Ethical Dilemma Case Study

867 Words2 Pages

Investigators and prosecutors are constantly faced with several ethical dilemmas while executing their duties, which usually put them at a position whereby they have to make critical decisions in order to avoid a lot of public scrutiny. Some of these dilemmas include administrative discretion and nepotism. First, investigators and administrators have to maintain the highest levels of discretion while making decisions regarding particular cases (Padfield & Gelsthorpe, 2012). The question that many people, therefore, ask is whether these decisions are justified or not. Because they have to ensure success and maintain their reputation, these people when faced with dilemmas have to choose between two equally unfavorable options. As Pollock (2011) emphasizes, this task is very challenging. According to the Commonwealth Association for Public Administration & Management (CAPAM) (2010), the rules and regulations give investigators and prosecutors the opportunity to use their own discretion to make a decision regarding a problem at hand. However, despite the choice made, the problem is that it may be accepted only by a small section of the society. Because exercising discretion is often made on the basis of personal judgment, the society might take this as a corrupt practice. Some people might believe that the choice was made based on personal preference, affiliation to a particular group, or even personal aggrandizement (CAPAM, 2010). Another ethical dilemma that investigators and prosecutors face is nepotism. This concept is described by CAPAM (2010) as a practice where individuals make decisions to the favor of close relatives, friends, and other close people, which usually downgrade the quality of public service. In other words, when ... ... middle of paper ... ...judges and prosecutors saw it as a benefit to the public good, they went ahead to indict the governor. One ethical action that may not be taken, however, is to use the rotten apple hypothesis common in the criminal justice system. According to the assumptions of this concept described by Doss et al. (2013), because several officials have been found guilty of corruption and other crimes, it would also qualify for the governor to also be a ‘rotten apple.’ The advantage of taking the ethical actions in both cases is that it would guarantee justice to both the accused and the victims or the public. The disadvantage, however, is that if there were ethical dilemmas and the prosecutors, investigators, and judges used discretionary measures, it would not be clear whether the officials were guilty or not. In fact, the criminal justice system is subject to flaws and errors.

Open Document