Ethics and the CJ Professional

1. Ethics and the CJ Professional Pollock chapter 6 \Ethics\arrest game.wmv

2. What is a “professional”? • A person who... • Has a service orientation • Possesses expertise derived from a distinct body of skills and knowledge which is itself underpinned by values and standards • Exercises authority and discretion • Conducts him/herself within defined boundaries and ethical standards • Is held accountable (Derived from Engineering Council of South Africa) • KEY QUESTION: When does a lack of professionalism become an ethical issue? • Impact on customer? Society? • Physical harm? • Financial harm?

3. Policy • Distinct from law • Formal policies • Example: US Attorney’s Manual • Set areas of emphasis • Set thresholds for taking action • Define procedures for taking action • Police agencies have extensive written policies, often multi-volume manuals • When to arrest • Use of force • Exercise of discretion • Policies are affected by external forces • Governments • Interest groups • Individuals • Ideologies can have a profound effect on policies • Current example: war on terror

4. Discretion • Police have a lot of discretion • Discretion operates at agency, unitand individual levels • Differential law enforcement • Not all laws receive equal emphasis • Official policies may clash or be superseded by informal practices • Policies may be unrealistic • Policies may be unpopular or difficult to enforce • Local attitudes may trump policies • Public attitudes are very important • Prostitution, drugs, gambling • Some areas (e.g., Las Vegas) have less moral sentiment against these “vices”

5. Is it a matter ofprinciple or preference? • Who is one serving: themselvesor society? • Friendships may clash withworkplace duties and the obligation to treat people fairly and impartially • Personal goals may clash with... • Personal beliefs may clash with... • Morals  obedience, loyalty • What to do when orders are illegal? • What to do when orders are unethical? • Is there a duty to use one’s own judgment? • Can orders be refused? When should they be? When must they be?

6. Believe it...or not! More...

7. A dangerous way to “boost morale” • Spurred by superiors, L.A. Sheriff’s Deputies in Southeast L.A. competed in separate one-day events in July and August 2007 to win “bragging rights” for making the most arrests, the most vehicle impounds and the most number of field interviews with gang members. • "It's just a friendly competition to have a little fun out here," said Lt. Jim Tatreau. One purpose, he said, was as a motivator. He noted that some deputies made 15 to 20 arrests a month, while others only made 7 or 8 a year. • The number of arrests didn’t seem to be affected by the contest. But the number of vehicle impounds and gang member interviews shot up dramatically during the events. • Critics, including several well-known policing experts, immediately criticized the idea. The greatest concern was that it could lead deputies to make unjustifiable arrests and seizures and write false or exaggerated reports. • Sheriff Baca was one of the harshest critics: “We train deputies to be independent thinkers and leaders...law enforcement is not the kind of service where you can dictate the activity. We're not into numbers, we're into quality. I don't think it will occur again.” Los Angeles Times, 10/4/07

8. A study in police values The investigation of the murder of Stephanie Crowe

9. The Murder of Stephanie Crowe On the morning of January 21, 1998,Stephanie Crowe, 12, was found stabbed to deathin her Escondido home. None of the otherresidents – her parents, grandmother, sister andbrother – said they heard anything during thenight. Police immediately focused on three youths – her brother Michael, 14, and two friends, Aaron Houser and Joshua Treadway. Four days later they picked up Michael Crowe. He at first denied having anything to do with his sister’s death. But during a relentless six-hour session the next day, in which detectives concocted stories about finding his sister’s blood in his room, Crowe finally confessed although in a most peculiar way – by saying that, yes, he did it and that, yes, he was making it up. Escondido police then picked up Joshua Treadway. After being threatened with prison and subjected to two grueling interrogations, including a ten-hour session in which police administered a voice stress analysis, Treadway said he acted as a lookout while Crowe and Houser did the deed. Aaron Houser maintained his innocence throughout.

10. Certain that the crime was solved, prosecutors pointed to thethree teens’ love of fantasy role-playing games and Michael’sadmitted jealousy of his popular sister. The boys were quicklyindicted. But a judge later threw out all of Crowe’s confessionand most of Treadway’s, ruling that both teens had beencoerced. So the defense dredged up questionable forensictestimony. “Expert” witnesses offered to testify that a knifefound under Treadway’s bed was “identical” to the weaponthat inflicted the fatal wounds, that the killing could not havebeen committed by only one person, and that the words “kill, kill” left on the victim’s windowsill could have been written by Michael Crowe. An FBI crime scene profile strongly suggested that the crime was an inside job. Still, there were many inconsistencies. To have participated in the killing Treadway had to have snuck out of his home in the middle of the night and made the ten-mile roundtrip journey on foot. It simply didn’t add up. And there was something else...

11. Hours before the murder the Crowe’s neighborsspotted Richard Tuite, a 28-year old schizophrenicwith a record for drug and property crimes. Tuitehad past arrests for burglary, a stabbing and forleering at young girls and following them home.Tuite, who was roaming the area, stood on thevictim’s property and looked up at the windows.But by the time that an officer arrived Tuite wasnowhere to be seen. As the officer left he radioed in that he saw the Crowe’s laundry-room door closing. The next day officers brought Tuite to the police station, where they took his clothing and fingernail scrapings. Tuite was cooperative and was let go. Defense attorneys examined Tuite’s clothing. Spotting suspicious stains, they asked they be tested. Detectives, who pooh-poohed Tuite’s ability to commit the crime, said they did so and found nothing. But the defense persevered and Tuite’s things were sent for DNA analysis. Richard Tuite

12. Six months after their arrest a judge held overthe three boys for trial as adults. But the judgewarned prosecutors that their evidence waswholly lacking. He also wondered why Tuitehad been dismissed as a suspect. The boyswere released to the custody of their parents. In January 1999, as jury selection for the boy’strial got underway, the crime lab reported that Tuite’s shirt was spattered with Stephanie Crowe’s blood. The boys were freed. Escondido police were replaced by the Sheriff’s office and the State Attorney General’s office took over the prosecution. In May 2003 Tuite was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for Stephanie Crowe’s murder. In August 2004 he was sentenced to thirteen years.