The that can be debated over as there

The profession of law enforcement personnel
can be tough as there are subjects that an officer must balance to do their profession
in an impartial and unbiassed way.  It is
imperative to recognize that there needs to be a sense of balance amid the
individual rights that a citizen has and being able to guard the public good.  One more subject that can arise in law
enforcement is the usage of rewards and punishment within criminal justice
along with law enforcement’s usage of trickery to complete their profession.  It is vital to keep in mind that making moral
choices can help to make these topics a little easier for the law enforcement
officer that finds themselves in a status quo where these situations come into
play.

It
can be difficult to regulate the right balance for individual rights and the
public’s safety.  There are some countries
where the residents don’t have rights, and in the name of public safety, the
government can go overboard.  According
to Ferdico, Fradella and Totten (2008), “The citizens of these countries live
in daily fear of official intrusion into the home, the disappearance of a loved
one, or tight restrictions on movement, speech, and association”.  Obviously, if the country lets individual
rights to be above safety of the public, the reverse could happen where residents
don’t dread being disciplined for committing crimes. 

My
philosophy and approach in the direction of balancing these two issues is that
it’s vital to respect an individual as far as their rights go, but to follow
the truth.  By following the laws that permit
an officer to investigate or pursue a suspect, the person’s civil liberties are
being respected, but the officer is defending the public good within the limits
of the law.  It is vital to remember that
even those that have broken the law have civil liberties that should be respected
by law enforcement because, without this respect, the country would no longer
be a true democracy that follows the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

            The use of reward and punishment within the criminal
justice system is a subject that can be debated over as there are those that
believe rewards don’t belong in the criminal justice system at all.  These rewards that can be obtainable should
be well-adjusted with the need of the court. 
There are certain actions by the courts that could been seen as rewarding
in reference to criminal events. These actions include plea bargaining and
using confidential informants.  According
to Heumann, individuals are “… taught one of the central norms of the local
court: there is a consequence attached to going to trail and losing; on the
other hand, there is a reward given to the defendant who abandons his right to
trail and pleads guilty”.  Plea bargains
can give criminals a reduced sentence if they are willing to plead guilty or if
they have evidence about a criminal that law enforcement may see as a bigger criminal.  Such as, a small drug dealer that works on a
local corner may be given a lighter sentence if they are willing to make
available evidence on those that are higher up in the drug organization.  This evidence may allow for law enforcement
to indict the individual that they feel has committed the more serious crime,
such as importing the drugs into the country to be circulated by numerous
dealers. 

My viewpoint
and approach to balancing this is that there would be no way for the courts to
go through a trial on each event that comes in as they are already overworked.  This is also a way to gain evidence on those offenders
that might remain at large because there isn’t any actual evidence to link them
to a crime.  I trust that this is one of
the best ways to handle something that can be viewed as deficient as within our
justice system.  It might not work every
time with every individual that is guilty being disciplined, but it does its
best to defend the good of the peoples of the country.
             There are times when law enforcement personnel
can use deceitful ways to accomplish essential ends, such as being dishonest in
questioning a suspect or going undercover. 
These actions can be a method of trickery on the part of law
enforcement, but in some instances, it might be the only way to get to the
bottom of a case or get justice.  Let’s
say, a law enforcement officer may need to go undercover to gather evidence
about a group of criminals like the Russian mob or a biker gang.  This is a ruse because the officer isn’t
being straightforward about his background, but this would be the only way to
gather evidence about private organizations that are able to hide their tracks
when it comes to their criminal actions.

My
philosophy and scheme to balancing this is that there are times when it’s vital
to do what is required to apprehend a criminal. 
Criminals aren’t acting in a way that is moral and are doing everything
that they can to get off scot-free with their crimes.  It makes sense that to apprehend a criminal
that law enforcement must find ways that they are able to work within the rubrics
of their organization to be better armed to deal with this issue.  Law enforcement officers can exceed the speed
limit when they are heading to a call or chasing a suspect because of this very
subject, so it’s logical that there may be other things that law enforcement ought
to be able to do to support their profession.   
   

            There are ways to use morals in decision making when pertaining
to these subjects within criminal justice. 
One is, understanding the notion of morals and your own way of seeing
the world.  As stated by Pollock (2011),
“When individuals have discretion, individual prejudices and preconceptions of
groups such as women, minorities, and homosexuals can influence their decision
making.  Officers’ views of the world
affect the way they do their jobs”. 
Understanding this is an opportunity that may aid in dealing with individuals
that, otherwise, a law enforcement  officer may view untrustworthily and as someone
who’s civil liberties they may possibly violate only because of a typecast or bias
that was entrenched in an individual when they were young.  One more way to use morals in choice making
when it comes to these subjects in criminal justice is to know the rubrics and guidelines
along with thinking about an individual’s own moral stance before an individual
is placed in this kind of status quo. 
This can empower them to make a better choice in the heat of the moment
because they previously thought about this subject and how to handle it.  Likewise, to use morals in choice making when
it comes to these subjects in criminal justice, it would be vital to try to
keep calm about a status quo.  Such as,
having an alleged kidnapper in custody with a missing child could be a
situation where some law enforcement members may think about crossing a line to
try to locate the child.  Remaining calm
may permit them to find a way to get the evidence they need without
compromising their morals.

Law
enforcement can be a morally complicated occupation where circumstances come up
where the law enforcement officer must make a choice on the best action to
take.  It is vital to know that there
should be a sense of balance between the rights that an individual has and the responsibility
to protect the public good.  It’s also difficult
to balance the use of rewards and punishment in the criminal justice system as
there are periods it can be in the good of the system to reward some criminals
for their activities even though they committed a crime.  There are also times when law enforcement
needs to use trickery to be able to catch the criminal, but it should be
balanced with moral behaviors.