonerating evidence distorts justice. Neglecting the big picture harms innocent individuals and weakens criminal justice. Resource waste is another concern related to this strategy (Scherr et al., 2020). Such situations, where guilt is easily assumed, can drain the community’s time, money, and resources. However, carrying out investigations based on false theories can have serious repercussions, extracting funds from other, more critical problems and hampering the general effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system.
Internal change is heavily influenced by criminal justice culture. The organizational culture, which comprises deeply rooted conventions, values, and shared ideas, can help or hinder efforts to bring about significant change. Examining how culture affects reform reveals that the dominant culture of these institutions significantly shapes attitudes toward wrongdoing, responsibility, and the pursuit of justice. When an organization has a positive culture, its members are dedicated to maintaining the highest moral standards and just ideals. In an environment like this, everyone feels obligated to support and safeguard the community, and any wrongdoing is seen as a betrayal of the organization’s basic principles (Ouziel, 2020). In this situation, the culture acts as a catalyst for change, encouraging participants to take responsibility for their and their peers’ transgressions. A culture that prioritizes openness, honesty, and adherence to the law establishes a base for reform initiatives to succeed.
On the other hand, incorrect behavior within the criminal justice system may be protected by a poisonous or dysfunctional organizational culture. Misconduct may go undetected when a culture of silence and loyalty to coworkers precedes dedication to justice. Reluctance to disclose misconduct, a lack of internal accountability systems, and resistance to outside inspection are typical examples of this protective culture. Reform initiatives encounter opposition in these settings because the dominant culture may see modifications as challenging long-standing norms, even when those values condone or support wrongdoing. The manner in which internal misconduct is addressed demonstrates how corporate culture affects transformation. Organizations with a strong accountability culture are likelier to take prompt, decisive action against people who transgress ethical standards (Ouziel, 2020). Internal investigation teams have the authority to examine misbehavior, and management aggressively advocates for corrective action. This proactive approach shows that the organization is dedicated to rooting out misconduct and promoting a culture of trust.
On the other hand, misbehavior could escape notice in societies that minimize responsibility and value loyalty above justice. The absence of internal controls allows misconduct to continue, eroding public confidence and questioning the criminal justice system’s legitimacy. In many cases, efforts to seek reform result in an aversion to change so ingrained that they generate a never-ending cycle of evil. Beyond individual deeds, culture is related to reforming the criminal justice system’s standardized procedures. More dynamic, reparative, and responsive proposals may be hampered by a culture that values punitive actions and convictions over due process (Caveney et al., 2020). Reformist efforts, such as those aimed at racial injustice or prison populations, will inevitably face opposition from a culture that regards these adjustments as a departure from tradition.
When assessing the relationship between culture and transformation, it is essential to understand how leaders can influence organizational norms. This depends fundamentally on the organization’s attitude, and if there is a desire for moral behavior and change, then this can become ingrained at all levels of the business (Caveney et al., 2020). By contrast, managers who sanction or look the other way at a climate of corruption send an even stronger message that all attempts at fundamental change in the entire organization are for naught.
In sum, an organization’s culture within the criminal justice system affects how willing an organization is to change. A healthy culture can speed up fighting wrongdoings, demanding accountability, and protecting justice. By contrast, a culture that promotes misconduct creates an immovable obstacle to changeability, fueling the cycle of misconduct and destroying public confidence. Knowing what culture can do becomes central to developing strategies and making criminal justice organizations sites of justice, accountability, and transparency.
I think the most significant problem in criminal justice today is police brutality–it shows us how essential it is for law enforcement to be ethically minded. This appalling predictability of the ways Americans die at the hands of those entrusted to keep us safe is a stark reminder that there are structural problems with our entire criminal justice system. Police brutality is also closely related to three controversial police practices: no-knock warrants, chokeholds, and racial profiling. Analyzing both the chokehold issue and reactions to it shows that it has become outraged and concerned about this controversial police practice. Chokeholds, which are frequently used to subdue a suspect, have disastrous results, including the death of innocent people. When this tactic is abused, it calls into severe doubt the morality of law enforcement (Dolan, 2019). The act of intentionally limiting someone’s airway using a chokehold contradicts both the duty to safeguard life and the rules of proportionality. There are cases where chokeholds have resulted in the death of suspects—even nonviolent ones—which highlights the moral need to reconsider these techniques.
Likewise, the use of no-knock warrants in law enforcement operations has come to light as another divisive topic that exacerbates the issue of police brutality. Law enforcement may enter a location using no-knock guarantees without giving advance notice or announcement. This tactic has led to several unfortunate and fatal accidents. It is supposedly used in cases where disclosing the presence of authorities would compromise the success of an operation (Dolan, 2019). No-knock warrants raise ethical questions because they increase the possibility that officers will mistakenly identify the people inside a home and put innocent bystanders in the line of fire. There is an apparent ethical requirement: the use and rationale of no-knock warrants must be reevaluated due to the possibility of harming innocent lives.
Police brutality is made worse by racial profiling, a persistent problem in law enforcement that reinforces systemic biases and unfair treatment. Equal protection under the law is fundamentally undermined when people are disproportionately targeted based on their race rather than proof of criminal activity. In addition to undermining public confidence in law enforcement, racial profiling fosters an environment that increases the likelihood of unwarranted use of force (Dolan, 2019). There are several facets to the ethical considerations surrounding racial profiling, including discrimination, justice application, and fairness. To address police brutality, a thorough analysis and deconstruction of the institutionalized prejudices that support racial profiling in law enforcement are necessary.
Several adjustments must be made to lessen the concerns about racial profiling, no-knock warrants, and chokeholds. First and foremost, law enforcement organizations need to thoroughly review and update their use-of-force guidelines to forbid the application of chokeholds, especially in cases where there isn’t an immediate risk to the safety of the officers or other individuals. De-escalation tactics and different approaches to apprehend that put life protection first should be the main focus. Critically reevaluating the use of no-knock warrants in this situation is essential. Strict regulations should be put in place to restrict the use of no-knock warrants to circumstances in which there is convincing proof that making the presence of law enforcement officials known will immediately endanger people (Oliver, 2021). Furthermore, confirming the integrity of the information before carrying out such orders to shield innocent people from needless harm is crucial.
Taking on racial profiling requires a multifaceted strategy. Law enforcement organizations must implement comprehensive training programs to eradicate implicit biases among their officers. In addition, statistics on stops, arrests, and use of force should be split down by demographics, and policing procedures should be more accountable and transparent (Oliver, 2021). Initiatives for community involvement that promote constructive relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve can also help reduce racial profiling and establish trust.
Accountability procedures must also be strengthened to ensure that police who violate the law—for example, by using excessive force or engaging in racial profiling—face the appropriate consequences. Reforms to the internal investigative procedures, more civilian monitoring, and a review of qualified immunity—a legal theory that exempts officers from personal accountability in specific situations—may all be necessary to achieve this (Oliver, 2021). Specific adjustments are needed to promote an accountable culture inside law enforcement agencies. We can only hope to create a system that truly serves and protects every member of society by making a determined effort to prioritize ethical behavior inside law enforcement.
References
Caveney, N., Scott, P., Williams, S., & Howe-Walsh, L. (2020). Police reform, austerity and ‘cop culture’: time to change the record? Policing and Society, 30(10), 1210-1225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2019.1691549
Chalmers, J., Leverick, F., & Munro, V. E. (2022). Beyond doubt: The case against ‘not proven’. The Modern Law Review, 85(4), 847-878. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12707
Dolan, B. (2019). To knock or not to knock: No-knock warrants and confrontational policing. John’s L. Rev., 93, 201. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle
Kort-Butler, L. A., & Ray, C. M. (2019). Public support for the death penalty in a red state: The distrustful, the angry, and the unsure. Punishment & Society, 21(4), 473-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474518795896
Oliver Jr, S. (2021). Race and Policing: Some Thoughts and Suggestions for Reform. Fordham Law Review, 89(6), 2599. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5855&context=flr
Ouziel, L. M. (2020). Democracy, bureaucracy, and criminal justice reform. BCL Rev., 61, 523. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/bclr61&div=16&id=&page=
Scherr, K. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kassin, S. M. (2020). Cumulative disadvantage: A psychological framework for understanding how innocence can lead to confession, wrongful conviction, and beyond. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 353-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619896608
Wills, D. (2019). Killing Times: The Temporal Technology of the Death Penalty. Fordham Univ Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?
write