Law Enforcement: Ethical Dilemmas and Morality Shifts

Law Enforcement is a person or agency responsible for enforcing the law. With this being said, many businesses can be an example of law enforcement. Law enforcement can be policeman, lawyers, or just anybody that has the right to enforce the law. We are given laws for safety, and to protect our rights as citizens. One would think everyone should respect and follow the laws given. Once upon a time in The United States, every citizen respected the laws, and our morals were upright. Through out the years, our morals, or ethics, changed. Law enforcements got stronger, figured out they are untouchable, resulting in going against the law, and going against our moral beliefs. Although law enforcement can be helpful to citizens, their roles of ethics

Some white citizens disrespect black citizens because they do not think they belong. However, we are both the same, and are both citizens of United States. Some law enforcers, like policeman think they can get away by locking up or killing innocent black citizens. Some policeman get away with it, but others do not. In the article “Line Of Fire” a policeman, Michael Slager, shot a young black man, Walter Scott. He was pulled over for a brake light, and Slager noticed, “He had a warrant out for his arrest over delinquent child- support payments.” With this being said the young man and cop talked about this, and as Slager puts it, “fought over my Taser, and I felt threatened so gunshots were fired.” Come to find out Scott was shot in the back, which means he was running away. He was not trying to hurt Slager, which you can easily tell because of the bullets in his back. This is not the only black man whose rights were disrespected. These things happen all across the United States. This is just a prime example of how law enforcement does not respect our citizen’s rights, white or black. Everywhere on the Internet, and television are

With law enforcement lying, it makes it hard for citizens to depend on law enforcement. In the article, “All the Court’s a stage, and All the Lawyers Players: Leading and Misleading the Jury” Richard Zitrin and Carol Langford explain what really happens in the courts. They state, “Abraham Dennison is the most successful trial lawyers in Port City. He is smoother than silk outside of the courtroom, but in court he takes on a bumbling, aw-shucks persona.” They explain how Dennison changes the clothes he wear, and his clients to look like they are not privileged. He even dumbs down he’s speeches when talking. I might have to say it is a very smart tactic to win over the jurors. The main goal in court is to sell your client to the jury so they will feel bad for him/her. According to this article, “Dennison tells his young associates to ‘select a biased jury, it wins the case.’” By picking the right jury you can sell your clients innocence. It is sad you have to bend the truth in order to win a case. The fact one has to pick the right jury who would feel sorry for one, and act like one is uneducated in order to win a case is sad. This is bending the truth to people thinking something totally different. One should win a case by the facts, not how you hold yourself. An example of lawyers actually lying to win a case of a guilty man is the ‘affluenza’ case. In the article “Before