Australian Police Ethics - Essay Example

Name : xxxxx Tutor : xxxxx Title : Ethics in the Social Sciences Institution : xxxx @2010 Police Ethics: A Deontological and Teleological Assessment Introduction This essay analyses the Australian Federal Police’s (AFP) terrorism investigation of three Australian citizens of Tamil ethnic origin, as described in the article ‘Raising Hackles’ (McKenzie & Baker 2010). The case study is analyzed under two philosophical theories, namely deontology and teleology. At issue is whether the AFP violated or conformed to their professional ethics in their conduct of the investigation. Each side of the issue is supported by one of the philosophical theories mentioned. Therefore, the essay looks at the actions of the AFP in light of both theories, and will then suggest which philosophical standpoint the police should adopt as their guiding principle. Deontology and Teleology The word ‘ethics’ refers to the nature of moral virtue and the value of human actions (White 1993). Hence professional ethics are the moral values which guide members of a profession in carrying out their work. Thus the ethics of the AFP in the case study can be examined from deontological and teleological points of view. Deontology is the philosophical school of thought which proposes that every action has an intrinsic moral value, independent of that action’s consequences (Reiman 1990). Examples of such actions are honesty, keeping promises, and obeying rules. On the other hand, some actions are considered to be inherently wrong, such as lying, theft, and taking of human life. From a strictly philosophical perspective, deontologists emphasize that the notion of ‘right’ is greater than the notion of ‘good’ or ‘ends.’ In other words, every action must conform to an objective standard of what is right, rather than performing an action with the aim of fulfilling certain ends or an ultimate good. Deontologists rely on the duty to follow rules (from the Greek word deon, meaning duty) to decide whether an action should be done or not (Alexander & Sherwin 2001). According to White (1993), the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, developed a method of establishing the fundamental moral law that would determine the ethical character of an action without considering its consequences. Kant posited that human reason is sufficient to enable each and every individual to assess whether s/he should or should not do a particular act. Therefore all persons should act in accordance with and for the sake of duty, without inclinations, emotions and thought of consequences. Ultimately, the motivation for action must be based on obligations contained in a framework of rational principles (rules) derived from morality. Another characteristic of Kant’s deontology is absolutism, in which an individual has an obligation to follow rules, regardless of the consequences. As long as rules/duties are absolute, it is wrong to violate them, no matter what the consequences may be. According to Kant: “Better the whole people should perish than that injustice be done” (Kant 1965, p.21). A strictly deontological approach causes problems in law enforcement. For instance, torture is proscribed around the world, as it goes against human reason, which deontologists consider to be a universal moral law. However, if vital information, that can potentially save lives, can be obtained through the use of torture, should torture be allowed under such circumstances? In contrast to deontology, teleological philosophy concentrates on ‘good’ or ‘end’ as opposed to ‘right,’ ‘duty’ or ‘obligation.’ It is less concerned with objective standards of what is the right thing to do. Instead, teleological philosophers emphasize the practical consequences of actions in terms of benefit or detriment to the common good. According to this line of reasoning, a "right” action is one that produces more benefits than disadvantages, while a "wrong" action is one whose consequences are more negative than positive (White 1993). The foremost proponents of teleological philosophies are the British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham argued that human life is governed by opposing extremes of pleasure and pain, which make life better and worse, respectively. Therefore, all conceptions of what is right and wrong depend on our actions and their consequences. Bentham proposed that the goal of all human activity is the prolongation of pleasure and the eradication of pain, and that morally good actions produce the most pleasure and the least pain for the most people (Bentham 1948). Bentham developed the hedonistic calculus to measure the pain and pleasure produced by any action. It has seven criteria, namely the intensity of pleasure or pain, the duration of these feelings, the probability that an action will produce them, the proximity or remoteness of painful or pleasurable feelings, the future consequences of these feelings, and their extent, in terms of the number of people they affect (Bentham 1948). Bentham’s teleological approach is more objective than deontological theories, as the pleasure and pain that result from any action can be seen and assessed, and no individual’s pleasure supersedes that of any other individual. For example, an armed robber derives pleasure from the proceeds of his robbery, but his happiness is tempered by the unstable income from robbery, and the constant threat of being apprehended. Therefore, the robber’s pleasure will be less than the victim’s pain, so the robber’s actions produce more pain than pleasure, and are morally wrong, according to teleological philosophy. The main problem with Bentham’s hedonistic calculus is that it can be used to justify armed robbery, as long as the pleasure produced by armed robbery can be shown to exceed the pain that it causes. If someone forges cheques, it could be argued that the pain felt by his victims would not be as acute as that felt by victims of armed robbery. Furthermore, if proceeds from the forged cheques are invested in providing healthcare to a large number of people, it could be argued that the pleasure produced by his generosity outweighs the pain felt by the victims of forgery. Therefore, on the hedonistic calculus, forging cheques to provide healthcare could be seen as morally correct. John Stuart Mill amended the faults of Bentham’s teleology by stating that the pleasure and pain from any action could be classified in terms of quality as well as quantity. He did not believe in all pleasures being equal. Mill stated that a few high quality pleasures could outweigh many low quality ones, and that a person’s experience enabled him to measure the quality of pleasure or pain (Lyons 1965). Mill also rejected Bentham’s idea that all actions could be justified by their consequences. For example, although lying was justifiable in Bentham’s hedonistic calculus, it was wrong because its pervasive social consequences would eventually outweigh its short term benefits to individuals. Thus the hypothetical criminal in Bentham’s teleology would not be considered morally right by Mill, as the long term consequences of the criminal’s action would negate any short term good that he could do by donating his ill gotten wealth to good causes. The disadvantage of Mill’s teleology is that by using individual experience to judge high quality and low quality pleasure, it’s impossible to be objective, because no two persons have identical experiences. This raises the risk of certain groups claiming to have greater insight into the quality of pleasure than others, and thus imposing their will on the population. In addition, it is hard to agree with Mill’s notion that any action is permissible provided that it produces enough high quality pleasure, especially since slavery produces high quality pleasure for slave owners. Despite its practical advantages, teleology is not an ideal way of distinguishing right from wrong, as it is impossible to foresee all the possible outcomes of one’s actions. Case Study Analysis One characteristic shared by police forces all over the world is the morally ambiguous nature of their work. It is a policeman’s duty to protect the innocent, arrest suspects, and to uphold the law. Yet criminals have not sworn to uphold the law and are not bound by duty. Therefore, the police have to decide whether they will follow the rules in accordance with their duty (a deontological approach) or to disobey the rules in the hope that this will avert worse consequences (a teleological approach). Both of these philosophical theories are manifested in this case study. Deontological philosophies are rule based. In the case of the Australian Federal Police, the fundamental rules, to be followed at all times, are the rules of law and due process. The AFP should have had no problem in keeping to the rules. However, they took a teleological approach when they arrested and later ‘unarrested’ Arumugam Rajeevan, a suspect in the investigation. Because absolutist deontology is not always practical, the AFP resorted to “threshold deontology” (Moore 1997; Alexander 2000). This happens when an individual realizes that the deontological rules are only effective up to a certain point. However, when the consequences of maintaining an absolutist deontological stance become so serious that they cross an individual’s threshold of comfort, he will abandon deontology in favour of a teleological approach. For example, a policeman may not commit torture to save the lives of two innocent people, but he may do so to save a thousand lives if his “threshold” of comfort is higher than two lives but lower than a thousand. The AFP possibly thought that they were dealing with extremely dangerous terrorists, and ignored the rules in order to save lives. The actual rules are straight forward and well known: the police can arrest a suspect for a breach of the law, either during the commission of an offence or with a warrant, the suspect is to be taken to a police station, to be informed of the charge, to be given access to a lawyer and to be tried in court within a period stipulated by law. These rules of law and due process are the AFP’s deontological ‘duty’ or ‘fundamental moral law.” The idea of ‘unarrest’ is teleological in nature. According to deontological due process, when the AFP has no legal reason to arrest someone, they are supposed to release him. However, when the AFP realized they could not lawfully arrest Rajeevan, instead of releasing him they unarrested him. This meant that they were no longer within the strictures of deontological due process, and so they could do as they pleased. The interrogation of Rajeevan was the next teleological tactic employed by the AFP, who had apparently decided that ‘the end justified the means.’ They held him with his consent, and interrogated him, even though he was not under arrest. Their method of interrogation was forceful cross examination, which was used in this instance even though it was generally not approved of. Incredibly, Rajeevan was denied access to a lawyer, even though he was not under arrest. The AFP threw the (deontological) rule book out of the window, in exchange for a teleological attempt to avoid a negative consequence (the endangering of the lives of many innocent people) and to achieve a positive consequence (hoping Rajeevan would give them useful or self-incriminating information). The AFP even lied (in court!)about informing him of his lawyers’ attempts to reach him. Although Rajeevan was willingly cooperating with them, and declined the offer of a lawyer, this was no reason for the AFP to reject the lawyers’ request to see Rajeevan. The essence of Rajeevan’s ‘unarrest’ is that, had he been under arrest, the AFP could not deny him access to a lawyer. The status of ‘unarrested’ was a convenient legal loophole which allowed the AFP to operate outside the rules. All of the AFP’s actions were teleological in nature, contrary to the deontological rules that the Judge would have expected them to follow. Another morally ambiguous aspect of this case is how Australia became involved in it. Sri Lanka continuously asked the Australian authorities from 1995 to investigate Australians sending money to the LTTE, but they first acted in 2005. Moreover, the Australian Government resisted Sri Lankan pressure to name the LTTE as a terrorist group. This was for deontological reasons. Since deontology requires adherence to a rule, countries can decide which rules to follow, namely their own internal laws. Therefore, Sri Lanka could not compel Australia to follow a particular rule. Similarly, Australia followed the UN list of organizations in accordance with the rules of international law. The AFP’s decision to investigate in Sri Lanka was teleological because there was no deontological obligation for them to go to Sri Lanka. The AFP probably felt that the positive consequences of going to Sri Lanka would outweigh the negative consequences of not going there. However, the disadvantage of teleological approaches is their unintended consequences. By making a teleological decision to cooperate with the Sri Lankan Government, in order to stop illegal activities in Australia, the Australian Government had inadvertently allied itself with a Sri Lankan Government that has been accused of war crimes against its own people. It would be interesting to see how Bentham’s hedonistic calculus would resolve this situation. Conclusion After examining both the teleological and deontological ethics, and weighing their merits and demerits, I have come to the conclusion that the professional ethics of the police should be deontological ethics. This is because the end does not justify the means. Indeed, it is often difficult to say with any accuracy just what the end is. The presumption of innocence should retain its status as an inalienable right. If the police are allowed to make teleological decisions on whether to recognize the presumption of innocence or not, the negative consequences will clearly outweigh the positive ones, because nobody’s rights will be safe from infringement, as police officers will be guided purely by whim, rather than a well established rule of law. Hence from the available information, I am in favour of deontological ethics over teleological ethics. References Alexander, L 2000, “Deontology at the Threshold”, San Diego Law Review, vol.37, no.4, pp. 893-912. Alexander, L & Sherwin, E 2001, The Rule of rules: morality, rules and the dilemmas of law, Duke University Press, Durham. Bentham, J, 1948, An Introduction to the principles of morals and of legislation, Oxford, Basil Blackwell. Kant, I, 1965, The Metaphysical elements of justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of morals, J. Ladd, Trans., Hackett, Indianapolis. Lyons, D 1965, Form and limits of utilitarianism, Clarendon Press, Oxford. McKenzie, N & Baker, R 2010, ’Raising hackles’, The Age. Melbourne, viewed on May 23, 2010 Moore, M 1997, Placing blame: a general theory of the criminal law, Oxford University Press, Oxford. . Reiman, J 1990, Justice and modern moral philosophy, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. White, T 1993, Business ethics: a philosophical reader, Macmillan Publishing, New York. Read More

According to Kant: “Better the whole people should perish than that injustice be done” (Kant 1965, p.21). A strictly deontological approach causes problems in law enforcement. For instance, torture is proscribed around the world, as it goes against human reason, which deontologists consider to be a universal moral law. However, if vital information, that can potentially save lives, can be obtained through the use of torture, should torture be allowed under such circumstances? In contrast to deontology, teleological philosophy concentrates on ‘good’ or ‘end’ as opposed to ‘right,’ ‘duty’ or ‘obligation.

’ It is less concerned with objective standards of what is the right thing to do. Instead, teleological philosophers emphasize the practical consequences of actions in terms of benefit or detriment to the common good. According to this line of reasoning, a "right” action is one that produces more benefits than disadvantages, while a "wrong" action is one whose consequences are more negative than positive (White 1993). The foremost proponents of teleological philosophies are the British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Bentham argued that human life is governed by opposing extremes of pleasure and pain, which make life better and worse, respectively. Therefore, all conceptions of what is right and wrong depend on our actions and their consequences. Bentham proposed that the goal of all human activity is the prolongation of pleasure and the eradication of pain, and that morally good actions produce the most pleasure and the least pain for the most people (Bentham 1948). Bentham developed the hedonistic calculus to measure the pain and pleasure produced by any action.

It has seven criteria, namely the intensity of pleasure or pain, the duration of these feelings, the probability that an action will produce them, the proximity or remoteness of painful or pleasurable feelings, the future consequences of these feelings, and their extent, in terms of the number of people they affect (Bentham 1948). Bentham’s teleological approach is more objective than deontological theories, as the pleasure and pain that result from any action can be seen and assessed, and no individual’s pleasure supersedes that of any other individual.

For example, an armed robber derives pleasure from the proceeds of his robbery, but his happiness is tempered by the unstable income from robbery, and the constant threat of being apprehended. Therefore, the robber’s pleasure will be less than the victim’s pain, so the robber’s actions produce more pain than pleasure, and are morally wrong, according to teleological philosophy. The main problem with Bentham’s hedonistic calculus is that it can be used to justify armed robbery, as long as the pleasure produced by armed robbery can be shown to exceed the pain that it causes.

If someone forges cheques, it could be argued that the pain felt by his victims would not be as acute as that felt by victims of armed robbery. Furthermore, if proceeds from the forged cheques are invested in providing healthcare to a large number of people, it could be argued that the pleasure produced by his generosity outweighs the pain felt by the victims of forgery. Therefore, on the hedonistic calculus, forging cheques to provide healthcare could be seen as morally correct. John Stuart Mill amended the faults of Bentham’s teleology by stating that the pleasure and pain from any action could be classified in terms of quality as well as quantity.

He did not believe in all pleasures being equal. Mill stated that a few high quality pleasures could outweigh many low quality ones, and that a person’s experience enabled him to measure the quality of pleasure or pain (Lyons 1965). Mill also rejected Bentham’s idea that all actions could be justified by their consequences. For example, although lying was justifiable in Bentham’s hedonistic calculus, it was wrong because its pervasive social consequences would eventually outweigh its short term benefits to individuals.

Read More