Officer Untruthfulness Research Paper Bonus Catrina
While some ay argue the concerns are warranted because of the lack of honesty and the bad actions of a small few, a mutual trust needs to be established between the communities and law enforcement. As stated by the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), “ethical law enforcement agencies are more effective, because the application of community policing helps build the mutual respect and trust between police and citizens” (JUDOS . Gob).
Law enforcement and the community need to work together to ensure that while communities can hold law enforcement accountable for their bad decisions, he communities also need to allow police officer to effectively do their job, which is to protect and serve. The U. S. Constitution ensures that all citizens are treated fair and equal and their rights are guaranteed regardless of their differences. That is what makes the United States of America so great. We as law enforcement are expected to defend the Constitution and uphold all of the liberties and rights, such as those in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
While the Constitution was not written to be all encompassing for every situation or scenario, many amendments have been deed throughout the years due to several different Supreme Court cases. These cases include Brady v. Maryland, Igloo v. United States, United States v. Augurs, Kyle’s v. Whitley, and United States v. Bagley which ensure prosecutors disclose any information that could discredit police witnesses such as misconduct or dishonesty. This gives the offender due process of law. Brady v. Maryland The Supreme Court held in Brady v.
Maryland that the prosecution is required to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense even if is favorable to the accused. If they do not, the evidence will be suppressed if a prejudice has occurred. In this case, Brady was denied due process of law because the prosecution failed to provide his defense attorney with the most critical statement from his partner confessing to the crime. Igloo v. Lignite States In Igloo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution is required to share exculpatory evidence with the defense of the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses.
This could include evidence that may even impeach or expose the witness’s misconduct. Since the prosecution is an officer of the court, it is their responsibility to ensure that all relevant information regarding the case is effectively communicated with all involved. United States v. Augurs The Supreme Court determined in United States v. Augurs that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide pertinent information regardless if the defense requests it. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide the victim’s criminal history involving guilty pleas for weapons charges, which violated due process.
Kyle’s v. Whitley In the case of Kyle’s v. Whitley, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and allowed for a new trial on the basis that the prosecution did not disclose evidence to the defense. The Court determined regardless if the prosecutor was aware of the evidence or not, it is their responsibility to ensure that all pertinent information is communication to the defense. United States v. Bagley The case of United States v. Bagley used Brady v. Maryland as its foundation and again affirmed that exculpatory evidence not revealed to the defense was a violation of due process.
The Court again held the prosecution responsible for providing information that could alter the results of the trial or the sentencing. Each of these cases has had significant value to the due process of law. These cases place the burden of proof on the prosecution and the government to ensure the rights of the defendant is protected and they are given a fair trial. Scenario In the given scenario, I would immediately question this officer’s honesty given the fact that he lied about having any knowledge of the incident at the beginning.
As Luke 8:17 says “For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light’ (ESP..). I believe that if the officer initially admitted to his wrongdoing I may have considered a lighter punishment but because of his lack of candor from he beginning, I would have a hard time trusting his word in the future. The hardest part about being in management in law enforcement, especially as a Christian, is that we try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, have compassion and forgive them when they do something wrong, especially if it is the first time.
But the way that you handle the situation will set the example in how this officer as well as others will act in the future. As Italian (1988) explains “pornography is one of the most profitable businesses in America” (peg. 259) and there is evidence which links pornography and deviant sexual behavior in many ways but specifically it shows that “pornography victimizes women by desensitizing men toward violence and making them trivialize rape” (peg. 261 The concern for me would be how this officer would respond or act at a scene with a victim reporting an assault or rape.
This officer obviously has a problem and needs help. I would refer him to the Employee Assistance Program where he can speak to someone and determine if this is an illness where he needs continued counseling. As the Chief, I would definitely have various policies regarding wrongful conduct in reference of official duties, establish requirements and responsibilities for officers and officials and have policies regarding the proper use of electronic equipment to include phones and computers.
Personnel should understand that there is no expectation of privacy when using departmental systems and know that any violation of the set policies would result in disciplinary or adverse actions, criminal penalties or being held financially liable for the cost of the improper use. Some of the type of discipline could include a letter of reprimand or suspension of 3-14 days depending on mitigating or aggravated actors and could even include removal from the department.
Because of this officer actions and the fact that a formal investigation occurred, that I had knowledge of, it is clear that the prosecution and defense would always need to be made aware of the incident in every case. If it is determined that this officer cannot testify in court because of his credibility involving his behavior, I would have no choice but to remove him from his position as an officer. I would do what I could to find him a position within my department, maybe an administrative position, where he would still have a job but not in the line of duty.
I would hope that the officer would learn from his mistakes and renew his commitment to the profession and his life and live according to 2 Timothy 2:21 which says “Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set us apart as holy, UsefUl to the masters Of the house, ready for every good work” (ESP..). Conclusion Sometimes law enforcement officers forget that the decisions they make in their professional and personal lives can impact a case and have permanent consequences that carry with them throughout their career.
