Ethics in Criminal Justice Research - Essay Example

? Ethics in Criminal Justice Research (College) Ethics in Criminal Justice Research Introduction Ethics or moral philosophy deals with the issues of right or wrong in life. In other words, it is about making moral judgments on what is right and wrong. Ethics gives people a way to decide what to do when there are moral issues. In the criminal justice system, ethics is related to deciding the quantum of punishment. For example, when to rehabilitate, deter, or impose just deserts. In more detail, ethics may be used to decide whether it is right to force someone to attend a treatment program against his or her will, or whether it is right to send an offender to jail instead of offering treatment programs to change his or her behavior. In fact, ethics has a significant role in criminal justice as the field involves exercising considerable degree of power and authority over others. There are certain principles that rule the field of research. They are respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. While respect for persons indicates that individuals should be treated as autonomous human beings and should be allowed to make their own decisions and choices, beneficence means to minimize the risks of harm and maximize the potential benefits. The third point, justice, means that people should be treated fairly and research should be designed in such a way that burdens and benefits are shared equitably. Various Inevitable Ethical Hazards The first problem that is faced by criminal justice research is lack of confidentiality. The basic tenets of research are to respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy. However, in the case of criminal justice research, these points are vulnerably open to violation. For example, a researcher who got confidential information from a human subject may be directed by the court to appear as a witness, and the information the researcher will have to provide in the court may act against the human subject who revealed the information for the sake or research. Here, the researcher falls in an ethical dilemma. Either he has to ‘break the confidentiality of the information, or he has to face the law’ (Research Ethics, 2010). The second point is that in criminal justice, it is important in many researches to inflict a degree of harm on the respondents. This is especially so because the criminal justice system usually uses force and coercion as a means of eliciting truth. So, the researches in this field too may be using the same methods or similar methods in an attempt to learn about their impact or to improvise them. However, the Nuremberg Code puts forwards certain basic principles of research. They are voluntary consent, avoidance of unnecessary suffering, avoidance of accidental death or disability, termination of research if harm is likely, experiments to be conducted by highly qualified people, and result should be for the good of society. In addition, there are the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the 1964 Helsinki accord that are intended to ban torture of captives for good. However, more recently, there are the HEW guidelines that all federal agencies generally follow. The first one points out that the research subjects should be given a fair explanation of the purpose of the research, and its reasonable risks. However, evidently, considering the lack of confidentiality in the criminal justice research, it is highly unlikely for human research subjects to reveal any useful information considering the possible legal implications. Though the codes of ethics of American Sociological Association, American Society of Criminology and Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences point out that the researchers’ primary responsibility is towards ethics, they do not take into account the legal implications the researchers will have to face in case of such confidentiality. Regulations of ethically acceptable research There are three forms of regulations that control the ethically acceptable research. The first one is the guidelines of the Institutional Review Boards of colleges and universities throughout the US. However, the HHS guidelines allow most social science and criminal justice research to be exempted from full review by the boards. According to the criminal justice research principles of the present day, the most important things are respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. So, as far as the researcher ensures that the research does not deal with sensitive issues like unreported crime, drugs, sex, or alcohol, and ensure that the real identity of the subjects is kept secret, the researcher can enjoy exemption from full review by IRB. Moreover, in this form, there is no risk of criminal or civil liability. The second one is the government funded research that comes with its own charm and threats. The justice department grants have their own special rules, and often closely follow the HHS guidelines. However, issues of criminal liability and confidentiality are highly likely here. Though there is protection from criminal prosecution enjoyed by the subject under 42 US Code 3789g, the same is not enjoyed by the researcher. It is compulsory for the researcher to abide by the provisions on privacy and confidentiality (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 and 28 CRF 22), and can get a certificate of confidentiality from NIH. These will protect the researcher from government prosecution for any liability or complicity in the actions of their subjects. However, as Lowman and Palys (2001) point out, the researcher can be forced by law to disclose the information; and in case of revelation, there is the threat of libel or slander. Role of a researcher The role of a criminal justice researcher is rather ambiguous. On one side, some may argue that the researcher should be ‘value free’ and neutral in approaching and reporting the subject matter. However, when one feels that the practitioner’s role is to prevent, rehabilitate, and to find better ways of dealing with crime, the role as a neutral observer disappears. Evidently, the latter concept will seriously affect the quality of research as the human subjects will, in all probability, lose their faith in the researcher. In addition, it is this concept that makes the researcher legally liable to disclose the information. So, it seems that the role of a researcher is that of a scientist. The scientist should not be bound by legality to disclose the information. Essential principles for a code of ethics in criminal justice research The code of ethics in criminal justice research requires the following essential features. They are anonymity, confidentiality and informed consent. First of all, the subjects should be provided with a fair explanation of the procedures to be adopted, and their purposes. In addition, the subjects should be given clear ideas about the possible discomforts and risks. Also, there is the need to disclose any reasonable expected benefits, and the possibility of other possible procedures. In addition, subjects should be offered reply to queries related to the procedures at any time during the research, and should be provided the information that the subject is free to withdraw consent and discontinue participation at any time without prejudice. Researcher misconducts in the past History reveals the story of many unethical research practices that had serious consequences on the subjects. For example, army tested an incapacitating agent termed ‘EA 3167’ on Pennsylvania jail inmates without their knowledge or consent (Chapter 2 , pp. 28 -37). This agent causes hallucinations and confusion for weeks. In addition, in another instance, Albert Kligman tested radioactive isotopes on prisoners, and subjected several subjects to 468 times the required dosage of dioxin (Chapter 2 , pp. 28 -37) . These all problems took place because of the lack of clear guidelines regarding research in the criminal justice sector. Yet another cause is the governmental point of view that the role of criminal justice researcher is to try to improve criminal justice administration, instead of being a neutral observer or a scientist. If the points of informed consent, confidentially, and anonymity are made compulsory in the field of criminal justice research, such problems can be reduced considerably. Conclusion In total, it becomes evident that the field of criminal justice research has many unsolved ethical dilemmas. As far as the field of criminal justice requires coercion and force and punishment as the main means of ensuring social order, it is unlikely for researchers to study anything else other than these features and their impacts. However, experiments that involve evident harm to the subjects should be avoided on humanitarian basis. References “Research ethics.” (Aug 2010). Retrieved from http://drtomoconnor.com/3760/3760lect05.htm Lowman, J & Palys, T. (2001). “The ethics and law of confidentiality in criminal justice research: A comparison of Canada and the U.S.” International Criminal Justice Review. 11.(1), 1-33. Read More