Final Essay Assignment530.edited

docx

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

530

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ProfessorHedgehog3323

Accountability and Integrity 1 Accountability and Integrity within Law Enforcement Helms School of Government, Liberty University CJUS 530: Human Resource Management in Criminal Justice Organizations Dr. Gregory Clark August 18, 2023

Accountability and Integrity 2 Abstract The paramount significance of accountability and integrity within law enforcement prompts a meticulous exploration of appropriate responses to officer deception within internal administrative investigations. The instinctive inclination toward uniform termination stands compared with the intricate complexities of justice. This discourse delves into the interplay of legal precedents and the intricate nuances of each Supreme Court case addressing such matters. The question of whether officers found guilty of deception should universally face termination necessitates an examination that balances justice with individual circumstances. Keywords: Accountability, Integrity, Law Enforcement, Officer Deception, Administrative Investigations, Legal Precedents, Fairness, Disciplinary Measures, Personnel Impact, Agency Reputation, Justice, Supreme Court Cases, Transparency, Policy Recommendations, Rehabilitation, Equilibrium.

Accountability and Integrity 3 Accountability and Integrity within Law Enforcement The profound significance of accountability and integrity within law enforcement invites a critical examination of the appropriate course of action for addressing matters related to officers found guilty of deception through internal administrative investigations. While seemingly straightforward, the instinctive response of uniform termination opposes the intricate tapestry of justice and the complex factors at play. This dialogue examines the nuanced interaction of legal precedents and the complexities integral to each Supreme Court Case on such matters. Whether officers found guilty of deception through internal administrative investigations should invariably face termination must be examined while circumnavigating the delicate balance between justice and individual situations. Fairness Examined Instances of deception by law enforcement officers demand a measured and thoughtful response. The principles illuminated in landmark cases like Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States underscore the importance of disclosing exculpatory evidence and impeaching information. These cases have reverberating implications for law enforcement integrity. Nevertheless, a one-size-fits-all approach to termination might only partially account for the diversity of circumstances that can surround instances of dishonesty. Contextual factors, such as the nature and severity of the deception, potential extenuating circumstances, and the individual's overall record, should be cautiously weighed. Implementing disciplinary measures that align with fairness, proportionality, and the broader goals of maintaining public trust and safety must guide such decisions. While upholding accountability and integrity remains paramount within law enforcement, a rigid universal termination policy for all officers found guilty of deception may fail to address the intricate relationship between legal precedents and the distinctions

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Accountability and Integrity 4 inherent to each case. A discerning approach that harmonizes the imperatives of justice with the complexities of individual situations is indispensable in shaping a comprehensive and just response to such matters. Personnel Loss Impact on Individuals and Agency Reputation Evaluating the principal inquiry and navigating a series of crucial considerations while seeking a final conclusion becomes essential. Firstly, as just discussed, the simplicity of a policy should maintain its fairness. Such a policy must be precisely examined for fairness to ensure due process is upheld. Secondly, the potential repercussions of such a policy on personnel should be carefully weighed. Could the rigid application of termination result in the loss of exceptionally talented individuals who have erred only once throughout their careers? The unintended consequence of losing valuable and reformable personnel cannot be underestimated. Investigating further, it is imperative to consider the far-reaching impact on the families of the affected personnel. A drastic measure like automatic termination could have profound emotional, financial, and psychological effects on families who may bear no responsibility for the officer's actions. However, depending on the surrounding circumstances of an officer’s dishonesty and the agency’s decision to maintain employment could significantly impact its credibility. Retaining officers who are found guilty of deception might cast a shadow over the overall integrity of the law enforcement agency, potentially eroding public trust and confidence. Research Commentary In his analysis of court decisions surrounding the integrity and accountability of Law Enforcement Officers, Daniel Schofield writes about the Supreme Court and their decisions on cases that were examined over an officer’s deception. The examination first discusses that due process does not serve as a shield for officers who falsely deny misconduct allegations.

Accountability and Integrity 5 Secondly, officers granted Garrity immunity can still be compelled to cooperate and may face disciplinary action if they fail to respond or provide less than truthful responses. Additionally, invoking the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent only sometimes comes with consequences, as departments can interpret an officer's silence negatively and factor it into subsequent disciplinary decisions. In cases where an officer's silence raises valid concerns regarding security or fitness for duty, departments can even consider transferring the officer. Before implementing these administrative measures, law enforcement supervisors should seek guidance from their department's legal counsel to ensure that the proposed actions align with state and federal laws. This issue demands a multifaceted approach that acknowledges the complexities of individual situations while upholding the overarching principles of accountability and integrity within law enforcement. Noteworthy Legal Precedents The exploration of accountability and integrity in law enforcement is inevitably intertwined with several pivotal legal precedents that underscore the critical importance of disclosure and transparency. Three such landmark cases clarify the path toward comprehensively understanding the subject. U.S. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of withholding exculpatory evidence by the prosecution in a criminal trial. The Court held that the prosecution's duty to disclose favorable evidence to the defense, as established in Brady v. Maryland, includes both evidence that is directly favorable to the accused and evidence that could be used to impeach the credibility of a government witness. The decision emphasized that the prosecution's failure to disclose such evidence violates due process, even if the defense can show that the evidence is not constitutionally required to establish guilt or innocence.

Accountability and Integrity 6 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed and clarified the principles in Brady v. Maryland. The Court held that the prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence extends to all prosecution team members, not just the trial prosecutor. Moreover, the prosecution has a duty to disclose evidence that is both directly exculpatory and evidence that is useful to impeach the credibility of a government witness. The decision reinforced the importance of ensuring a fair trial by giving the defense access to all relevant information in the prosecution's possession. Strickler v. Green, 527 U.S. 263 (1999): This case centered on suppressing evidence that could have been used to impeach a prosecution witness in a criminal trial. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence that could have been used to impeach a witness's credibility violates due process. The Court clarified that the suppressed evidence need not be directly exculpatory; even evidence that could undermine the credibility of a critical witness is subject to the disclosure requirement. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring a fair trial by upholding the principles of transparency and open discovery in the criminal justice system. In law enforcement accountability and integrity, these legal precedents serve as guiding beacons, reinforcing the necessity of transparent and ethical practices in pursuing justice. Policies Ultimately, policy recommendations for executive figures such as the chief, sheriff, warden, or state police commissioner should be shaped by a balanced perspective that integrates these multifaceted considerations. Striking a judicious balance might involve adopting a tiered approach to disciplinary actions. This approach could encompass a range of consequences based on the severity and frequency of deception incidents, coupled with rehabilitative efforts, such as

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Accountability and Integrity 7 additional training or mentorship programs, to foster accountability and prevent future transgressions. As we traverse the complex landscape of law enforcement accountability and integrity, whether officers found guilty of deception should invariably face termination unfurls a web of multifaceted considerations. A rigid, one-size-fits-all termination policy fails to fully embrace the principles of fairness, personnel well-being, familial impacts, and agency credibility. A judicious approach that melds tiered disciplinary actions with rehabilitative efforts emerges as a beacon of equilibrium in forging a comprehensive response. Such a recommendation, shaped by a balanced perspective, charts a course that acknowledges the intricate interplay of justice and individuality, underscoring the enduring principles of accountability and integrity within the law enforcement community.

Accountability and Integrity 8 References Schofield, D. L. (1998). Ensuring officer integrity and accountability: Recent court decisions. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 67 (8), 28-32. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/ ensuring-officer-integrity-accountability-recent/docview/204130565/se-2 Bagley v. U.S., 473 U.S. 667 (1985). Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). Strickler v. Green, 527 U.S. 263 (1999).

Final Essay Assignment530.edited

Related Documents