ETHICS

FOR THE
PUBLIC SERVICE
PROFESSIONAL
 ETHICS
FOR THE
PUBLIC SERVICE
PROFESSIONAL
ARIC W. DUTELLE, M.F.S.
Forensic Investigation Program Director
University of Wisconsin–Platteville
Department of Criminal Justice

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2011 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20110722

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-9118-6 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit-
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
 This book is dedicated to those who attempt
to do the right thing every day.

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong
man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit
belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by the
dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short
again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and
spends himself in a worthy course, who at the best, knows in the end the tri-
umph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while
daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls
who know neither victory [n]or defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt
Paris Sorbonne, 1910
Table of Contents

Preface xv
Acknowledgments xvii
Introduction xix
About the Author xxiii

1 Ethics: A Look at the Basics 1

What Are “Ethics”? 1
Revisiting the Basics 2
Morals, Values, and Ethics 2
Ethical Subdivisions 4
Normative Ethics 4
Virtue Ethics 4
Deontology 4
Consequentialism 5
Descriptive Ethics 5
Meta-Ethics 5
Differentiating Ethics and Morals from Law 6
What Ethics Involves 7
Further Defining Ethical Makeup 8
Causal and Moral Responsibility 8
Conclusion 11
Review Questions 11
References 12

2 Ethical Perspectives 13
Introduction 13
Altruism 14
Utilitarianism 15
Categorical Imperative 17
Ethical Culture 19
Conclusion 20
Review Questions 21
References 21
Further Reading 22

vii
viii Table of Contents

3 Decision Making: The Logic of Ethics 23

Ethical Decision Making 23
Making a Decision 24
Guidelines for Ethical Decision Making 25
Existentialism 26
Determinism 26
Intentionalism 26
The Logic of Ethics 27
Good versus Bad Arguments 27
Deductive versus Inductive Arguments 28
Truth versus Validity 28
Sound versus Unsound Arguments 29
Evaluating the Result of Decisions 29
Conclusion 29
Review Questions 31
References 31

4 Leadership Ethics 33
Introduction 33
Deciding How to Lead 34
Establishing Trust through Leadership 34
Vision 35
Empathy 35
Consistency 35
Integrity 35
Ethical Behavior as an Organizational Theme 36
Why Morale Is Important in Organizational Ethics 36
Ethics in the Workplace Assessment 37
Conclusion 39
Review Questions 40
References 40

5 Ethical Codes and Standards 41

Introduction 41
Establishing Organizational Support 42
Developing Codes of Ethics 43
Code of Ethics Types 44
Purpose of Establishing a Code of Ethics 45
Arguments against Ethical Codes 45
Code of Ethics Examples 49
Conclusion 49
Table of Contents ix

Review Questions 49
References 50

6 Ethics in Law Enforcement 51

Introduction 51
RANDY TAYLOR
Ethical Frameworks Related to Ethical Training 53
Codes of Ethics in Law Enforcement 54
Police Culture 55
Career Stages and Ethics 56
Police Misbehavior 58
Current Practices for the Prevention of Unethical Behavior 60
Authority 60
Discretion 62
Corruption 63
What Are the Causes of Corruption? 64
How Is Corruption Overcome? 65
Conflicts of Interest 67
Recruitment 68
Conclusion 68
Ripped from the Headlines 69
Code of Silence 69
Ethical Decision Making 70
Abuse of Authority 70
Ethics and Race 70
Ethics in Policing 71
Corruption 71
Review Questions 72
References 73

7 Ethics in Forensic Science 75

Introduction 75
Ethics and Forensic Testimony 76
Forensic Science Gone Awry 77
Legal Rulings Regarding Forensic Testimony 78
Frye v. United States 54 App. D.C., at 47, 293 F., at 1014 78
Federal Rules of Evidence: Article VII. Rule 702 79
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. 509 U.S. 579 79
Kumho Tire v. Carmichael 119 S. Ct. 1167 80
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report 80
Ethics at the Crime Scene 81
x Table of Contents

Misconduct within Crime Laboratories 83

R. T. BOWEN
Ethics Education in Forensic Science 86
R. T. BOWEN
National Forensic Center 89
R. T. BOWEN
Conclusion 90
Ripped from the Headlines 91
Ethics: Credibility 91
Forensic Fraud 91
Discipline Issues 92
Review Questions 93
References 94

8 Ethics in Corrections Systems 95

Ethics in Corrections 95
C. ROBERSON AND S. MIRE
Subculture in Corrections 96
Sentencing 97
The Case against Socrates 97
Purposes of Punishment 98
Retribution 99
Deterrence 100
Incapacitation 100
Rehabilitation 101
Conclusion 103
Ripped from the Headlines 103
Ethics in Correctional Leadership 103
Inappropriate Behavior 104
Inappropriate Behavior 104
Review Questions 105
References 105

9 Ethics in the Legal System 107

Introduction 107
Judges and Magistrates 107
Attorneys 108
Reporting Professional Misconduct 109
Expert Witnesses 110
Conclusion 114
Table of Contents xi

Ripped from the Headlines 115

No Hiding from Ethic’s Violations in New Hampshire 115
Keeping a Watchful Eye on Ethics 115
Ethics Violations from the Bench 115
Review Questions 116
References 116

10 Ethics in Public Office 117

Ethics in Governance 117
United States Office of Government Ethics 118
Background and Mission 118
Agency Program Services 118
Office of Agency Programs 118
Program Services Division 120
Program Review Division 121
Education Division 122
Agency Ethics Program Administration 123
Frequently Asked Questions of the Office of Government
Ethics 123
Common Ethics Issues 127
General Principles 127
Gifts from Outside Sources 128
Impartiality in Performing Official Duties 129
Conflicting Financial Interests 130
Private Life and Public Office 133
Integrity in Office 134
Legal Institutional Model 135
Personal Responsibility Model 135
Effectiveness Model 135
Conclusion 136
Ripped from the Headlines 136
“Lost” Bush Administration E-mails Recovered 136
Ethics in Public Office: Personal versus Private Life 137
Ethics in Public Office: Corruption 137
Ethics in Public Office: Avoiding Legislation 138
Review Questions 138
References 139

11 Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 141

Introduction 141
Military Ethics 141
Ethics in Social Services 146
xii Table of Contents

Ethics in Emergency Medical Services 148

Ethics in Firefighting 149
Ethics in Government Contracts 150
Legislation Regarding Ethics in Public Service 154
Conclusion 157
Ripped from the Headlines 158
Public Perception of Public Service Ethics 158
Military Mentors Cashing In 158
Emergency Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty
Enhancement Act of 2007 Statute Being Used to Charge
Defendants 160
Review Questions 164
References 164

12 Ethics Training and Education 167

RANDY TAYLOR, D. M.
Introduction 167
Ethics-Based Training 168
Conclusion 172
Ripped from the Headlines 172
Ethical Decision Making 172
Review Questions 173
References 173

13 The Future of Public Service Ethics 175

Introduction 175
Future Research Needs 175
Training 175
Questions Regarding Ethics Training 176
Questions Regarding Ethics Violations 176
Relationship between Training and Violations 176
Recruiting 177
Organizational Ethics 177
The Impact of Technology on Ethics Training 177
Conclusion 178
Review Questions 178

Appendix A 179
U.S. Government Entities with Ethics/Conduct-Related
Authority 179
Table of Contents xiii

Appendix B 183
U.S. Office of Government Ethics: General Things You Should
Know about Ethics Employee Crossword Puzzle 183

Appendix C 185
U.S. Office of Government Ethics: Misuse of Position
Employee Crossword Puzzle 185

Appendix D 187
U. S. Office of Government Ethics: Outside Activities
Employee Crossword Puzzle 187

Appendix E 189
Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel 189
Executive Order 189

Appendix F 197
Useful Links Pertaining to Public Service Ethics 197
Ethics in Government 197
Ethics in Law 197
Ethics Research and Education 197
Ethics in Law Enforcement 198
Ethics in Forensic Science 198
Preface

During my years of teaching at the university level, I have been sufficiently

frustrated with trying to find a text that is worthy and applicable to both
subject matter and audience where ethics is concerned. While there are sev-
eral noteworthy texts currently produced that deal with ethics, unfortu-
nately they tend to be written from a philosophical point of view, written for
a business/management audience, or written strictly for a police audience
(with limited applicability and in-depth study of the topic of ethics). There
is not a worthy text written for those individuals currently involved within
the field of public service, to include not just those in law enforcement, but
also those in other areas of emergency public service at the local, county,
state, and federal levels. This should include not only those at the “street”
level, but also those within administrative positions. With news headlines
almost weekly showing instances where individuals, departments, and
organizations have been involved in unethical situations or scenarios, it is
more important than ever to impress upon those preparing for a career in
public service the importance of ethics within their actions and decision-
making processes.
After consulting with my acquiring editor at Taylor and Francis, Becky
Masterman, regarding the need for such a text, I contacted a colleague and
friend of mine, Randy Taylor, to discuss his assistance with this project.
Randy was in the process of assembling his dissertation work for comple-
tion of his Doctorate in Management, and had previously discussed with me
his desire to conduct research associated with ethical training within law
enforcement. His dissertation, A Qualitative Phenomenological Examination
of Ethics Based Training in Law Enforcement, was extremely applicable to the
subject matter and audience which I intended to cover and reach through this
text. Randy gratefully agreed to allow me the use of portions of his research
within this text, and I am extremely appreciative of that. I believe that having
the additional insight and research adds another level to the text and gives
the reader a more diverse, while also more in-depth, view of the need for
ethical training within public service.
Ethics for the Public Service Professional is a single-source reference for
the topic of ethics and ethical decision making as it relates to government
service, and service within the areas of homeland security and emergency
services at the local, county, state, and federal levels. This text will discuss the

xv
xvi Preface

challenges faced by today’s public service professionals and administrators

with regard to incorporating ethics within daily decisions, discretion, and
duties. This in-depth reference will help to eliminate the warped impressions
created by modern dramas as to what is ethical and what is discretionary
within the confines of a public servant’s job. The text will involve a thor-
ough examination of the history of ethics, codes, and legislation relating to
public service. This text will be essential for the foundational development
and explanation of protocols used within a successful organization for those
persons new to the realm of emergency services and will serve as a reference
for those already involved within the field.
Acknowledgments

There are a number of people who I would like to thank for their selfless assis-
tance with this text, without whose assistance this work would fall incredibly
short of hitting the mark.
I wish to thank:

Randy Taylor. Thank you for your professional insight, support, and
contributions. Finding time to assist with this text while engaged in
all of your personal and professional commitments was truly above
and beyond. You are a good friend and I am forever grateful.
Tom Caywood. Your mentorship and insight, as well as your friendship
and professional advice over the years are much appreciated.
Carrie Holberg. You are a truly amazing person with a vast array of pos-
sibilities in front of you. I appreciate you taking time out of your busy
schedule to contribute to this text. Your friendship and work ethic
are deeply appreciated.
Amy Nemmetz. If there is one thing you did not need during this past
year, it was “one more thing” to do. I appreciate your adding a con-
tributory piece for this text to your mountain of personal and profes-
sional obligations. Your professional insight and contributions are
greatly appreciated.
Ed Ross. Your insight regarding the more personal side of the criminal
justice system has been greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking
time out to contribute your knowledge and experience in helping to
make this text a well-rounded one.
Elicia Bruchez (graphic art student at the University of Wisconsin–
Platteville). You have an exciting career ahead of you. Your vision
and professionalism have helped this text to leap off the pages and
give the readers visual insight into the world of public service ethics.
I could never thank you enough.
Kimberly Ketchpaw (criminal justice student at the University of
Wisconsin–Platteville). Thank you for your tireless efforts during
crunch time.

I also wish to thank Becky Masterman, Kathryn Younce, Jay Margolis,

and the entire editorial, production, and marketing staff at Taylor & Francis

xvii
xviii Acknowledgments

Group for giving me the opportunity, assisting me with the production, and
helping to create what I hope will be a work that will fill a much-needed void
in professional education.
Lastly, I wish to thank my family and friends for their love and support. I
am grateful for your patience and understanding throughout this endeavor.
Introduction

Law and punishment are coercive forms of social control linked to the com-
munity moral code. Contemporary emergency personnel, bearing common
oaths of office, navigate an ethical minefield, made increasingly public due
to modern media. The individuals employed in these positions are some-
times confronted with decisions that must weigh personal values against peer
demands for group cohesion, in frustrating environments where challenging
peacekeeping responsibilities pit them against the unethical underbelly of
criminal America. Sometimes at odds within their own ranks, ethical issues
abound.
Kardasz, 2008

Hoping that this text will serve those not only new to the field, but those
already employed within it, it must be realized that law enforcement and
public service corruption scandals are painful reminders of the need for con-
tinuing education in the subjects of ethics and integrity. In a statement by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the topic of ethics education
was made intuitively obvious.

Ethics is our greatest training and leadership need today and into the next
century. In addition to the fact that most departments do not conduct eth-
ics training, nothing is more devastating to individual departments and our
entire profession than uncovered scandals or discovered acts of officer mis-
conduct and unethical behavior.

The United States Department of Justice has since echoed this sentiment:

Creating a culture of integrity is an integral part of fostering an environment

conducive to problem solving and community engagement, two of the core
components of community policing.

What will set this text apart is the manner and direction in which it
is prepared.

• The text will examine timely and up-to-date coverage of current

police and public service controversies.

xix
xx Introduction

• It will discuss important new mechanisms of accountability, such as

comprehensive use of force reporting, citizen complaint procedures,
early intervention systems, and police auditors.
• It also will include a helpful list of Web sites for further research on
the topics covered within this book.
• The study of ethics is best addressed through the analysis of real-life
situations confronted by those within public service. There will be
news story reviews incorporated throughout the text to challenge the
reader and educate them on the diverse scope of ethics within the
public work place.
• Ethical scenarios will be included to instigate healthy debate and
educated discussion regarding the topics being covered.

Pedagogical Features

• Learning Objectives. The learning objectives are listed at the begin-

ning of each chapter. Emphasis is placed on active learning rather
than passive learning. It is hoped that the reader gains knowledge
of how to apply the concepts and material, and not simply retain it
temporarily with plans to regurgitate. The learning objectives con-
centrate on the acquisition of knowledge and foundations needed
to understand, compare, contrast, define, explain, predict, estimate,
evaluate, plan, and apply.
• Key Terms. If one is to study the topic of ethics, it is necessary that
he/she become familiar with the terminology and vocabulary associ-
ated with it. These are listed at the beginning of each chapter to key
the readers to specific terms that they should key in on and to which
grasp an understanding.
• “Ripped From the Headlines” Current Event Examples. In an
effort to apply the theory and guidelines addressed within the book,
I have attempted to give the reader examples of real-world incidents
involving the content discussed within the chapter. It is hoped that
this application to real-world situations will enable the reader to bet-
ter grasp the concepts presented.
• “Case in Point” Examples. In addition to current events, there are
also case scenarios and summations that assist the reader in further
comprehending the presented material.
• “View from an Expert” Insights. As a way to further the real-world
information that the reader is exposed to within the text, many
chapters also include insight from a public servant within the chap-
ter content field.
Introduction xxi

• References. In addition to that which is cited within the footnotes,

each chapter is supplemented with suggested readings pertaining to
the key areas addressed within the chapter.

Reference
Kardasz, F. 2008. Ethics training for law enforcement: Practices and trends.
Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
About the Author

Aric W. Dutelle has been involved in law enforcement since 1999.

During this time, he has held positions as a police officer, deputy sher-
iff, crime scene technician, and reserve medico-legal investigator. He
has a Master of Forensic Sciences (MFS) degree. He is currently the pro-
gram director of the Forensic Investigation program at the University of
Wisconsin–Platteville.
In addition to his university obligations, Dutelle has been a foren-
sic instructor for the U.S. Department of Justice’s International Criminal
Investigation Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) since 2005, specializing
in and providing training in crime scene processing methodologies and tech-
niques around the globe. He continues to be actively involved in training, con-
sulting, and assisting law enforcement agencies with criminal investigations
and crime scene processing around the United States and internationally.
Throughout these experiences, Dutelle has trained thousands of person-
nel in ethical considerations and proper methodologies, He also has worked
thousands of crime scenes, including kidnappings, homicides, suicides, rob-
beries, burglaries, sexual assaults, and drug trafficking–related cases.

xxiii
Ethics
A Look at the Basics
1
Always do right—this will gratify some and astonish the rest.
Mark Twain
Key Terms: Descriptive ethics, ethics, meta-ethics, morals, normative ethics,
values
Learning Objectives:
1. Define ethics.
2. Define and distinguish between morals, values, and ethics.
3. Define and differentiate between the three types of ethical
subdivisions.
4. Differentiate between personal and political ethics.
5. Understand how ethics and morals are separate from law.

What Are “Ethics”?

Theodore Roosevelt said that “to educate a man in mind, but not in morals
is to create a menace to society.” It is for precisely this reason that the topic
of ethics is discussed within this text as a vital component of public service.
Public servants must not only do technical things correctly, but they also
must do ethically correct things. Everyone encounters ethical dilemmas; the
question is when and whether they are ready for them? If we are to consider
how ethics play a part in public service, first we must analyze the meaning
of the term. The term ethics means the study of moral standards and how
they affect conduct. The Greek root for ethics is ethos, which emphasizes the
perfection of the individual and the community in which he or she is defined
(Foster, 2003).
There are some experts who debate whether or not ethics should or can
be taught to adults. Arguments are centered around two opposing sides: (1)
that by the time one has reached adulthood, understanding of values and
ethics are fixed, (2) while others believe that lifelong education can influence
and modify behavior, and thus ethics should be taught. Chapter 13 discusses
the topic of ethical training and education. For now, let us concentrate on
defining what ethics is and is not.

1
2 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Revisiting the Basics

Nearly all people acknowledge the importance of ethics. However, unfortu-

nately few really understand ethics as well as they think they do or as well as
they should. Ethics can be meaningfully discussed and applied only when it
is fully understood. This understanding requires a periodic revisiting of the
basics. So, what then is ethics about?
Ethics is about right and wrong. John Stuart Mill addressed this within
his work Utilitarianism (1859) when he said, “We do not call anything wrong,
unless we mean to imply that a person ought to be punished in some way or
other for doing it; if not by law, by the opinion of his fellow creatures; if not
by opinion, by the reproaches of his own conscience.”
Ethics is about virtue and vice. “Vice, the opposite of virtue, shows us
more clearly what virtue is. Justice becomes more obvious when we have
injustice to compare it to” (Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria).
Ethics is about benefit and harm. “The two essential ingredients in the
sentiment of justice are the desire to punish a person who has done harm,
and the knowledge or belief that there is some definite individual or indi-
viduals to whom harm has been done” (John Stuart Mill, 1859).
While ethics encompasses all of the above, it is more simply about “fixed,
universal rules of right conduct that are contingent on neither time nor cul-
ture nor circumstance” (Foster, 2003). And yet, it is also about character, “the
traits, qualities, and established reputation that define who one is and what
one stands for in the eyes of others” (Foster, 2003). Lastly, it is about example,
“an established pattern of conduct worthy of emulation” (Foster, 2003).

Morals, Values, and Ethics

In breaking down the often-used interchangeably words of morals and ethics,

it is most easily summarized by Charles Colson, “Morality describes what is.
Ethics describes what ought to be” (2000).
The word morality originates from the Latin word moralis, which means
“traditional customs or proper behavior.” Fundamentally, morals refer to a
set of rules defining what is considered to be right or wrong and accepted
without question by a group, society, or individual. These rules are typically
defined by society, which can include peers, educators, religion, media, and
the family unit. If someone breaks such a rule, then they are typically consid-
ered to have been “bad” or “immoral.”
Values, on the other hand, provide direction in the determination of
right versus wrong or good versus bad. Values are what an individual believes
to have worth and importance, or to be valuable. As such, morals are values
Ethics 3

Ethics Versus Morals

Morals Ethics
Derived from Latin word moralis, Derived from the Greek word, ethos,
meaning “traditional customs” meaning moral character.

Typically associated with personal behavior Typically refers to professional practices

and behavior

Customs or manners practiced in any given Conveys sense of stability/permanence

community or culture

May be different from culture to culture An absolute standard of behavior

May change as acceptable social behavior in Standard is universal and immutable (not
the culture(s) change subject to change)

(Adapted from information found within https://courses.washington.edu/cee440/NotesWP.htm)

Figure 1.1 Morals versus ethics. (Adapted from http//courses.washington.edu/

cee440/NotesWP.htm)

that an individual attributes to a system of beliefs that assist the individual in

defining right from wrong or good from bad.
Ethics, which has as its core the Greek word ethos (Merriam-Webster.
com), refers to the “moral character of an individual.” The Greeks believed
that ethos included an emphasis on an individual’s character as well as
including the citizen as a component of a greater community. At the
core, this seems an easy beginning; that ethics begins with the individual
(Figure 1.1).
Ethics involves attempting to address questions as to how a moral out-
come can be achieved. This is sometimes referred to as “applied ethics.” For
our purposes, we will divide the study of ethics into three areas: normative,
descriptive, and meta-ethics.

ETHICAL SUBDIVISIONS
• Normative ethics: How moral values should be determined.
(What do individuals think is right?)
• Descriptive ethics: What morals are actually followed or
adhered to. (How should individuals act?)
• Meta-ethics: The fundamental nature of ethics, including
whether it has an objective justification, how individuals deter-
mine for themselves what societal norms to follow. (What does
it mean to be “right”?)
4 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Ethical Subdivisions

Normative Ethics
The field of normative ethics is concerned with investigating the questions
that arise when one asks, “How should one act, ethically speaking?” It seeks
to examine the standards for the rightness or wrongness of one’s actions.
Sociologically speaking, normative is derived from the term norm. As such,
norms are concerned with those attributes of a culture that compose the
largely unspoken, yet almost universally shared expectations as to what con-
stitutes appropriate or inappropriate behavior. Norms are pointed to as defin-
ing the boundaries of what is considered conformity and what is considered
deviance within a society. They are expectations not behaviors.
There are a number of areas that relate to the theoretical study of norma-
tive ethics. Although a philosophical approach is not the intent of this text, it
is worth mentioning, or directing the reader to the various theories.

Virtue Ethics
This theoretical approach to ethics was first advocated by Aristotle. Its focus
was on the inherent character of an individual rather than on specific actions
performed by them. In recent times, there has been a significant resurgence
of virtue ethics. The reader is directed to the work of such philosophers
as Alasdair Macintyre, Rosalind Hursthouse, Philippa Foot, and G. E. M.
Anscombe.

Deontology
Those subscribing to deontological theories argue that ethical decisions
should be made through the consideration of one’s duties and obligations
along with other individual’s rights.

Contractarianism: Foundation surrounds the concept that moral acts

are those which all individuals would agree with if they were to be
unbiased. The reader is directed to the works of John Rawls and
Thomas Hobbes for examples.
Natural rights theory: Foundation is that human beings have abso-
lute, natural rights. The reader is directed to the works of Thomas
Aquinas and John Locke.
Categorical Imperative: Foundation is that morality is rooted in the
capacity of individuals to be rational, and it also asserts that there are
certain inviolable moral laws within society. The reader is directed to
the works of Immanuel Kant as they pertain to this theory.
Ethics 5

Consequentialism
These theories argue that the morality associated with an action is related to
the outcome or result of the action. They differ by the value associated with
the action or decision.

Utilitarianism: Best action/decision is one that results in the most hap-

piness for the greatest number of individuals.
Egoism: Best action/decision is one that maximizes good for oneself.
Hedonism: Best action/decision is one that will maximize pleasure.
Intellectualism: Best action/decision is one that best promotes
knowledge.
Consequentialist Libertarianism: Liberty should be maximized.
Welfarism: Best action/decision is one that best increases economic
well-being.
Situation Ethics: Best action/decision is one that results in the most
love.

Descriptive Ethics
Sometimes referred to as comparative ethics, descriptive ethics involves the
study of an individual’s beliefs relating to morality. The goal of descriptive
ethics is to attempt to define individual beliefs relating to values and what
actions are deemed right and wrong. It may also include researching what
actions society condemns or punishes with regards to law and/or politics. It
is important that the reader recognize that the attempt is to describe morality
and not customs, etiquette, or laws of a group of people or society.
This area is largely empirical as to research and, thus, typically involves
the areas of biology, anthropology, sociology, and psychology, but also may
carry over to the area of philosophy at times.

Meta-Ethics
Meta-ethics refer to the fundamental nature of ethics, including whether or
not such ethics have an objective justification. More specifically, it refers to
how individuals determine for themselves what societal norms to follow. For
instance, “What does it mean to be ‘right’”?
Therefore, if someone is to question a rule, he/she becomes engaged in
an ethical discussion or argument because ethics is concerned with the jus-
tification for a rule or set of rules. Morals are a property of a society or an
individual, while society or individuals can argue about ethics. This is a more
flexible and adaptable field of ethics with less foundation to draw from and
more “gut driven.”
6 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN ETHICS AND MORALS

Consider a defense attorney: A lawyer may find murder immoral,
according to their personal moral code; however, ethics require that
lawyers defend their accused client to the best of their ability, even
knowing their client is most likely guilty and that his/her acquittal or
release could potentially result in additional crime. If lawyers begin to
question their ability to adhere to these ethical principles, then they
must remove themselves from the practice or risk damaging the ethics
of their profession. This is a fundamental concept within our public
service system, that ethics must trump personal morals for the greater
good of maintaining the integrity of a system.

Differentiating Ethics and Morals from Law

Moral and ethics should be distinguished from law as well. Simply because
something is legally permissible does not mean that it is morally and ethi-
cally permissible. This is the fundamental argument around the debates sur-
rounding abortion, medical marijuana, child labor, and many others. And,
just as legality does not suggest morality, illegality does not imply immoral-
ity. Figure 1.2 shows a Venn diagram that displays an example of the relation-
ship between morality and law. The center area represents those actions that
are both legal and moral, whereas the areas to the left and right represent
actions that are either legal but not moral, or moral but not legal.

Legal
Legal & Moral
Moral

Figure 1.2 Legal versus moral. (Graphic courtesy of Ellie Bruchez, University
of Wisconsin-Platteville.)
Ethics 7

What Ethics Involves

As stated by Gregory D. Foster in the Humanist, “there is more to ethics than

simply knowing what it is about” (Foster, 2003). It is just as important to
know what is involved in its makeup. Ethics is the way values are practiced.
As such, it is both a process of inquiry (deciding how to decide) and a code of
conduct (a set of standards governing behavior).
“To think well is to think critically. Critical thinking, the conscious use
of reason, stands clearly apart from other ways of grasping truth or confront-
ing choice: impulse, habit, etc. Impulse is nothing more than an unreflective
spontaneity, a mind on autopilot. Habit on the other hand is programmed
repetition” (Foster, 2003). Similar to muscle memory, as applies to behavior,
it is repetitive and habitual.
Therefore, “the object of critical thinking is to achieve a measure of objec-
tivity to counteract or diminish the subjective bias that experience and social-
ization bestow on us all” (Foster, 2003). This is imperative because “when we
are dealing with matters of ethical concern, the well-being of someone or
something beyond ourselves is always at stake” (Foster, 2003).
Ethics begins with the individual. While simplistic in nature, it is this
issue that also is the starting point for the complications and travesties relat-
ing to ethics in public service, the fact that it all begins with an individual.
An agency or organization cannot have ethics; it is its employees who have
ethics. It is the administration that makes ethical decisions. The upside is
that the majority of people desire to be ethical, most organizations desire to
act ethically, and the majority of employees and organizations desire to be
treated ethically. The downside to this is that a great many individuals and
organizations simply are not proficient at the application of shared values
to the process of decision making. “The glory of the human story is that the
capacity for good news makes ethics possible; the tragedy is that the propen-
sity for evil makes ethics necessary” (Preston, 2001).
If we are to look at the simplicity and difficulty relating to the topic of ethics
in public service, we must first differentiate between personal and political eth-
ics. First, the purpose of personal ethics is to make individuals morally better, or
rather to ensure that the relationships between individuals are morally tolerable.
Political ethics, on the other hand, while also serving to guide the actions of
individuals, it does so only with respect to their institutional roles and only to the
degree necessary for the greater good of the institution or society (West, 2006).
Although there may be two different areas of ethics, they have as their
foundation a commonality. That is that, regardless of either private or politi-
cal (public) ethics, there is the common theme of a desire and expectation
for respecting other’s rights, fulfillment of obligations, fair treatment, and
truthful words and actions.
8 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Ethical decision making and implementation requires an individual to

have both critical thinking and communication skills (Johnson, 2005). This
would seem simplistic enough, but it is in passing along the decisions that
the waters are muddied and the message blurred. It requires that the deci-
sion maker have a fundamental knowledge of leadership and of the leader–
follower relationship (Ciulla, 2004).
In public service, there is hierarchy that relates to the various levels of
ethics, each having its own set of responsibilities and own possibilities for
complexities. At the first step is personal morality, or an individual’s concept
of right and wrong. This is formed as a basis of upbringing and environ-
ment. Second is professional ethics. These are typically codified within an
organization or professional association relating to the organization or posi-
tion. The third level is organizational. These can include written policies and
procedures that dictate organizational expectations relating to ethical deci-
sion making and behavior. Lastly, there are social ethics. These are typically
enacted as societal laws and also can be part of an individual’s personal social
conscience (Shafritz, Russell, and Borick, 2007).

Further Defining Ethical Makeup

This text does not intend to aide unethical people in becoming ethical.
Rather, the intent is to build upon the moral strength of the reader. As such,
it is necessary to define several additional terms relating to those tools that
the reader possesses in aiding them in the challenges confronted by an ethi-
cal dilemma.

Accountability refers to public service professionals being liable or

answerable to someone. It is a measure of their demonstration in
fulfilling their promises. It is an external test.
Integrity is the adherence to moral and ethical principles and integra-
tion of moral virtues into one’s decisions and actions. It is an internal
test.
Responsibility is the act of being reliable or dependable, or the burden
of accountability for having done something.

Causal and Moral Responsibility

In discussing the aforementioned, we must distinguish between what is referred

to as causal responsibility from moral responsibility. A blind individual who
knocks something over while attempting to negotiate his/her way through a
congested shopping mall that is not adhering to compliancy for those who are
Ethics 9

handicapped, is causally responsible for the damage that occurred, but he/
she is not morally responsible. The individual had no way of controlling or
foreseeing his/her actions, therefore he/she deserves no moral blame for his/
her actions. However, if a nonhandicapped person were to traverse the same
location and decide to knock something over, causing it to break, then he/she
would be both causally and morally responsible for the damage.
Therefore, there are four basic conditions that must be present in order to
decide moral responsibility:

1. The individual must be aware of the facts pertaining to the situation

or decision.
2. The individual must be cognizant of the difference between right
and wrong.
3. The individual must have had intent to have done what he/she did.
4. The individual must have been able to do otherwise than what he/
she did.

Infants and those with severe mental or physical impairments fail to

meet the conditions set forth to determine moral responsibility and, there-
fore, require no excuse for their acts. However, those who are capable have no
excuses beyond there being no other alternative to the actions taken, which
would thusly result in the conditions not being met. If there is no excuse,
then the only acceptable action is to take responsibility for one’s actions. This
is the basis for integrity and virtue.
The ancient Greeks recognized four basic virtues associated with ethics:
courage, justice, temperance, and prudence (Figure 1.3). Aristotle believed
that virtue was “the ability habitually to know the good and to do the good”
(Dreisbach, 2009). This definition aids in reminding us that no person is mor-
ally good simply based on a single act or moment. Rather, “morality is a mat-
ter of character, and character is a matter of habit. The more one is in the habit
of knowing and doing the good, the more one is virtuous” (Dreisbach, 2009).
Anyone who has ever used a firearm knows that hitting the bull’s eye
100% of the time is not a realistic expectation. However, proper training,
muscle memory, repetition, and development of positive habits certainly
assist in improving the accuracy with which one shoots. However, just as a
great marksman will on a rare occasion miss his mark, a poor marksman will
sometimes hit the target. This is not as a result of habit, but is similar to the
adage that “even a broken clock is correct twice a day.” This anomaly does not
make the poor marksman suddenly good, just as it does not make the excel-
lent marksman suddenly bad when he is to finally miss his mark. As such, a
random good deed or act does not result in a virtuous person, just as a scath-
ing or misguided deed does not make a virtuous individual suddenly without
virtue. Virtue, as with marksmanship, is about habit. It is about developing
10 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

The Greek Cardinal Virtues

Virtue

Courage

Temperance

Justice

Prudence
(practical wisdom)

Deficient of Virtue Excess of Virtue

Cowardice Foolhardiness

Consuming too little Consuming too much

Giving less than one is due Giving more than one is due

Acting on insufficient Failing to act when having

knowledge sufficient knowledge

Figure 1.3 Greek cardinal virtues. (Graphic courtesy of Ellie Bruchez, University
of Wisconsin-Platteville.) Adapted from Dreisbach (2009).

good muscle memory. Practice does not make perfect, perfect practice makes
perfect. Although this is an adage because perfection is an actual impossibil-
ity … and really, what would “ethical perfection” be?
Guilt and fear play a vital role in ethical development and adherence.
There are many who maintain their actions within accepted ethical norms
simply due to the fear associated with being caught if they were to stray from
normal. Some will violate any ethical norm and do whatever they feel they
can get away with without being caught. Others are much too paranoid to
stray from norms and regulate their actions based on fear.
On the other hand, guilt is sometimes the motivator under which honest
people operate. Decisions about whether or not to comply with ethical norms
is not founded upon the fear of being caught, but rather on the knowledge
that they will know that they did something that they believe to be wrong.
Perhaps those who discover guilt as children decide to be good and hon-
est people simply because they do not want to feel the burden of guilt. As a
person matures into adulthood, this honesty and goodness becomes a habit,
and guilt is a continual burden to bear for straying from “good.” Sociopaths,
on the other hand, do not have the capacity to feel guilt because they do not
believe their actions to be wrong.
Ethics 11

Conclusion

As is readily apparent, there are as many ethical definitions as there are peo-
ple, or subsets of people. However, as pertains to the study of ethics, these
ethical perspectives can be roughly grouped so as to allow the reader to gain
some insight into ethical decision making. Chapter 2 will discuss these ethi-
cal perspectives, while Chapter 3 will incorporate these perspectives into the
decision-making process. The remainder of the text is dedicated to ethical
issues, challenges, perspectives, and decision making as it pertains to various
areas of public service. As with all areas of ethics, the reader is wise to view
such information and discussions as “framework” and “guidelines” rather
than foundational or as strict rules to be adhered to.

Review Questions
1.        is the study of moral standards and how they affect
conduct.
2. Experts debate on whether or not ethics should or can be taught to
adults. What are the two opposing sides to this debate?
3. Ethics is about        and wrong, virtue and        ,
benefit and        .
4.        describes what is and        describes what
ought to be.
5. Morals are        that an individual attributes to a system
of beliefs that assist the individual in defining right from wrong or
good from bad.
6. Define and differentiate between the three types of ethical subdivisions.
7.        involves the study of an individual’s beliefs relating to
morality.
8. What does meta-ethics refer to?
9. True or False: Morals and ethics should not be distinguished from
law.
10. True or False: Ethics is the way values are practiced?
11. What is the difference between personal ethics and political ethics?
12. An individual’s concept of right and wrong is known as       .
13. In public service, the three levels of ethics include    ,    ,
and     .
14. True or False: Guilt can be a motivator under which honest peo-
ple operate.
12 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

References
Ciulla, J. B., ed. 2004. Ethics, the heart of leadership, 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Colson, C. W. 2000. The problem of ethics. Christian Ethics Today: Journal of Christian
Ethics 031, 6 (6). http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/031/The%20
Problem%20of%20Ethics%20By%20Charles%20W%20Colson_031_6_.htm
(accessed February 21, 2010).
Dreisbach, C. 2009. Ethics in criminal justice, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Foster, G. D. 2003. Ethics: Time to revisit the basics. In The ethics edge, 2nd ed., eds.
J. P. West and E. M. Berman. Washington, D.C: International City/County
Management Association. (Originally published in The Humanist, March-April
63(2).)
Johnson, C. 2005. Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mill, J. S. 1861. Utilitarianism. Fraser’s Magazine. Reprinted in book form in 1963,
London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. From http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.
htm (accessed July 20, 2009).
Preston, N. 2001. Understanding ethics, 2nd ed. Annandale, NSW, Australia:
Federation Press.
Quintilian, M. F. 2006. Institutio oratoria. From http://penelope.uchicago.
edu?Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/home.html
(accessed July 20, 2009).
Shafritz, J. M., E. W. Russell and C. P. Borick. 2007. Introducing public administration,
5th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, Inc.
West, J. P., and E. M. German, eds. 2006. The ethics edge, 2nd ed. Washington, DC:
International City/County Management Association.
www.merriam-webster.com (accessed December 10, 2010).
 Ethical Perspectives
2
In any ethical situation, the thing you want least to do is probably the right
action.
Jerry Pournelle
Key Terms: Altruism, categorical imperative, ethical culture, sanctions,
utilitarianism
Learning Objectives:
1. Define altruism.
2. Define utilitarianism.
3. Identify types of and definition for sanctions.
4. Define categorical imperative.
5. Define ethical culture.

Introduction

As was addressed in Chapter 1, there is often intense confusion with regards

to ethics, morals, and values. When one begins to delve deeper into the study
of such matters, the water often becomes murkier before it begins to clear.
After differentiating between what morals, values, and ethics typically con-
sist of, let us take the time to look at some ethical perspectives. That is, the
manner in which one looks at or perceives a given situation and, thus, forms
decisions based upon his perceptions and beliefs associated with the situa-
tion. The decision-making process is discussed in Chapter 3, but before deci-
sions can be made, we must consider the direction from which one is looking
at a situation.
There are several basic ethical perspectives that will be covered within
this book. As with many concepts presented here, it is not possible to be all-
inclusive, as each topic in and of itself could have a book written entirely on
it, and many do. Therefore, with that said, the categories of ethical perspec-
tives presented here may not coincide exactly with those found elsewhere, but
they are sufficient and general enough to facilitate our discussion. There are
four ethical perspectives that will be covered: altruism, utilitarianism, cat-
egorical imperative, and ethical culture. Each of these identifies has a differ-
ent standard or view of decision making and each refers to some interest that
is preferred or valued above others. Of importance, and worth taking note

13
14 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

of, is that most ethical decisions benefit someone or, at the very least, satisfy
some interest that the decision maker has. As a result, because not all share
the same interests or preferences, there can be a temptation to judge others’
choices as “unethical” or “wrong.” So, as you look at the varying ethical per-
spectives, it is useful to understand how individuals discriminate between
what is “right” and what is “wrong.”

Altruism

Altruism is possessing unselfish concern for the welfare of others. It is rec-

ognized as being the opposite of selfishness. This ethical perspective is a tra-
ditionally held virtue in many cultures and is a core component of the most
traditional religious beliefs, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism,
Buddhism, and others. As such, it is sometimes referred to as the “love
your neighbor” perspective, due to the perspective representing the con-
cepts behind the biblical (and others) instructions to “love thy neighbor as
thyself.”
Altruism is quite different than possessing loyalty or having a sense of
duty toward something or someone. The perspective of altruism is focused
on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while
duty or loyalty is focused primarily on a moral obligation toward a specific
organization (employer, government, country), an individual (person, deity),
or even an abstract concept (such as patriotism). It is possible that an individ-
ual would feel both altruistic and duty-bound/loyal, while it is also possible
that some may not feel either. The perspective of pure altruism is grounded in
giving without regard to the receipt of reward, benefits, need, or recognition
of the giving.
The concept of altruism has a lengthy history within philosophical and
ethical teaching. The term was first used by Auguste Comte (1798–1857), a
French sociologist and philosopher of science. Since then, it has become a major
topic of study for psychologists, evolutionary biologists, and ethologists.

INTERNATIONAL ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE

The Web site, www.ethical-perspectives.be/, is home to “Ethical
Perspectives,” an international collaboration among ethicists and spe-
cialists from diverse sciences. According to the site, it “primarily intends
to be an international forum for the promotion of dialog between fun-
damental and applied ethics.” It is a worthwhile trip to venture to this
online forum and peruse the varying insights into the complex world of
Ethical Perspectives 15

ethics. In ancient times, a “forum” was a marketplace, typically in the

center of town, where people would mass to exchange goods, services,
and also knowledge. “The forum has always been the place for politi-
cal oratory, religious celebrations, and jurisprudence. To witness events
through the forum is to feel the heartbeat of community life.”

www.ethical-perspectives.be

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is the perspective that those actions that produce the greatest
good for the greatest number of persons are “good” actions. It also is known
as the “consequentialist” or “teleological ethical theory.” “The basic principle
is that human beings judge morality of actions in terms of the consequences
or results of those actions. Moral acts elicit good consequences—those that
create happiness and are justifiable. Immoral acts elicit bad consequences—
those that induce pain and suffering and are unjustifiable. In this approach,
actions may be moral or immoral based on the capacity to achieve the great-
est good for the greatest number of people” (Bowen, 2010, p. 4). This perspec-
tive is one of the easiest to subscribe to and has the most intuitive appeal
for most people. This is because a “good” result or acquiring/maintaining
well-being is such a natural ambition of everyday human endeavor. The
sticking point with this perspective typically revolves around one’s concept
of what is “good” or “successful”? For some it may revolve around material
items or pleasures, for others it may include financial or professional success.
Therefore, “the greatest common good,” in fact, may not be so common.
Under utilitarianism, at least two conditions must be met if an individual
is to pursue his own well-being. First, the individual must possess a maxi-
mum degree of personal freedom. Secondly, he must be capable of realizing
well-being within the basic conditions of his existence, however well-being
is defined. For instance, it would not be possible for an individual to pursue
his well-being if he was sick and unable to obtain proper medical care, or if
he was exposed to unsafe working conditions. There may be other conditions
that also would be required for a person to realize his well-being, such as
education and companionship.
While the utilitarian perspective is very influential and popular, there
are two major concerns with the utilitarian perspective on ethical decisions.

1. If one is to implement the utilitarian perspective, they must possess

extensive knowledge of data and facts, and sometimes this informa-
tion is simply not available. This is especially present in instances of
16 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

cost/benefit and risk/benefit analysis. In order to balance the cost or

negative utility of a decision, it is necessary to calculate the long-term
effects of the decision on all affected members of the audience. Such
long-term positive and negative consequences of an action or policy
may not be identifiable or measureable. In these instances, utilitari-
anistic decisions are reduced to a “best guess” approach, which may
not be equitable or satisfactory.
2. The second concern with utilitarianism is that utilizing this
ethical perspective may lead to injustice for individuals, while
attempting to make a decision that is “best” for the masses. This
is represented in military decisions, for example, where a decision
is made based on the benefit of the many, based on the sacrifice of
a few. For instance, in Stephen Spielberg’s movie, Saving Private
Ryan, the character Captain Miller is seen discussing the appli-
cation of utilitarian perspective as relates to military missions,
“when you end up killing one of your men, you tell yourself it
happened so that you could save the lives of two or three or ten
others. Maybe a hundred others. … That’s how simple it is. That’s
how you rationalize making the choice between the mission and
the man.” However, utility maximization at the expense of the
individual presents serious ethical issues, which the utilitarian
perspective is not well-suited to address.

The history of utilitarianism is traced by some as far back as Epicurus,

the Greek philosopher. However, with regards to it being viewed as a specific
school of thought, it is typically credited to Jeremy Bentham. It was Bentham
who surmised that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two
sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Bentham, 1789). Bentham’s view of
utilitarianism incorporated the Principle of Utility into decision making.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

1. Recognition of the role of pain and pleasure as fundamen-
tal influences on human life, especially as concerns decision
making.
2. Approves or disapproves of an action or decision based on the
basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about by the
action or decision (otherwise known as “consequences”).
3. Equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, as to
consequentialism.
4. Pleasure and pain are capable of quantification and, thus, are
measureable.
Ethical Perspectives 17

Bentham felt that man and society could co-exist based on common
motivations he referred to as sanctions: (1) physical sanctions, or the natural
sensation of happiness and pain; (2) political sanctions, the legal acts that
can counteract immoral acts; (3) moral sanctions, approval, or disapproval
from those around a person; and (4) religious sanctions, the blessing or con-
demnation by a supreme being, consistent with one’s faith (Bentham, 1789).
The weakness of his theory was that the core principle was vague and did not
account for individual rights.
Belief in hedonism was the basis for Bentham’s work, as it was the most
famous version of the utilitarian theory where the fundamental good is hap-
piness. Whichever action produces the greatest amount of happiness for the
most people is considered the most moral act. Although this seems straight-
forward, many problems make the concept of happiness hard to employ.
First, the greatest happiness is achieved at the expense of the fewest people.
Consider this: It is not always possible to predict consequences for everyone
involved. While we do make decisions based on consequences, this philoso-
phy may lead to situations with no set of rules or standards. Finally, happi-
ness could appear to condone some actions with which most people would
not agree, such as a person gaining happiness through child pornography,
creating potential conflicts with individual human rights.
Although the concept is typically credited as being articulated first
by Bentham, it is John Stuart Mill who, as a proponent of utilitarianism,
wrote Utilitarianism in 1861, which was an interpretation and an attempt at
more effectively explaining Bentham’s earlier theories. Although entitled
Utilitarianism, his conception of it was quite different from Bentham’s. Mill’s
perspective has been known as “the greatest happiness principle,” in that it too
formulated that one must always act so as to produce the greatest happiness
for the greatest number of people, but the key was that such a decision must be
made within reason. Bentham treated all forms of happiness as being equal,
whereas Mill believed that intellectual and moral pleasures were superior to
more physical forms of pleasure. Mill distinguished between and establishes
the importance of each of these through a witty statement made within his
work Utilitarianism, “[i]t is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool,
or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side
of the question” (Mill, 1861).

Categorical Imperative

Immanual Kant was an eighteenth-century German philosopher who believed

that individuals have certain obligations regardless of the consequences they
evoke. His theory was based on the premise that moral actions occur out
18 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

of obligation and are judged based on the intention and motivation for the
action. Kant believed that those who choose to follow the utilitarian approach
are omitting a large part of ethics by neglecting their duty and the intention
to do what is right. Kant summed up his feelings by stating, “It is impossible
to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken
as good without qualification, except good will” (Kant, 1964, p. 61).
Kant’s philosophy is sometimes referred to as “The Golden Rule” perspec-
tive. It may be defined as the standard of rationality from which all moral
requirements are derived. While the concept of a golden rule (Do unto others
as you would have them do unto you) has historically been found in one form
or another within most major religious traditions, the concept of “categorical
imperative” was the central philosophical concept developed by Immanuel
Kant, introduced in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in 1785. To many
this theory may sound religious or “theological,” but as an ethical perspective
within the deontological field of ethics, it attempts to identify a concept of
“right,” which is more universal than religion. For instance, telling the truth is a
moral obligation, not simply because it is instructed within almost all religions,
but because it is almost universally understood what it is like to be lied to.
“Moral actions are guided by duty and are based on ‘dutiful principles’ or
laws. The rules of conduct or laws to which Kant refers are maxims, such as
‘honesty is the best policy’ or ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Maxims should be
universally accepted and commanding so people cannot make up rules as they
go and so everyone will act the same way without exception. There are two types
of maxims: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical maxims are conditional
instructions that stress what ought to be done, such as, ‘If I want to get a job in
criminal justice, then I ought to stay out of trouble.’ Categorical maxims are
unconditional orders to state principles that need to be done, for example, ‘Tell
the truth.’” In comparison, the hypothetical maxim would state, ‘If you want
to stay out of trouble, tell the truth.’ In the study of ethics, categorical maxims
provide a foundation for ethical decision making” (Bowen, 2010, p. 8).
“Kant developed the categorical imperative, which is a fundamental prin-
ciple that allows people to act consistently from situation to situation. The
categorical imperative is divided into two formulations. The first formulation
is universalizability, which states that a justifiable action is when another per-
son faces the same circumstances and acts in the same way. If a person makes
a decision that he or she feels is morally justifiable, he or she knows 99 of 100
people would make the same decision. The idea of universalizability also may
be described as a person treating everyone the same way as he or she would
want to be treated” (Bowen, 2010, p. 8).
There are three premises that make up the categorical imperative. The first
premise is that an individual acts ethically if their conduct would, without con-
dition, be the “right” conduct for any individual in a similar circumstance. The
second premise is that an individual’s conduct is “right” if others are treated
Ethical Perspectives 19

as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end. The final premise is that
an individual acts ethically when he acts as if his conduct was establishing a
universal law governing others on how to act in a similar circumstance.
Hypothetical imperatives instruct an individual on which means best
achieves his ends. They do not tell an individual which ends he or she should
choose. The struggle in choosing ends is typically between ends that are
“right” (i.e., charity) and those that are “good” (i.e., educating oneself). Kant
taught that the “right” was superior to the “good.” Kant believed that “good”
was morally irrelevant.
While this theory of ethical perspective is often referred to as The Golden
Rule perspective, Kant stated in his work, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of
Morals, that what he was attempting to teach was not the same as the Golden Rule
because, under the Golden Rule, many things cannot be universal. He believed
that the Golden Rule was instead the categorical imperative with limitations.

Ethical Culture

The Ethical Culture Movement was started in 1876 by Felix Adler. Ethical
culture has its foundation on the premise that living with and honoring ethi-
cal principles is at the heart of what it takes to live a fulfilling and meaningful
life, while helping to create a world that is good and positive for all individu-
als. A fundamental key to the foundation of ethical culture was the observa-
tion that oftentimes disputes regarding religious or philosophical doctrines
were distracting individuals from following through on living ethically and
doing good. This is why, consequentially, “deed before creed” has developed
into an informal motto of the movement (www.newworldencyclopedia.org).
Although those subscribing to ethical culture perspectives generally
share common beliefs as to what constitutes ethical or unethical behavior,
individuals are encouraged to recognize the complexities inherent in such
matters, and, thus, remain open to continued exploration, education, and
dialog rather than remain inflexible or unable to adapt.
The movement had the original aim of attempting to uphold through
example the highest ideals of living, while attempting to support the weaker
in attaining such ideals. The original aims were:

• To teach the supremacy of the moral ends above all human ends and
interests.
• To teach that the moral law has an immediate authority not contin-
gent on the truths of religious beliefs or of philosophical theories.
• To advance the science and art of right living.
20 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Members of the society were encouraged to adhere to whatever religious

doctrine they saw most fit, choosing to confine societal attention to moral
problems within life rather than religious ones. A central concept was the
encouragement of the individual to always act so as to elicit the best in others
and, thereby, in themselves.

MODERN ETHICAL CULTURE

While Ethical Culture has adapted and remained dynamic since its
inception, there are a number of focal points that remain important.
These include:

• Human Worth and Uniqueness: Each individual is believed to

have inherent worth that is not dependent on the value of what
it is that they do. Each is deserving of dignity and respect, and
their individual gifts are to be celebrated and encouraged.
• Eliciting the Best: “Always act so as to elicit the best in others,
and thereby yourself” is as close as ethical culture comes to
having a Golden Rule.
• Interrelatedness: In his formation of the concept, Adler used
the term The Ethical Manifold to refer to how he believed “the
universe to be composed of unique and indispensible moral
agents (individual human beings), each of which has an influ-
ence on each of the others, which is unable to be measured or
estimated, but which is inherently present nonetheless. This
interrelatedness is at the heart of ethics. … Each has an effect
on the whole.”

Conclusion

Although not every decision that one is presented with is an ethical one, it is
helpful to have a foundation in the varying categories of ethical perspectives.
Each category of ethical perspective identifies a different standard or view of
decision making and each refers to some interest that is preferred or valued
above others. However, because not all individuals share the same interest
or preferences, there is a temptation to judge other’s choices and decisions as
“unethical” or “wrong.” Chapter 3 will apply these ethical perspectives into
the decision-making process.
Ethical Perspectives 21

Review Questions
1.        is possessing unselfish concern for the welfare of
others.
2. True or False: The perspective of pure altruism is grounded in giving
without regard to the receipt of reward, benefits, need, or recognition
of giving.
3. What do moral acts elicit? Immoral?
4. Under utilitarianism, what two conditions must be met if an indi-
vidual is to pursue his own well-being?
5. What are the two concerns with the utilitarian perspective?
6. Identify and define the four types of sanctions.
7. The        perspective may be defined as the standard of
rationality from which all moral requirements are derived.
8. True or False: Categorical imperative is a fundamental principle that
allows people to act inconsistently from situation to situation.
9.        has its foundation on the premise that living with and
honoring ethical principles is at the heart of what is takes to live a
fulfilling and meaningful life, while helping to create a world that is
good and positive for all individuals.
10. When looking at the ethical culture, individuals are encouraged to
remain open to continued          ,          ,
and        rather than remain        or unable
to        .

References
Bentham, J. 1789. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Chap. I.
London: B. Hensley.
Bowen, R. T. 2010. Ethics and the practice of forensic science. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor
and Francis Group.
Kant, I. 1785. Groundwork on the metaphysics of morals. (Trans. In 1964 by H.J. Paton.
New York: Harper & Row.)
Mill, J. S. 1861. Utilitarianism. Fraser’s Magazine. Reprinted in book form in 1863,
London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
www.ethical-perspectives.be/page.php?LAN=E&FILE=subject&ID=119&PAGE=1
(accessed February 15, 2010).
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ethical_Culture (accessed December 27,
2010).
22 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Further Reading
Ciulla, J. B., ed. 2004. Ethics, the heart of leadership, 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Colson, C. W. 2000. The problem of ethics. Christian Ethics Today: Journal of Christian
Ethics 031, 6 (6). http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/031/The%20
Problem%20of%20Ethics%20By%20Charles%20W%20Colson_031_6_.htm
(accessed February 21, 2010).
Dreisbach, C. 2009. Ethics in criminal justice, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, C. 2005. Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Shafritz, J. M., E. W. Russell and C. P. Borick. 2007. Introducing public administration,
5th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, Inc.
West, J. P., and E. M. German, eds. 2006. The ethics edge, 2nd ed. Washington, DC:
International City/County Management Association.
Decision Making
The Logic of Ethics
3
You cannot make yourself feel something you do not feel, but you can make
yourself do right in spite of your feelings.
Pearl S. Buck
Key Terms: Argument, bad argument, existentialism, conclusion, determin-
ism, good argument, intentionalism, invalid, premises, scientific determin-
ism, sound, unsound, valid.
Learning Objectives:
1. Understand the components of a proper ethics-based decision process.
2. Define and understand the four levels of moral thinking that occur.
3. Distinguish between good and bad arguments.
4. Distinguish between deductive and inductive arguments.
5. Understand how to properly evaluate the results of a decision.

Ethical Decision Making

Not all choices that one makes are ethical ones. For instance, the choice of “2”
or “3” in deciding the correct answer to the problem of “what is 1 + 1?” is not
at all an ethical one. Nor is deciding the answer to: “How far away is the earth
from the sun?” A great many decisions are made as a result of testing through a
logical, methodological system, such as mathematics and science. Other times,
math and science are of no use in the decision-making process and one must
delve deeper in order to come up with the “right” solution to the problem at
hand.
Having previously covered what ethics are and are not, and individual
views or perspectives relating to ethics, how then does an individual trans-
late these theories into real-world decision making? “In order to make ethical
decisions, it is important to ask the correct questions, to focus on the main
issues, to balance determination with compromise, to debate possibilities,
and to make the decision that stems from the recommended steps” (Bowen,
2010). There, however, are additional factors that may serve as an impetus
for ethical decision making. These factors may include, but are not limited
to, family, friends, religion, community, culture, and law. It is these factors,
combined with personal bias, which impact an individual’s concept of right
and wrong, and, thus, impact ethical decision making.

23
24 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

FRAMEWORK FOR ETHICAL DECISIONS

Moral questions rarely have clear answers, which is why ethics is a dif-
ficult topic to discuss. There are usually more questions than answers in
ethical decision making. Though there are various guidelines for con-
duct, people can rely on some basic formulas or rules for the majority of
ethical decisions. The guiding formula for moral judgment as presented
consists of the following steps:

• First, select the moral principle that best defines the problem in
question. Is it a matter of honesty, fairness, equity, or loyalty?
• Second, justify the situation by examining whether it conforms
to the selected principle. If not, what accentuation or mitigating
factors could make it more or less fitting with the principle?
• Next, if the situation fits the principle exactly, the judgment
should be made in exact accordance with the principle.
• Finally, if the situation does not fit the principle exactly, judg-
ment should be made by determining a high or low likeli-
hood that the situation will fit the principle (Bowen, 2010,
pp. 12–13).

Making a Decision

1. When attempting to make a decision, analyzing the issue is the best

place to begin.
2. The next step is to consider the facts involved. For instance, one
should ask what is beneficial? What is necessary?
3. At this point, it is helpful to consider perspectives that others might
hold regarding the issue at hand. If time and place allows for it, it is
suggested that opening the issue or decision up for debate might help.
Asking questions of others and receiving feedback from those outside
of the decision process may aid an individual discover novel solutions
or enable unique perspectives to present themselves. It is not uncom-
mon for decisions to be made without adequate time to stop, ask for
input, analyze the information, and think about the repercussions of
the decision. It is in these situations that individuals should rely on
their personal character as a guide for the decision-making process.

After the initial process, there may be multiple decisions that may emerge. Each
decision-making scenario, which an individual is confronted with, is unique
and, thus, requires a thorough look at the options that present themselves.
Decision Making 25

1. At this point, an individual would be wise to weigh the pros and the
cons of each potential decision outcome.
2. What are the values of each action compared with the consequences
that may occur from each option presented?
3. The application of situational ethics may assist an individual in ratio-
nalizing decisions or actions and, thus, assist in the decision-making
process. However, the application of situational ethics may create
a double standard or a subjective decision with relation to ethical
principles because each person is unique and what may work for one
individual or group in one situation, may not work for another in
another situation.

Although not all-encompassing or correct in all situations, the above

outline represents an example of a decision-making process. It serves as a
guideline rather than as a standard operating procedure for the decision-
making processes, which will be discussed throughout this text.
Typically, when ethical decisions are made in routine situations, they are
simple because there is consistency of choice most often based on established
rules and regulations. While each situation is unique, particularly unusual
situations often pose more difficult to an individual because of conflicting
views of religion, values associated with culture, or variations in law that are
foreign to the individual.

Guidelines for Ethical Decision Making

There are many guidelines for ethical decision making, as evidenced by the
earlier stated guideline. Using such a guideline is useful to an individual
in organizing one’s thoughts and in assessing moral thinking. In Ethics of
Human Communication (Johannesen et al., 2008), Rushworth Kidder dis-
cusses various levels of moral thinking. While these guidelines originate
from ethical decisions regarding journalism, they can be useful when applied
to decisions made within the public service sector.
According to Kidder (Johannesen et al., 2008), the four levels of moral
thinking which occur are

1. Ideal decision making, or what is absolutely right or wrong.

2. Practical decision making, or following common rules, such as: “Do
not tell lies.”
3. Reflective decision making, or the exceptions to given rules.
4. Political decision making, or making decisions for the good of the
larger community.
26 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

In the end, ethical decision making and ethical judgment is ultimately a

result of choices that should be freely made. Although the decision-making
process may oftentimes result in there being more questions than there are
answers, the recognition that there are various ethical perspectives, and vary-
ing levels of moral thinking. The utilization of the aforementioned decision-
making strategies can often make the process much more manageable.

Existentialism

Existentialism is a relatively recent concept that has an emphasis on an indi-

vidual’s freedom to make decisions free of influence from others. This is often
referred to as free will. If we are to discuss the concept of free will, it is neces-
sary to discuss the supporting concepts of determinism and intentionalism.

Determinism
Determinism is a term that applies to the premise that all occurrences, thoughts,
and actions are beyond the control of an individual. This concept can often cast
doubt on the validity or usefulness of individual choice, and may reveal itself
in a personal expression or attitude, typically appearing in such remarks as,
“It wasn’t in the cards,” “I was destined to fail,” or “It was fate that. …” A more
in-depth concept, known as scientific determinism, deals with an individual’s
actions, character, and decisions as results associated with genetics or one’s
surroundings. More specifically, this concept is grounded in the following:

• An individual’s genetic make-up (specific genes and chromosomes)

affects one’s physiological make-up, which directly impacts one’s
decision making.
• An individual is a product of his environment. More specifically, cli-
mate and geography play a part and may directly influence personal-
ity and disposition, which will impact decision making.
• The society in which an individual lives and the cultures present
within the society provide the individual with traditions, values, and
foundational information that influence one’s actions.
• An individual’s education and experience provide for a personal
knowledge base from which the decision process can be made.

Intentionalism
Intentionalism is a term given to the premise that individuals have free will
and, thus, are accountable for their actions and the results of their decisions.
More specifically:
Decision Making 27

1. External pressures on individuals are viewed as influences upon

them rather than as preexisting determinants. When an individual
assesses his or her surroundings and becomes aware of these exter-
nal pressures, their impact on the decision-making process is con-
siderably reduced.
2. Each individual possesses logic, therefore, it is possible to make use
of logical reasoning to assist with ethical decision making.

Based on the above concepts, is persuasion then considered to be unethi-

cal? Determinism would state that “yes, persuasion is unethical because it
can manipulate a person’s decision” (Bowen, 2010). Whereas, intentionalism
would state that “no, persuasion is not unethical because people are account-
able for their decisions” (Bowen, 2010).

The Logic of Ethics

Logic is a basic tool in the study of ethics and, as such, it is important to

mention some techniques relating to logical evaluation with regards to moral
decision making. From a logical standpoint, a decision is a good moral one
when its “premises” (evidence/reasons) support it, and a decision is a bad
moral one when its premises lack support. Therefore, when one attempts to
make a moral decision and evaluate the decision options, he or she must
attempt to answer three questions:

1. What is the argument attempting to prove? Or, more specifically,

what is the “conclusion” (Sentence that an argument claims to prove.
This is sometimes referred to as a decision)?
2. What are the “premises”? (Any sentence that an argument offers as
proof or evidence of the conclusion.)
3. Is the conclusion supported by the premises?
a. If the premises are not all true, then the conclusion is not ade-
quately supported.
b. If the premises are not all relevant to the question at hand nor
enough to prove the conclusion, then the conclusion is not ade-
quately supported.

Good versus Bad Arguments

After one assesses the premises laid out before him and attempts to ascertain
whether or not he supports the stated conclusions, he can begin to decide if
he has a foundation for a good or a bad argument. An “argument” is made up
28 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

of any of a number of sentences that claim to prove one another. Therefore,

an argument is a good argument if “the premises are true, the premises are
relevant to the conclusion, and no premise simply restates the conclusion”
(Dreisbach, 2009). And an argument is bad when “a premise is false, a prem-
ise is irrelevant to the conclusion, or a premise simply restates the conclu-
sion” (Dreisbach, 2009).

Deductive versus Inductive Arguments

Arguments can be further characterized as being either deductive or induc-

tive arguments. Those arguments that claim certainty are referred to as
being “deductive.” These arguments claim that because the stated premises
are true, then the conclusion is certainly true. Whereas, arguments claim-
ing probability are referred to as being “inductive.” These arguments claim
that because the stated premises are true, then the conclusion is probably
true. Most inductive arguments have their foundation in past observations or
experiences. It is important to understand the distinction between deductive
and inductive arguments when one is faced with evaluating moral decision
making, as each of these has a different kind of evaluation that is attached
to them. Deductive arguments have conclusions that are either certain or
uncertain. Therefore, when the given premises do not prove a conclusion cer-
tain, even if highly probable, the argument fails. Whereas, inductive argu-
ments are often more difficult to evaluate because concepts of probability
vary between individuals. What one individual considers probable, another
individual may consider improbable.

Truth versus Validity

It is also important to differentiate between true and false, and valid versus
invalid where decision making is concerned. As has already been discussed,
arguments are sets of sentences, and these sets of sentences can either make
up a good or a bad argument. A good argument is considered to be “valid,” or
more specifically, an argument is valid “if the premises are true and, thus, the
conclusion must certainly be true (in a deductive argument) or as probable as
the argument claims (in an inductive argument)” (Dreisbach, 2009). A bad
argument, on the other hand, is considered to be “invalid,” or more specifi-
cally, “even if the premises were true, that would not demonstrate the truth or
probability of the conclusion” (Dreisbach, 2009). Individual sentences, on the
other hand, do not make up an entire argument, but instead are concerned
Decision Making 29

with stating either a premise or a conclusion. These individual sentences can

be found to be either true or false.

Sound versus Unsound Arguments

There is a final level of evaluation that bares mentioning and that pertains
to the soundness of valid arguments. Valid arguments are classified as being
either “sound” or “unsound.” A sound argument is one where all stated prem-
ises are true. An unsound argument is one that contains at least one premise
that is false.

Evaluating the Result of Decisions

Upon reaching a decision, it is logical for an individual to evaluate the results

of the decision. While this would have been hypothesized earlier in the deci-
sion-making process, now that the decision has been made, the real-time
effects and results can be evaluated. Based on the information provided at
the time of the decision, was the right choice made? If presented with the
same options in the future, how would the decision change? It is here that
the dilemmas of actions and consequences begin to show themselves. When
actions occur, there are certain patterns that begin to emerge (Figure 3.1).
Due to variations in personal ethics, bias, and external influences, indi-
viduals do not always reach the same conclusions; however, this does not
necessarily mean that the other individual is wrong. A particular situa-
tion may not have one “right” answer; however, it may have many “wrong”
answers. Therefore, it is necessary that individuals use their best judgment
(based on personal ethics) and common sense when attempting to reach the
“best” conclusion.

Conclusion

It is important for one to understand the decision-making process if one

is to evaluate whether or not a decision is an ethical or unethical one. This
chapter has discussed the arguments and support that go into making a
decision and coming to a successful conclusion. Chapter 4 will look at how
organizational leadership can impact this decision-making process and
impact the ethical outcome of decisions made due to professional obliga-
tions, which are dictated by agency, professional organizations, and accred-
iting bodies.
30 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

“Ethical Decision Making”

I. Initial Process

- What is at/the issue?

- What are the facts?
Information Debate/
- What is the benefit?
Gathering Feedback
- What is necessary?
- What are the various
perspectives?

II. Potential Outcome II. Potential Outcome II. Potential Outcome

Pros Cons Pros: Values of Cons: Consequ- Pros Cons

actions ences of actions

III. Decision

Ethical perspectives,
situational ethics will
dictate the outcome
based on aforementioned.

Figure 3.1 Ethical decision making. (Graphic courtesy of Ellie Bruchez,

University of Wisconsin-Platteville.)
Decision Making 31

Review Questions
1. Additional factors that may serve as an impetus for ethi-
cal decision making may include, but are not limited
to,     ,      ,     ,     ,      , and     .
2. True or False: When attempting to make a decision, analyzing the
issue is the best place to begin.
3. What are the four levels of moral thinking that occur?
4. The term        applies to the premise that all occurrences,
thoughts, and actions are beyond the control of an individual.
5. Scientific determinism deals with an individual’s     ,     ,
and      as results associated with genetics or one’s
surroundings.
6.        is a term given to the premise that individuals have
free will and, thus, are accountable for their actions and the results
of their decisions.
7. True or False: A decision is a good moral one when its premises
lack support.
8. True or False: An argument is bad when a premise is false, a premise is
irrelevant to the conclusion, or a premise simply restates the conclusion.
9. Distinguish between being deductive and being inductive.
10. Valid arguments are classified as being either    or     .

References
Bowen, R. T. 2010. Ethics and the practice of forensic science. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor
and Francis Group.
Dreisbach, C. 2009. Ethics in criminal justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Johannesen, R., K. Valde, and K. Whedbee. 2008. Ethics in human communication,
6th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Leadership Ethics
4
Ethical conduct is something that becomes inherent in an organization over
a long period of time.
Lee R. Raymond

We should never be afraid of the truth, regardless of where it leads us.

Thomas Jefferson
Key Terms: Esprit de corps, leadership, morale.
Learning Objectives:
1. Identify ways in which individuals become leaders.
2. Identify characteristics of a successful leader.
3. Define qualities of leadership that are integral to engendering trust.
4. Define morale and its impact on leadership.

Introduction

History has shown the majority of civilizations of the world to have been
destroyed from within, not from without. This trend is also present within
corporations, agencies, and organizations. Destruction is typically from
within—greed, power, competition, and materialism are just a few of the rea-
sons behind internal destruction. The area of public service is not exempt from
such tradition. The world that we live in very often can be morally disappoint-
ing. This is often due to a lack of ethics with regards to the area of leadership.
Individuals become leaders as a result of a variety of possibilities. Some
are developed. Some possess qualities that lend themselves to being an effec-
tive leader. Some acquire leadership through force, wealth, social, or politi-
cal connections. Yet, others become leaders as a result of circumstances or
timing. However, regardless of the reason that an individual finds himself in
a leadership role, he cannot be a leader without also having willing follow-
ers. “Leadership is not a person or a position. It is a complex moral relation-
ship between people based on trust, obligation, commitment, emotion, and a
shared vision of the goal” (Ciulla, 2004).
As discussed within Ethics for Criminal Justice Professionals (Roberson
and Mire, 2010), “It is clear that leaders must consider a multiplicity of issues
and concerns in making consistently ethical decisions and in developing a

33
34 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

code of ethical behavior for their organizations. It is the leader’s role to set
a clear and uniform example of ethical behavior and to articulate specific
expectations and goals so that ethical behavior becomes an integral theme of
the organization.”

Deciding How to Lead

Leadership is as complex a topic as that of ethics, so when one stops to com-

bine the two, the result can be quite intimidating. To simplify the concept,
in his book, George Washington on Leadership, Richard Brookhiser (2008)
describes leadership as “knowing yourself, knowing where you want to
go, and then taking others to that new place.” There are countless leader-
ship styles employed to accomplish this daunting task. One way is to focus
analysis upon the ends/means/consequences equation that is suggested by
Brookhiser. This leads to three primary questions:

1. What is the goal?

2. What means will we use to get there?
3. What types of tradeoffs and compromises must be made along
the way?

Establishing Trust through Leadership

“Ethics lie at the heart of all human relationships and, hence, at the heart of
the relationship between leaders and followers” (Ciulla, 2004). Throughout
history, successful leaders have been those who have gained the trust of those
who they have been responsible for leading. There can be much debate over
how “trust” is defined; however, regardless of this lack of agreement, most
individuals are well aware when trust is in place and when it is not. Trust is
a result of proper communication and clarity of purpose within an organi-
zation. Trust is confidence and reliance upon an individual, organization,
or object. It includes possessing confidence in strength and integrity of the
same. Through the establishment of trust within an organization and, if
able to maintain the trust, leaders will be able to provide effective guidance
and work on the proper development of the organization. As with personal
relationships, a proper foundation of trust serves to support an organiza-
tion through difficult times and enable leadership the time and ability to find
and implement solutions that will assist the organization in overcoming the
obstacles presented.
Leadership Ethics 35

In their book, Learning to Lead (1997), Warren Bennis and Joan Goldsmith
mention qualities of leadership that are integral to engendering trust. The qual-
ities mentioned by the authors are vision, empathy, consistency, and integrity.

Vision
Successful leaders are those who inspire and create vision. Leadership vision
serves to provide a foundation for organizational purpose and engender trust,
which can enable followers to develop personal identify and feel vested in the
vision and its creation. The leader involves us in the visions, empowers us to cre-
ate it, and communicates the shared vision so that we integrate it into our lives.

Empathy
Leaders who possess unconditional empathy for those working within the
organization will emerge as the most successful. Although their opinions
may vary considerably from those who work for them, trust is established
when employees believe that a leader understands their view and can relate
to where they are coming from.

Consistency
A leader who maintains a level of consistency with regard to his stance on
topics, his vision, his leadership style, and organizational placement will be
trusted and emerge as successful. Although consistent, the successful leader
also will be willing to consider new evidence and new events when making
organizational decisions.

Integrity
A leader who maintains integrity that is above question will have the trust of
his employees and co-workers. When a leader takes a stance on topics, based
on his moral standard, and these actions are observable to those who work
with and for the leader, he will gain their trust. This same leader must be
ready, as well, to hold others to be accountable for their actions and decisions,
based on the standard of ethics laid out and adhered to by the leader.
The aforementioned qualities are integral components of successful
leadership and aptly explain how trust and integrity play a role within
this success. Take a moment to stop and reflect on individuals within your
own life who you view as having strong leadership skills. Would you agree
that those individuals possessed, and put into action, the aforementioned
qualities?
36 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Ethical Behavior as an Organizational Theme

Just as within sports, motivation originates with the leadership. The leader-
ship values and motivation of an organization must start at the top if it is
to find its way to those farther down the line. If the ethical behavior of an
organization is in question, or there is a need for change, then the establish-
ment, or modification, of an organizational ethical code may be necessary.
Chapter 5 discusses more extensively ethical codes and standards; however,
with reference to organizational leadership, it is important to recognize that
any change must be made at, and lived at, the top before those outside of
leadership positions can be expected to adhere to it.

Why Morale Is Important in Organizational Ethics

The definition of morale as it applies to the workplace has changed over time,
but a recent definition would be “the mental and emotional condition (as of
enthusiasm, confidence, or loyalty) of an individual or group with regard
to the function or tasks at hand” (Merriam-Webster.com). This includes a
sense of common purpose with respect to the group, sometimes referred to
as esprit de corps. When morale is high, typically ethical violations are low.
When morale is low, ethical violations increase. Therefore, the benefits of
increasing and maintaining organizational morale are obvious.
Although many organizations suffer from poor morale, leaders often
overlook it. This indifference can be devastating to organizational cohesion.
Failure of leadership to recognize or respond to poor morale can be due to a
number of reasons:

1. Ignoring it: Ignoring poor morale will not change it. In fact, it typi-
cally results in matters deteriorating even further.
2. Lack of understanding: Even with a desire to do something, without
knowing what to do or how to do it, leaders are (or appear to be) just
as helpless or indifferent to the issues. Proper leadership training will
minimize the instances of this occurring.
3. Negative attention on self: Many leaders will fail to address morale
issues or concerns for fear of bringing negative attention on them-
selves. Leaders fail to recognize that poor morale is often a result
of failure of the leader to be a role model and to provide proper
motivation, while exuding positive morale. This self-centeredness
approach to leadership will almost certainly lead to the demise of
the organization.
Leadership Ethics 37

Ethics in the Workplace Assessment

Oftentimes employers are perplexed with where to go to acquire in-depth,

appropriate-to-the-job, and effective ethics-based training. Many turn to The
National Institute of Ethics for such matters. According to its Web site, “The
National Institute of Ethics is the nation’s largest provider of law enforce-
ment and corrections ethics training. Established in 1991, the Institute is a
Congressional award winning, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to
furthering ethics and integrity throughout America” (www.ethicsinstitute.
com/). It is here that employers and employees can find research and reports
relating to the topic of ethics, in addition to acquiring training relating to
ethics. While the target audiences are those of criminal justice, corrections,
and public school systems, many areas of public service would benefit from
the training (or similar) offered.
Specific to law enforcement and criminal justice, the institute has devel-
oped a series of training tools and manuals to assist agencies with determin-
ing “what policies, procedures, or practices within an organization need to be
added or revised to ensure integrity and ethics in the workplace” (Roberson
and Mire, 2010). The training provided by The National Institute of Ethics
incorporates initial research in the form of two different surveys: (1) distrib-
uted to staff and (2) distributed to management. These surveys are used to
determine the status of organizational ethics. All surveys are anonymous
and sealed on completion. Each employee, management, and staff are asked
to be specific with regards to any criticisms relating to organizational eth-
ics. They are asked to take into account each level of the organization with
regards to their responses, and to also suggest ways to improve, related to
their concerns. The premise is to have the surveys serve as a starting point
for the training discussions that will follow, and which are related to orga-
nizational ethics. After the surveys have been conducted, the organization
can gain insight into shortcomings or discrepancies with regard to the status
of organizational ethics. If it appears there is a chasm, then training may be
necessary. Even if training does not take place, simply distributing the sur-
veys and gaining the feedback is often enough to instill trust and motivation
within the members of the agency, as it assures each individual that ethics is
seen as being an important component of organizational behavior.

LEADERSHIP ETHICS: LOOKING TO WEST POINT

For all of the criticisms about today’s military, the U. S. Military
Academy at West Point seems to be doing the most effective job of
developing leaders and citizens of character. To be fair, the majority of
38 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

military criticisms come from how the military is used, not for how it
operates, or the ethical decisions employed within.
Of important note is that West Point (as with all military acad-
emies) places a serious emphasis on the candidate selection process,
selecting applicants not only based on academic qualifications, but
also based on their leadership qualities and potential, and their moral
character.
The motto at West Point is: Duty, Honor, Country. The honor code,
which all cadets must adhere to, will not tolerate lying, cheating, or
stealing. These are not simply words, but rather a way of life. It is just
as wrong for someone to commit one of these acts as it is for a cadet to
know about it and not report it. Cadets live and work together, thus hav-
ing an inherent hierarchy that facilitates enforcement.
So, what does the model of West Point have to offer those within
public service? The entire four-year West Point experience was care-
fully developed to provide the military with officers who would dem-
onstrate both competence and character throughout their lifetime.
Simultaneous pursuit of character and competence is a life-long pur-
suit. Without continuous attention, an individual risks losing both.
Character without competence is unacceptable. No one wants an ethi-
cal manager who cannot make a decision. However, if one has compe-
tence, but has no character, it can be even more dangerous. At every
level, within every organization, and within every government, there
are examples of competent people behaving detrimentally. Pick up any
newspaper or watch any newscast and you are certain to find account
after account of individuals whose actions are threatening the well-
being and lives of those around them.
Ethics are an essential component of enduring relationships at every
level. Organizations, governments, friendships, and families prosper on
the basis of trust. Everyone wants the people who surround them to be
trustworthy and people of character. All want leaders who have char-
acter, just as all leaders want subordinates who are trustworthy and of
good character as well. Character, just as competence, is developed, not
given or won. And yet, organizations often neglect the development of
character, taking it instead for granted. Even in instances where char-
acter is explicitly addressed, the focus is typically not on development,
but rather on motivation.
Leadership Ethics 39

It is from this aspect that organizations can look toward West Point
for assistance. This model was carefully designed to incorporate simul-
taneous pursuit of both character and competence development. This
developmental process requires four essential elements:

1. Knowledge of the academy’s standards and values.

2. Adherence to the academy’s standards of conduct.
3. Belief in the process, the standards, and values.
4. Leadership, which includes role modeling, mentoring, and
developmental leadership of character in others (www.usma.
edu/opa/clds/clds%20circular%202005%final.pdf).

Through the incorporation of these aspects and the simultaneous

development of both character and competence, an organization can
improve both its leadership and its overall ability. Such attention is not
simply for those who serve within the military, but are valuable compo-
nents that should be ingrained into any leadership development model,
and within each organization that seeks to have the greatest impact,
while doing so in the most competent and ethical manner.

Conclusion

It is illogical to believe, or to expect, that agencies are capable of eliminating

all corruption. However, what is of paramount concern if ethical violations
are to be reduced is that the leadership of an organization establishes an
environment that fosters trust and integrity and that, if unethical behav-
ior is discovered, makes it clear that such violations will not be tolerated.
Leadership is not simply day-to-day administrative tasks. Leaders must be
aware and have a pulse of their people. When mistakes are made, from an
organizational leadership standpoint, they must be owned and acknowl-
edged. Perfection is an impossibility. Mistakes will happen. What is impor-
tant is that mistakes not be repeated and that they be learned from. Failure
to learn from them, and repeating them, is tantamount to incompetence.
At each step of the way, leadership must continue to question whether the
decisions that are made are consistent with the organization’s values that
have been identified, as well as being in line with the individual’s ethical
beliefs, the one who is tasked with making them and serving in a leader-
ship capacity.
40 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Review Questions
1. Trust is a result of proper       and       of purpose
within an organization.
2. The four qualities of leadership that are integral to engendering trust
include       ,       ,       , and       .
3. True or False: Motivation originates with leadership.
4. The mental and emotional condition of an individual or group with
regard to the function or tasks at hand is known as       .
5. True or False: Although many organizations suffer from poor morale,
leaders often do not overlook it.
6. The National Institute of Ethics incorporates initial research in the
form of two surveys: one distributed to       and one distrib-
uted to       .
7.       are an essential component of enduring relationships at
every level.
8. The four essential elements required for the developmental pro-
cess established at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point
include       , _      ,       , and       .

References
Bennis, W. and J. Goldsmith. 1997. Learning to lead. Boston: Addison Wesley.
Brookhiser, R. 2008. George Washington on leadership. New York: Basic Books.
Ciulla, J. B. 2004. Ethics, the heart of leadership, 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Roberson, C. and S. Mire. 2010. Ethics for criminal justice professionals. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
The National Institute of Ethics. www.ethicsinstitute.com/ (accessed September 24,
2010).
U.S. Military Academy. West Point, NY. www.usma.edu/opa/clds/clds%20circu-
lar%202005%final.pdf (accessed July 17, 2010).
www.merriam-webster.com (accessed December 10, 2010).
Ethical Codes and
Standards
5
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of
being right.”
Thomas Paine
Key Terms: Code of ethics, general codes, specific codes, personal codes.
Learning Objectives:
1. Define and understand the purpose of a code of ethics.
2. Define and differentiate between the types of codes of ethics.
3. Identify the components of a successful code of ethics.
4. Define and differentiate between spiritual and religious.

Introduction

A code of ethics (sometimes called an ethical code) is an assembly of insti-

tutional guidelines that are used to reduce ethical vagueness within an
organization and serve as a means of reinforcing ethical conduct. As was
discussed in Chapter 4, the formation of organizational ethics begins at the
top. Organizational leadership establishes these codes based on moral values.
A typical code of ethics contains general, nonspecific expectations and target
guidelines that attempt to reduce vagueness and, thus, lessen the burden of
ethical decision making with regards to gray areas. The codes are developed
based not only on past organizational or individual experience, but also
based on actions that the organization wishes to prevent from ever occur-
ring. According to Robin Bowen (2010), in Ethics and the Practice of Forensic
Science, codes of ethics have two primary purposes. “First, they provide moral
guidelines and professional standards of conduct. The professional codes
hold people accountable for proper performance and devotion to honesty and
obligation. The second purpose of codes is to define professional behavior to
promote a sense of pride, tolerance, and responsibility among professionals.”
The codes typically serve as the foundation for disciplinary action relating
to ethical violations. Sometimes a code of ethics may incorporate personal
expectations that are significantly beyond what is legally expected of employ-
ees. These may include such matters as morality, honesty, and truthfulness.
A well-written code of ethics should properly dissuade people from commit-
ting unethical acts, and also should incorporate procedures for discipline as
well as the consequences for unethical actions (Figure 5.1).
41
42 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Ethics Answers

est
ics T
e Eth
Polic

Figure 5.1 A well-written code of ethics should properly dissuade people from
committing unethical acts, and should also incorporate procedures for disci-
pline, as well as the consequences for unethical actions. (Graphic courtesy of
Ellie Bruchez, University of Wisconsin-Platteville.)

Through the establishment of a code of ethics, an organization displays

its willingness to take responsibility for organizational ethics. However, this
being said, not having a code of ethics does not in any way imply that an
organization is uncaring about or oblivious to organizational ethics. Some
agencies make use of codes of conduct for individuals rather than a code
of ethics for the organization. If this is true, the code of conduct typically
incorporates provisions that would otherwise be contained in a code of eth-
ics, so it is unnecessary to have both. The code also serves as a decision-
making guide and waiver of liability in some instances. If adhering to the
stated code, a person will receive organization support for a course of action
if he or she properly applied the code of ethics to the decision process associ-
ated with it. This reliance upon guidelines to provide support for decisions,
which would otherwise be difficult to explain, helps to reduce cognitive
dissonance and stress associated with some decision-making processes.
However, although many organizations find ethical codes to be necessary
for professional practice, simply developing and having ethical codes is not
enough to eliminate corruption or ensure that individuals will make the
“right” decision.

Establishing Organizational Support

Organizational support for a code of ethics is important. Support is established

when an organization has implemented procedures that will properly maintain
the organizational effectiveness of the code. These procedures may include:
Ethical Codes and Standards 43

• Guidelines for the filing of complaints: The established procedures

must be easily understood and nonintimidating, so as not to dissuade
the filing of proper complaints, but should not be so easy as to allow
individuals to use the process as a method of workplace harassment.
• Guidelines for receiving complaints: Procedures must be in place to
ensure that each complaint is received properly and recorded.
• Guidelines for the investigation of complaints: An organization must
have guidelines established relating to how to incorporate hearsay
information and personal morals while investigating the veracity of
the complaint.
• Guidelines for reviewing complaints: Proper documentation of inves-
tigative efforts is of paramount concern in reaching, and supporting,
a proper conclusion.
• Guidelines for discipline associated with founded complaints:
Discipline serves to dissuade others from committing the same vio-
lation while also serving to punish those responsible for the viola-
tion. Discipline should be harsh enough to serve both purposes, but
not so harsh as to be counterproductive in future decision-making
efforts.

Developing Codes of Ethics

We have discussed what a code of ethics is, but how does an organiza-
tion go about creating this code? First, leadership must attempt to reach
a mutual agreement regarding the moral principles of the organization.
This can be an extremely challenging step because reaching a consensus is
often a seemingly insurmountable task. Ideally, a code must represent the
moral principles of the organization as a whole, not simply be a compila-
tion of principles of the majority who impose views upon the minority.
During the development process, the organization should be cognizant
not to steer clear of or exclude controversial matters because it is typically
these issues that are the chief causes of concern with regard to ethical vio-
lations. Codes should not be overly specific or they risk excluding poten-
tially important issues, but not so broad as to fail to serve as an effective
tool for decision making.
The development of a code of ethics requires an organization to identify
a dedicated group of leaders that are aware of what the result of such develop-
ment hopes to achieve, and are able to identify a type of code specific to these
related outcomes. There are four criteria that may assist those tasked with the
development process, if taken into consideration.
44 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

1. The code must be desirable: The code that is developed must meet
with the expectations and desires of the organization and fit the
organizational theme.
2. The code must be feasible: Goals are great, if attainable. This holds
true for the development of a code of ethics as well. There are no
perfect employees. The code must not be so impossible as to prohibit
the ability to adhere to it.
3. The code must be enforceable: Just as laws without punishment make
for useless laws, so too a code of ethics that is unenforceable fails in
its purpose.
4. The code must be enforced: There are many laws that go unenforced and,
as a result, individuals lose respect for the law (speeding, for example?).
This is true of ethical codes as well. Failure to enforce the codes results
in a lack of respect for the codes and the underlying intent is lost.

When individuals tasked with the development of a code of ethics begin the
writing process, they would be wise to keep in mind that the code should:

• Be written to a general audience

• Be attainable
• Be written in clear, yet specific language
• Follow a logical order

A well-written code is one that remains applicable decades after it was

drafted. While the code should be written to be more general than specific,
the code should find a way to focus on unique organizational features. “If
written correctly, the code should encourage discussion and reflection,
should provide ethical guidance for the whole profession, and should make
basic ethical values of the group clear” (Bowen, 2010).

Code of Ethics Types

An organization may choose to make use of three general types of codes.

These are typically referred to as:

1. General Codes: Provide minimal guidance in specific circumstances.

This type may serve to supplement a code of conduct, if present.
2. Specific Codes: Help to establish guidelines and define a profession or
organization for the first time.
3. Personal Codes: Used by individuals if the organization has not spec-
ified a code. In this case, individuals must default to their personal
ethics for decision-making guidance. It is these codes that assist in
Ethical Codes and Standards 45

the development and implementation of more formalized organiza-

tional codes of ethics.

Purpose of Establishing a Code of Ethics

It is generally held that codes of ethics serve three main purposes:

1. Codes assure people outside of the profession or organization that

they can expect a degree of uniformity as relates to expectation of
performance and moral conduct from employees of the profession
or organization.
2. Codes assure individuals within the organization or profession that
they can rely upon colleagues within the organization and profes-
sion to maintain a level of standards in exchange for that individual
conducting himself in adherence to the same principles upon which
the others are held.
3. Codes serve as a notice that people outside of the organization or
profession are not bound by the code and, perhaps, may be seen as
adhering to lower standards or no standards pertaining to ethics.

Arguments against Ethical Codes

By Randy Taylor, D.M.

The purpose of a code of ethics is to establish formal guidelines for ethi-
cal behavior. However, a code of ethics cannot provide guidance for every
individual in every situation. This is the reason that some positions, such as
police officers, allow for the use of discretion in decision-making situations.
In this case, a code of ethics cannot account for every instance where a deci-
sion would be made. With the ability to make discretionary decisions, having
a code of ethics does not ensure ethical behavior.
Often an ethical code policy will provide guidelines that help ensure
public trust but cannot be enforced through criminal or civil code. While
it may be the intent of the organization to moderate individual morality on
the job, it serves little purpose to establish codes of ethics that cannot be
defended in court. Therefore, an organization should not implement policies
that are not enforceable by law.
The argument is made that codes of ethics are “limited to the imagina-
tion of the individual” (Watson, 2010, p. 44). Having a code of ethics is an
unnecessary reminder of integrity and professionalism that is expected from
those within public service. Behavior cannot be governed by a set of rules; it
must come from within the individuals and the organization.
46 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

The code of ethics that governs public service ethics cannot be learned
through a set of rules; the characteristics that are associated with these rules
must become a part of an individual’s life as early as their teenage years.
Oftentimes, public service is a profession that must be governed by an inher-
ent set of rules that do not come from reading a specific code. The public
service sector is made up of dynamic professionals that must be poised to
change as quickly as the society that they are charged with serving.

SPIRITUALITY
By Randy Taylor, D.M.
Chief of Police, Ellis, KS

Donald Rothberg, as cited by Charles (2009), describes spirituality

as “what a person believes is sacred and how that individual aligns
with that sacredness” (p. 23). The concept of spirituality includes all
spiritual paths, not just Christian perspectives. “It is further defined
as involving doctrines and practices that help facilitate lived trans-
formations of self and community toward fuller alignment with or
expressions of what is sacred” (p. 22).
Spirituality has been referenced as an element of religion development
in the modern and postmodern era. In “Spirituality in a Postmodern
Age” (Faith and Praxis in a Postmodern Age, 1998), Ursula King states
that spirituality “has emerged beyond the broad sweep of practice, feel-
ing and thought that paints from the inner, subjective world of religion
to a general code word for the search of direction, purpose, and meaning
related to the deepest dimension of human existence, no longer exclu-
sively based on an a priori theological standpoint, but is rooted in a
search, in experimentation, questioning and exploring.”
In advanced modern societies, a difference in the meanings of spiritual
and religious are becoming defined. Wuthnow (2005, p. 225) estimates
that 31 percent of the adult population identify religious as an implication
of faith in God, Allah or the Divine with participation in institution-
ally based practices and respect for traditional teachings. Spiritual is the
experience of connectedness, relationship, or oneness with God, Allah,
Christ, a higher power, nature, or the sacred with the appreciation for
inner awareness and personal growth in the journey of life.
Feemster (2009, p. 1), in quoting Goddard, refers to spirituality
as “a universal human dimension” that is an “invisible weapon used
for law enforcement professionals worldwide.” He further recognizes
that spirituality is sometimes misidentified as the learned disciplines
Ethical Codes and Standards 47

of ethics, emotional intelligence, intuitive policing, or stress manage-

ment. The tragedy of responding to catastrophic events, traffic fatali-
ties, horrific crime scenes, domestic violence, and inhumane actions
while maintaining behavior that cannot interfere, detract, or impair the
investigation requires moral and physical courage. This courage argues
Feemster, must eventually be filtered by police officers through their
own spiritual lens.
The spirituality of a police officer can be observed when an officer
helps an elderly person change a tire or holds a small child’s hand while
helping him/her find his/her lost parent, or gives a child a stuffed teddy
bear when he/she just watched his/her parent get arrested, or when an
officer stays an extra 30 minutes with a grieving widow until her family
or a pastor arrives to comfort her. All of these actions are not covered by
policies or a code of ethics, they come from a spiritual connection.
Spirituality helps define the inner self, especially for law enforce-
ment, separate from the body. It includes both the physical and intellec-
tual self. Spirituality includes the way people think, their thoughts, and
their overall perception of the world. It manifests itself in intellectual
and emotional activities and thoughts that exceed biological and physi-
cal needs and desires. Spirituality is necessary for the soul as it provides
an understanding of vision, inspiration, and meaning to life (East, 2005;
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2004; Hoyle, 2002; Wright, 2008).
People who typically enter the profession of law enforcement have a
strong desire to help others, find excitement, and discover who they are.
They quickly realize, however, that the profession entails handling con-
frontations, crises, and people who hate them for no specific reason. They
quickly feel unappreciated. Often officers lose themselves in anger, succumb
to the pressures on the street or with police administration, or become bit-
ter or cynical. Those who completely lose faith and hope usually have their
careers end in disease and self-destruction (Charles, 2009, p. 22).
In a study conducted by Charles (2009), 10 law enforcement officers
from across the United States participated in an examination to deter-
mine how spiritual practice affects law enforcement officers and their
ability to police society. The officers had a minimum of five years in law
enforcement and a minimum of five years within a spiritual practice.
“The research suggested that spiritual beliefs are significant in assisting
officers in their work, relationships, and health.” The officers were able
to clearly articulate how their spirituality kept them from succumbing
to the pressures of their work, especially from the human destructive-
ness and suffering witnessed within their profession (p. 25).
48 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Spirituality has been historically rooted in religion. Workplace spiri-

tuality is often associated with religion and produces images of media-
tion, prayer groups, and co-workers evangelizing at coffee breaks and
organizational functions. This stigma can make the idea of religion an
inappropriate topic and form of expression in the workplace leading to
a search of nonreligious methods of fostering spirituality that will not
be viewed as offensive. Many consider spirituality a private matter and
not an issue for the workplace (Wilson, 2008).
Fry (2003), as described by Wright (2008), states that organizational
success is defined on objective terms. Spiritual satisfaction and profes-
sional success are not attained by the same method. Career success and
material acquisition are more the goals of today’s workforce than the
individual drive for harmony, peace, and inner spiritual peace.
Spiritual self helps determine who a person is and how he/she views
his/her life. Spirituality provides a sense of meaning and purpose
beyond the routine duties of law enforcement. Given the historical sep-
aration of work and worker spirit, acceptance of the spiritual side of
both leader and follower is difficult (Wright, 2008).
The workplace has an important role to fulfill and satisfy human
needs. Spirituality impacts an individual’s work through the search for
meaning and the influence of work on a person’s self-identity. More so
than ever before, during the past decade, work and spirituality have
become seemingly linked (Wheatley, 2002).
The idea of spiritual-centered leadership, contends Fairhorm (1998),
is that it provides a holistic integrated environment. Leaders, through
their personal influences assure that the organization’s value system is
integrated and holistic in nature so values are not sacrificed. Spiritual-
centered leadership is in the early stage of development so it lacks a strong
body of traditional research findings to substantiate it (Fry, 2005; Wright,
2008). The concept, however, implies a culture that fosters and an envi-
ronment where personnel find meaning, purpose, and community in
their workplace. It exists through nurturing leadership (Wilson, 2008).
Culture, as defined by Paoline (2001), includes “attitudes and val-
ues that are shared and socially transmitted among groups of people
in an attempt to cope with common problems and/or situations” (p.
7). As was discussed in Chapter 4, organizational culture influences
organizational life. Organizational culture further defines the organi-
zational values and the norms that shape the behavior of individuals
and groups. Therefore, leadership spirituality has the ability to affect
organizational culture and influence performance.
(Taylor, 2011)
Ethical Codes and Standards 49

Code of Ethics Examples

Throughout the remainder of this text, as each segment of public service is

discussed, there will be an incorporation of or reference to a code of ethics
example pertinent to that sector. The reader is reminded that these are exam-
ples only and may vary by agency or organization. It is important to keep in
mind that these codes are guidelines and should be revisited regularly for
update consideration so as to stay abreast of the dynamic environment in
which we live and work.

Conclusion

Recognizing that there is no utopia and that laws are a necessary compo-
nent of a free society, it is important that individuals realize that the same
is true with regards to organizational ethics. It is equally as necessary for
organizations to develop codes of ethics for employees to serve as guidelines
and to regulate behavior and decision making. However, as with laws, codes
are effective only if they are explained to and understood by those to whom
they apply. Also, they will only maintain this level of effectiveness if they
are enforced by those tasked with enforcing them. When should codes be
rewritten? An increase in ethical violations is oftentimes an indicator that
policies are out of date. Successful codes of ethics require continual revision,
interpretation, and amendment.

Review Questions
1. A        is an assembly of institutional guidelines that are
used to reduce ethical vagueness within an organization and serve as
a means of reinforcing ethical conduct.
2. Developing and having ethical codes (is, is not) enough to eliminate
corruption and ensure that individuals will make the “right” decision.
3. Codes should not be overly        or else they risk exclud-
ing potentially important issues, but not so        as to fail
to serve as an effective tool for decision making.
4. The three types of codes of ethics include        ,        ,
and        .
5. What is the purpose for establishing a code of ethics?
6. True or False: A code of ethics can provide guidance for every indi-
vidual in every situation.
7. What a person believes is sacred and how that individual aligns with
that sacredness refers to        .
50 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

8. What is the difference between spiritual and religious?

9. True or False: Spirituality defines the inner self.
10. Spirituality impacts an individual’s work through the search for
meaning and the influence of work on a person’s        .
11. True or False: Organizational culture does not define the organiza-
tional values and the norms that shape the behavior of individuals
and groups.

References
Bowen, R. T. 2010. Ethics and the practice of forensic science. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor
and Francis Group.
Charles, G. 2009. How spirituality is incorporated in police work, a qualitative study.
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Web site: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/
leb/leb.htm (accessed July 28, 2010).
East, T. 2005. A grounded study on how spirituality in the workplace impacts a per-
son’s job satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(03), 1070A, UMI
No. 3168180).
Fairhorm, G. W. 1998. Perspectives on leadership: From the science of management to
the spiritual heart. Westport, CT: Preager.
Feemster, S. 2009. Spirituality: An invisible weapon for wounded warriors. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin 78 (1): 1.
Fry, L. W. 2005. Introduction to the leadership quarterly issue: Toward a paradigm of
spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly 16: 643–656.
Giacalone, R. A., and C. L. Jurkiewicz. 2004. Handbook of workplace spirituality and
organizational performance. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Hoyle, J. 2002. The highest form of leadership. The School Administrator, 59 (8):
18–21.
King, U. 1998. Spirituality in a postmodern age. In Faith and Praxis in a Postmodern
Age, ed. U. King, pp. 94–112. London: Cassell.
Paoline III, E. A., ed. 2001. Rethinking police culture: Officers’ occupational attitudes.
New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Taylor, R. S. 2011. A qualitative phenomenological examination of ethics based train-
ing in law enforcement. Doctoral dissertation research conducted as partial
requirement for Doctorate in Management, for the University of Phoenix.
Watson, A. 2010. Clean as a hound’s tooth: The origin of the military police creed.
Military Police 43–44. (Retrieved from International Security & Counter
Terrorism Reference Center database.)
Wheatley, M. J. 2002. Leadership in turbulent times is spiritual. Frontiers of Health
Services Management 18 (4): 19.
Wilson, C. 2008. A relational study of leadership spirituality and organizational per-
formance in home health care agencies. D.M. diss., University of Phoenix.
Wright, A. L. 2008. Spirituality-centered leadership: Perceptions of law enforcement
leaders. Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas.
Wuthnow, R. 2005. America and the challenges of religious diversity. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ethics in Law
Enforcement
6
Terms: Absolutists, authority, blue wall, code of silence, conflict of interest,
discretionary authority, economic corruption, exceptionists, idealism, noble
cause corruption, relativism, scope of authority, situationists, subjectivist,
whistle-blower fiduciary relationship.
Learning Objectives:
1. Define and differentiate between economic and noble cause corruption.
2. Define what is meant by a “code of silence” and its relationship to law
enforcement ethics.
3. Define and differentiate between career stages and their impact on eth-
ics and job performance.
4. Understand what is meant by “scope of authority” and how it applies to
law enforcement ethics.
5. Define what is meant by “discretionary authority” and how it applies to
law enforcement ethics.
6. Define and differentiate between common causes of corruption.
7. Define what is meant by “conflicts of interest” and how it applies to law
enforcement ethics.

Introduction

By Randy Taylor, D.M.

Ethical behavior is the foundation of any professional organization. In law
enforcement, many courses addressing ethics may be good, but they lack the
knowledge of the ethical ideologies of the police officers that are being taught.
Various divisions within a department may require different ethical frame-
work because of the unit to which the officers are assigned. Patrol officers
have different needs than narcotics officers, school resource officers, traffic
officers, or special weapons and tactics (SWAT) officers. This makes the “one
stop shop” for ethics training not practical or efficient (Bayley, 2009).
Crank and Caldero (2000), as described by Cortrite (2007), state that
unethical behavior of police can be broken down into two major types: eco-
nomic corruption and noble cause corruption. Economic corruption refers to
the practice of officers to gain some economic benefit from not enforcing a law.
It is described as a steep downhill slope that gets steeper and more slippery
the farther one goes. An officer’s first step onto the slope may be as simple as a

51
52 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

small gratuity and sliding to the bottom of the slope might represent extortion,
drug sales, or even murder. Between the two extremes are incremental crimes
such as burglary or theft. In most cases of serious corruption, an officer starts
out by accepting small gratuities and moves on to bigger offenses. The correla-
tion is believed to exist that officers who never take small gratuities, such as
free meals, will not be involved in crimes of major corruption.
Noble cause corruption is the act of officers getting criminals off the street
as a “noble cause.” As a result, any means, including breaking the law, can be
justified. If an officer knows that someone has committed a crime, then any
means necessary to put them in jail is justified. Examples include planting
evidence or using physical force to coerce a confession (Cortrite, 2007, 13).
Unethical behavior of law enforcement officers occurs throughout the
United States. Heinzmann (2009) reported misconduct complaints against
the Chicago police force are up 19 percent. The complaints jumped from
about 2,300 complaints every three months to almost 2,800, which is almost
1,000 a month. This problem is not new to law enforcement.
In October 1998, an eight-month investigation of the Washington D.C.
police department led officials to charge 65 officers with various acts of mis-
conduct. Earlier that year 44 officers from Cleveland, Ohio, were arrested
and charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In 1997, over 300 cases
were overturned in Philadelphia when police officers were charged with lying
under oath. In 1998, 20 police officers were accused of protecting a brothel in
exchange for sex. Officials believe this ongoing misconduct may have existed
for 15 years (Police Corruption, 2004).
The Drug Reform Coordination Network (2000) reported widespread
chaos in police corruption regarding drug investigations. In Cleveland, 51
law enforcement and corrections officers were charged with protecting the
sale of cocaine. In Denver, Colorado, two officers were charged with destroy-
ing evidence in over 80 drug-related cases. Over 70 officers were investigated
in Los Angeles, California, for a veritable reign of terror including attempted
murder. In Miami, Florida, three officers were investigated, tried, and con-
victed for protecting drug deliveries.
More recent examples of police corruption have been displayed in addi-
tional agencies. In July 2010, controversy resulted when the Detroit chief of
police was fired for several issues with the city’s mayor. One main issue was
the chief dating a lieutenant in his department. The University of Michigan
ethicist, John Chamberlin, believes when an administrator dates a subordi-
nate, everyone between them in the chain of command is implicated. This is
contrary to Jack Rinchich, president of the National Association of Chiefs of
Police, who believes an officer shouldn’t be faulted for a personal matter that
isn’t covered by policy (Goodman, 2010).
Justnews.com (2010) reported a veteran Florida trooper was arrested and
pled guilty to writing fake traffic tickets. Prosecutors found 85 cases where
Ethics in Law Enforcement 53

the state trooper wrote traffic tickets to drivers for offenses they did not com-
mit. Many of the falsely ticketed drivers had their driver’s licenses suspended
for not paying tickets they didn’t know existed.
An officer from Stroughton, Massachusetts, recently resigned after fellow
officers reported the officer had attended a strip club while on duty and in
uniform. That same officer had recently saved someone from a burning car
and was honored for his involvement in catching an accused killer (Wedge
and Johnson, 2010). However, the officers reporting the strip club incident to
the administration were recognized for their work in attempting to change
the reputation of the department.
Wlwt.com (2010) reported that a Milford, Ohio, police officer audio
taped himself having sex with the town’s mayor while he was on duty. The
investigation that followed the report of his unethical behavior revealed this
was somewhat of a common occurrence.

Ethical Frameworks Related to Ethical Training

By Randy Taylor, D.M.

Four ideologies are derived from two dominant ethical frameworks in the
teaching of law enforcement ethics. The first framework is the concept of ideal-
ism. This principle is anchored in the belief that a desirable outcome is always
obtained by using the right or correct action. The second framework is the
concept of relativism. It is grounded on the belief that everything is relative to a
given circumstance and, therefore, undesirable outcomes will be a fact of life as
well. The four ideologies derived from these ethical frameworks are as follows:

1. Situationists: Individuals who are closely aligned to this orientation

believe that everything is relative and tend to reject any type of uni-
versal moral rule or code. Actions are often based on an individual
assessment of the situation.
2. Subjectivists: As with the situationist, the subjectivist supports the
relative nature of events and as such, also rejects the concept of uni-
versal moral rules or codes. Unlike the situationist, however, subjec-
tivists subject each event to a personal assessment based solely upon
his or her own moral principles.
3. Absolutists: A strong supporter of idealism, the absolutist is grounded
in the belief that the best outcome to any situation can be obtained
by following absolute universal moral principles.
4. Exceptionists: Like the absolutist, the exceptionist is also grounded
in the belief that the best possible outcome to a situation can be
obtained by following absolute universal moral principles. The
54 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

distinction, however, is that the exceptionist also acknowledges that

certain situations may require a deviation or exception to those ide-
als (Bayley, 2009, p. 2).

Codes of Ethics in Law Enforcement

By Randy Taylor, D.M.

Most law enforcement agencies operate with a code of ethics or a code of
conduct. These codes, however, are generally written addressing one of these
ideologies. What complicates the issue further is that the codes are written to
address all divisions. A code of conduct that addresses all divisions through a
single code may state that it is unacceptable for an officer to lie. Yet, an officer
working in an undercover narcotics capacity is expected to immerse himself
into the criminal element to be able to buy drugs. If someone trying to sell
an undercover officer drugs, questions if the buyer is a police officer, he will
not be successful if he answers that question truthfully. Codes that address
lying as an officer are easier to keep for a street officer than for a narcotics
officer when, to be successful, a narcotics officer must immerse himself into
the criminal environment (Figure 6.1).

t
How importan
blic
are ethics in pu
service?

Figure 6.1 Ethics is everyone’s responsibility. (Graphic courtesy of Ellie

Bruchez, University of Wisconsin-Platteville.)
Ethics in Law Enforcement 55

Police Culture

By Randy Taylor, D.M.

Paoline (2001) defines culture as a culmination of various definitions that
include “attitudes and values that are shared and socially transmitted among
groups of people in an attempt to cope with common problems and/or situa-
tions” (p. 7). The culture of a police agency is complex and can be defined and
controlled by any number of influences.
Murphy (2008), in an autoethnographic study, identified police culture
as everything he encountered during his experience. His experience was
the trust of officers, trust of administration, core values of an organization,
the mission and vision of the organization, the true north, and the ability
of living up to your word and deed. Police culture is the developed trust
of leaders, both administrative and below, that must stand a test of time
(p. 174).
Organizations with stronger cultures have better motivated personnel.
In environments with strong organizational ideology, shared participation,
charismatic leadership, and intimacy, personnel experience higher job sat-
isfaction and increased productivity (Dimitrov, 2006). Culture has a direct
correlation to the attitude of personnel. However, Friedman (2005) states
that law enforcement lacks a clear and consistent definition of culture. Law
enforcement culture is used synonymously with a variety of concepts includ-
ing climate, ethos, and saga.
Law enforcement lacks a clear and concise definition of culture. Brooker
(2003), as described by Wright (2008), stated that the study of police culture
has traditionally been from one of two perspectives: the sociological or the
psychological.
The sociological concepts are represented by:

1. Cynicism. This is a hardened, institutionalized kind of outlook. There

are four stages; over idealism, frustration, disenchantment, and full-
blown cynicism. This is experienced during the middle portion of a
police career.
2. Isolation. This is associated with the “bluewall” or the brotherhood
of police officers where the feeling of an attack on one officer is an
attack on all.
3. Stress. The organization produces the kind of personalities it needs,
causing a unique type of stress.
56 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

The psychological concepts are represented by:

1. Authoritarianism. This is represented by nine basic components:

conventionalism, submissiveness, aggressiveness, being unreflec-
tive, superstition, toughness, destructiveness, projection, and sex-
ual exaggeration.
2. Anchor. This is the approach of suspicion as healthy, cynicism as
unhealthy, and authoritarianism as a personality trait.
3. Stress. Self-selection or predispositional; the organization attracts
people with the personalities it needs.

Recently, there is the emergence of a third perspective: the anthropologi-

cal. The concepts of the anthropological police culture include:

1. Worldview. This is a mentality of cognitive orientation involving how

people see themselves and see others. Police are said to have a “we–
they” or “us–them” worldview. This in-group, we (police) versus they
(civilians) solidarity is associated with the idea of police subculture,
but, in practice, the more general term culture is commonly used to
describe everything police share in common.
2. Ethos. This is the idea of a spirit or force in the organization that
reflects an unwritten and largely unspoken value system. It’s what
makes daily life worth living. Police culture is said to have the fol-
lowing elements in its ethos: bravery, autonomy, and secrecy.
3. Theme. This is the idea of a belief system that regulates or guides the
kinds of relationships or social interactions that people have inside
and outside of their culture. In the case of policing, for example, the
belief that police officers are never off duty would be a theme con-
straining a full interactive life with the general public.
4. Postulate. These are the beliefs that integrate the people of a culture.
This occurs through proverbs that simplify a vast amount of com-
plex information. These are the concepts closest to norms that are
threatening by police deviance (Wright, 2008).

Career Stages and Ethics

By Randy Taylor, D.M.

Brooker (2003) provides the stages that police officers usually go through in
their career. The stages are broken down according to years in service. Between
one and two years, a police officer is considered a “rookie.” This stage is marked
with learning how to “be 911 instead of calling 911” (personal communication
Ethics in Law Enforcement 57

with Sergeant Wendy Michaux, autumn, 1999). During this stage, an offi-
cer begins to develop his “police personality” that will help him survive the
trauma he witnesses, the hatred, and the worst that humanity has to offer.
During these years, he learns that people will hate him for no reason and he
will be used by them if he is not aware of their manipulative behaviors.
After three to four years of service, an officer begins to identify with tele-
vision police officers. He feels good about the excitement of the job and is
anxious to get to his next case so he can solve it for the good of humanity. He
believes he is making a difference and constantly is looking for that happy
ending that occurs on television.
Five to ten years on the job and officers become filled with cynicism.
They develop bitter feelings toward the system because the bad guys are let
out of jail for no apparent reason. They tend to feel the courts and other sup-
port agencies are not doing their job. There is no such thing as rehabilitation;
bad people will always remain bad.
Between 11 to 15 years, an officer comes to terms with realism. They real-
ize behavior can be changed and they can make a difference if all the right
elements are in place. They no longer expect every criminal to go to jail or
every crime to be solved. They work at a steady pace; no longer living and
dying for their job.
Retirement mindset is developed in officers from 16 years and more as
a police officer. Officers here begin to look forward to their retirement. They
become more in tuned with their mortality and work so they can retire. All
these stages are the components of the cultures prevalent in law enforcement.
In a study conducted by Marche (2009), it was revealed that police cul-
ture fosters corruption and that corruption is not necessarily the result of a
“bad apple” making poor choices (p. 178). The study further indicated that
the more stringent police agencies identify, investigate, and discipline cor-
rupt behavior; the clearer police cultures define themselves. Further, it was
discussed that to provide a higher level of certainty for addressing police
corruption the higher the cost to an agency, a cost that did not necessar-
ily provide a benefit that matched the scope of expense. In this same study,
incentive structures within the culture of a police agency caused an increase
in corruption as the scale of police agency operation increased.
In a study of major metropolitan area police agencies, 20 area police chiefs
were interviewed in regard to their perceptions of police sexual misconduct
(PSM). The police chiefs reported that they believed major sexual misconduct
activities regarding rape, sexual assault, and sex with a juvenile were rare, and
that less sexual misconduct activities, which included flirting on duty, con-
sensual sex on duty, and pulling over a driver to get a closer look, were more
common. The police chiefs cited police culture, police departments’ com-
plaint systems, opportunity for sexual misconduct, and lack of knowledge
about PSM as the primary cause for this type of behavior (Maher, 2008).
58 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Barker (1996) believes that police culture is a major contributor to police

misconduct. He states that a three-pronged approach is needed to control
police corruption and misconduct. They include: decreasing the opportunity,
undermining peer group support for unethical behavior, and increasing the
risk of engaging in these types of behaviors. He further states, “Police cor-
ruption exists only where it is tolerated by the police officers themselves. Only
the police peer group can permit unethical behavior and only the police peer
group can eliminate it” (p. 77).

Police Misbehavior

By Randy Taylor, D.M.

Klockars et al. (2000) conducted a study of police officers’ understanding of
agency rules concerning police misconduct and the extent of their support for
their agency’s rules. The study also evaluated officers’ opinions regarding appro-
priate punishment for misconduct, expected disciplinary threat, disciplinary
fairness, and their willingness to report misconduct. Based on the officers’
responses to 11 hypothetical case scenarios involving police officers engaged
in a range of corrupt behavior, the following information was presented:

• In assessing the 11 cases of police misconduct, officers considered

some types to be significantly less serious than others.
• The more serious the officers perceived a behavior to be, the more
likely they were to think that more severe discipline was appropri-
ate, and the more willing they were to report a colleague who had
engaged in such behavior.
• Police officers’ evaluations of the appropriate and expected discipline
for various types of misconduct were very similar; the majority of
police officers regarded the expected discipline as fair.
• A majority of police officers said that they would not report a fel-
low officer who had engaged in what they regarded as less serious
misconduct (for example, operating an off-duty security business;
accepting gifts, meals, and discounts; or having a minor accident
while driving under the influence of alcohol.
• Most police officers indicated that they would report a colleague who
stole from a found wallet or a burglary scene, accepted a bribe or
kickback, or used excessive force on a car thief after a foot pursuit.
• The survey found substantial differences in the environment of
integrity among the 30 agencies in the sample (Klockars et al., 2000,
p. 2).
Ethics in Law Enforcement 59

Newburn (1999), as noted by Cortrite (2007), describes key categories in

the range of police corruption: a police officer taking bribes in the form of
money or other favors in exchange for not enforcing the law; brutalizing or
using excessive force against arrestees; fabricating evidence to help convict a
person accused of a crime and destroying evidence that might be helpful to
a person accused of a crime; and using race or other criteria to give favorable
or unfavorable treatment to a person or group (p. 13).
Police officers deal with life-changing decisions constantly. Any code of
ethics cannot cover every situation for every officer. Officers are given the
discretion to choose whether or not to write a ticket or to make an arrest
because they work without direct supervision.
Police officers also work in an environment where they are constantly
being tempted by opportunities to take something they didn’t earn: a
fountain drink, a meal, unclaimed beer from a traffic stop, or even drugs
from an undercover operation. These temptations are further enhanced by
what is considered an officer’s code of silence. A code of silence is devel-
oped through a culture that poises one group against another (Rothwell
and Baldwin, 2007).
The Christopher Commission (Christopher, 1991) that investigated the
Los Angeles Police Department reported that officers are governed by an
unauthorized and unwritten rule often referred to as the “Code of Silence”
(sometimes also called “The Blue Wall”). The “code” requires that an officer
not give negative information about any other officer to anyone. This allows
corrupt officers to work in the presence of honest officers.
Law enforcement officers constantly see the worse that society has to
offer. After saving a spouse from serious injury, that spouse will often turn on
the officer that has saved him or her and try to injure the officer. Videos are
common place where officers have recorded their own deaths from “routine”
traffic stops. Officers at the scene of large civil disputes have to rely on each
other for survival and when they need backup for any reason, fellow officers
must be relied upon to come to their aid.
Schafer and Martinelli (2008), in a study they conducted examining
police supervisor’s perceptions of police integrity, found that supervisors
viewed themselves as more willing to report unethical and illegal conduct
than other officers in their agency. They believed they would take officer
transgressions more seriously than other officers. These results were taken
from a study that asked respondents to respond to 11 vignettes regarding offi-
cer misconduct and criminal activity. They were asked to evaluate themselves
to “most officers in your agency.” This study shows that the Code of Silence is
not as entrenched among supervisors as it is with their subordinates.
60 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Current Practices for the Prevention of Unethical Behavior

By Randy Taylor, D.M.

The Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) is a division of
the United States Department of Justice. The organization provides policing
and ethics training to law enforcement agencies and community members
through its national network of Regional Community Policing Institutes
(RCPI). Ethics and integrity training curricula have been developed through
many of these RCPIs. In an effort to standardize ethics-based training
throughout the country, COPS has designed a course titled “Police Officer
Ethics: A Self-Assessment” (Rubio, 2010).
It has become the national trend to include ethics and integrity train-
ing as a subtitle for perishable skills equal to firearms training, emergency
vehicle operation, and other skills that demand annual demonstrated profi-
ciency. Subcategories for ethics and integrity in this training include racial
profiling, use of force issues, early warning systems, and citizen complaint
processes (Rubio, 2010).
Berger and Peed (2010) introduced an ethics toolkit entitled “Enhancing
Law Enforcement Ethics in a Community Policing Environment” (p. 1). The
toolkit was introduced through the International Association of Chiefs of
Police and the United States Department of Justice Office of Community-
Oriented Policing Services in 2010. The toolkit was the product of three years
of research in which the research committee determined that “ethics remains
our greatest training and leadership need today” (p. 1).

Authority

The term authority means the power to determine or otherwise settle issues
or disputes; the right to control, command, or determine something or
someone. In law enforcement, it is necessary for police officers to exercise
authority on a regular basis throughout an infinite number of actions and in
an infinite number of scenarios. Due to the paramilitary structure of polic-
ing agencies, police officers also exercise authority over one another. With so
much emphasis on authority, it is wise to discuss how to exercise authority
wisely, and the ways in which one can abuse his or her authority. Therefore,
it is important to discuss the concept of authority. This can be a rather com-
plex concept. First of all, it must be understood that a “fiduciary relation-
ship” exists with regard to police authority. A fiduciary relationship involves
a relation between two or more persons—the person who has or is in author-
ity and the person or persons to whom the authority is directed. Some view
Ethics in Law Enforcement 61

authority as power. And, if power is defined as the ability to impart change

or have an impact on the desired outcome, then authority may be viewed as
a form of power, since often times a person in a position of authority may be
able to influence a person to do what he wants him/her to do. The difference
between authority and other types of power, such as coercion, is that with
authority a person to whom an order is issued responds in accordance with
that order because he accepts that the issuer of the order is entrusted with
the authority to tell him how to act, and that the order should be carried out
simply because the person in position of authority says so.
Regardless of the type of authority, all authority is limited in its scope.
Scope of authority means that anyone who has authority has that authority
over only a certain group of persons or matters, and this authority does not
translate to other persons or matters. For instance, the office manager in the
records division of the police department has authority over the persons
that work for him as to how reports should be written regarding format and
department policy issues. However, this same individual does not have the
authority over officers or working in a patrol division as to how they docu-
ment the information within their reports.
How does this discussion of authority relate to the concept of police author-
ity? First of all, police authority is remarkably wide in scope. That is to say, it is
wide both in terms of its application, with reference to the number of persons it
applies to, and also in terms of the area of action to which it applies. In their role
as police officers, police have the authority to direct people with regards to any
matter involving enforcement of the law or in the maintaining of public order.
Although wide in scope, police authority has boundaries. It is here that it
is necessary to differentiate between compliance with laws and obedience to
directives. In their roles as police officers, authority is exercised both within
the confines of the law and within the confines of the paramilitary, hierarchi-
cal organization in which they work. This means they must both obey the law
and obey their superiors. Most times this is not an issue because the majority
of the time the orders given by superiors will be lawful orders and consis-
tent with the law. However, in rare occasions, orders may not be lawful and,
thus, the two points of authority are in conflict. Police officers are held to be
responsible both for the law and to their superiors; however, their primary
obligation is to the law. In other words, they should disobey an unlawful
command if obeying it would be illegal.
Another aspect of police authority is that of its relationship to coercive
force. However, coercive force is exclusive of effective authority. The need
for one to resort to coercive force shows a sign of a breakdown in effective
authority, implying that the person coerced would not have otherwise done
as ordered, if not coerced. However, sometimes as police, it is necessary to
make use of coercion in the act of one’s duty. For instance, the majority of
criminals understand what the law is and accept the law as generally in order;
62 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

however, many will still attempt to evade or resist arrest. It is then necessary
for officers to coerce those evading arrest into custody by a manner of meth-
ods or else risk damaging police effectiveness and perceived authority.
While the previous example explains why coercion by police may be justi-
fied, it’s impractical to think that effective policing could rely solely or mainly
on the use of coercive force. At a certain point, the coercive force is more likely
to undermine police authority as the police are looked at by the community that
they police as an organization that will have their way regardless of the opin-
ions and desires of the community that they are hired to serve and protect.
Authority brings with it responsibility. Having seen that the scope of
police authority is wide, it is important to recognize that the responsibility
associated with police authority is quite demanding and quite literally may
involve matters of life and death.

Discretion

Police authority including legal powers are often times discretionary, that is,
it is up to individual officers to decide whether or not they choose to exercise
their authority in a given situation. For example, in many cases, an officer’s
decision to arrest, to issue the individual a summons, or to issue a verbal
warning is a matter of discretion by law. Although discretionary, the law
requires that such discretion be based on considerations that may include the
severity of the offense, the likelihood that the suspect will appear in court,
the individual’s criminal history, the location of residence, and others.
Police discretion is present in many stages of police work. It is typically
involved in the decision-making process of whether or not to investigate a
possible crime as well as being involved in the decision of whether or not to
affect an arrest. Police work often involves never before seen situations that
require an immediate resolution. In these instances, it is quite necessary that
police have discretionary powers to aid them in providing solutions.
The topic of discretion is of special concern with regard to ethics when
one stops to think about the reasons for the use of a discretionary decision.
While police are given discretionary authority, this authority must be used in
an unbiased, moral, ethical, and legal manner. It would be unethical and prej-
udicial for a police officer to issue a verbal warning to all female drivers who
have broken the speed limit, but to issue citations to all male drivers who have
broken the speed limit. The same would be true if this discretionary authority
was used to make decisions based on race, ethnicity, or religious background.
There are some that argue that, if police abuse of power is to be reduced,
their discretionary authority should be curtailed. A viewing of the evening
news or a perusal of a recent newspaper will document abuse of power in
relation to suspect rights based on police discretion. However, there are also
Ethics in Law Enforcement 63

those who hold an opposing point of view, that a corralling of police discre-
tionary authority is a dangerous mistake. Perhaps, rather than a reduction
in power, what is needed is an increase in accountability for the use of such
discretionary power.

Corruption

The book, Police Ethics, by Miller, Blackler, and Alexandra (2006) suggests
that there are three defining features of a good police officer. These include:

1. The possession of specialized expertise.

2. The use of this expertise in the morally correct way.
3. For the morally correct ends (p. 135).

As with any profession, not all police officers are good police officers.
However, there is a difference between failing to be a good police officer and
being a corrupt police officer. For instance, incompetence may be viewed as a
type of corruption. It is typically not thought that incompetence could be mor-
ally blameworthy, even in instances leading to a bad outcome, since an individ-
ual cannot be blamed for failing to bring about something that they did not have
the capacity to cause to occur. However, if this failure was a result of failing to
equip themselves or train and be in possession of necessary skills or knowledge
when given the opportunity, then this incompetence is morally blameworthy.
Blame is also possible in instances where individuals continue in a job
when they no longer possess the aptitude or the ability to perform the require-
ments of the job. One example is what is referred to as someone being “retired
on duty.” This is an officer who continues to work, but, as a result of lazi-
ness, burnout, and perhaps myriad physical and mental reasons, is no lon-
ger capable or does not desire to perform his duty properly, but continues to
work anyway. While not seen as being overtly corrupt, continuing in the job
for reasons of self-interest, such as a paycheck and insurance, has a negative
institutional impact and could even be seen as unsafe and an improper use of
police authority and community property, which is a degree of corruption.
The police officers who are competent may be considered corrupt if they
use their knowledge and skills in illegal or immoral ways. For example, an
officer engaged in illegal activity may use his knowledge of interview and
interrogation tactics as a way to intimidate or discover individuals who
threaten to expose the officer’s illegal activity.
Lastly, police can be considered corrupt if they make use of proper skills and
knowledge to achieve improper results. For instance, enforcing the law against
only one social or cultural group, even if by the book, is prejudicial and bias.
While the enforcement of the law may be legal, the overall situation is corrupt.
64 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

What Are the Causes of Corruption?

There is significant documentation of instances involving police corruption
within the mainstream media and an even larger number of unreported
instances. If one were to look at the various incidents, there are a number of
causes of police corruption that can be identified. Having been given such
powers as police discretion and coercive power, police have many opportu-
nities to abuse these powers. These can include harassment of the innocent,
threats with trivial charges, turning a blind eye to more serious crimes, and
many more. Police also are faced with myriad temptations throughout the
course of their obligations. These can include the offer of money or favors
in return for police protection, getting out of a charge, or looking the other
way. In the majority of jurisdictions, public service is not a well-paid area of
employment and, thus, the temptation to take shortcuts or to seek benefits
that offset this lack of compensation is often quite considerable.
Another significant contributing factor in police corruption is the reg-
ular usage of what would normally be regarded as morally unacceptable
activity within the capacity of their job. For instance, deception, threats
of force, deprivation of personal liberty, etc. are all activities that would
be considered morally wrong under normal circumstances. However, in
the performance of one’s duties as a police officer, detective, undercover
operative, etc., these are all acceptable behaviors and are not seen as being
morally or ethically wrong. These normally immoral activities are morally
justified in police work in terms of the ends that they serve. Nevertheless,
the use of these methods by police officers in circumstances, which are
morally justified, can begin to have a corrupting influence upon the indi-
viduals who make use of them. For instance, a police officer may begin
engaging in the morally justified telling of lies and in the development of
elaborate deception in a role as an undercover officer, and proceed to tell
morally unjustified lies and engage in deceptive behavior with innocent
individuals, co-workers, and family members.
As has been discussed, and sometimes referred to as the blue wall, police
display a high degree of group identification and solidarity. The solidarity
can be a good thing without which effective policing may not be possible.
However, it is also a contributor to police corruption. For instance, individu-
als who fail to act against corrupt colleagues out of a sense of loyalty are often
morally and ethically compromised and become more likely to engage in
corrupt activities in the future.
There are some general conditions that are viewed as being contributory
to police corruption. These (adapted from Miller et al., 2006) may include:

• Necessity for and use of discretionary authority by police officers.

Ethics in Law Enforcement 65

• Street-level interaction between law enforcement and corrupt indi-

viduals who often have a motivation or interest in manipulating or
corrupting police.
• Ability for police officers to use methods, such as deception and
coercion, which are typically viewed as immoral, but which are legal
within the course of their employment.
• Employment of and operation of law enforcement in an environment
that includes large amounts of money, drugs, weapons, and other
items of value, or which are of temptation to abuse or misappropriate
based on external pressures.
• Presence of corrupt administration or leadership, sometimes com-
bined with a corrupt or seemingly futile political and court system.
• Compensation not commensurate with obligations and
responsibilities.

Within the profession of policing, the tendency toward corruption should

be considered as a basic occupational hazard and should be trained on and
treated accordingly (Miller et al., 2006). Just as police officers are trained and
tested with regards to the usage of firearms and the application of deadly
force, understanding that the threat to their life is an occupational hazard, so
too should police officers be trained and tested against moral vulnerability.
It is necessary to enact measures to protect those engaged in the policing
profession from the possibility of corruption.

How Is Corruption Overcome?

If measures are to be enacted to attempt to reduce police corruption, there
are four basic areas that must be considered. These (adapted from Miller et
al., 2006) areas include:

1. Personnel hiring and recruitment

2. Reduction of corruption opportunities
3. Detection of corruption
4. Reinforcing effort to motivate individuals to do what is right

It would seem self-evident that, if within policing there is a tendency

toward corruption, it would be of paramount concern for those selected to
possess the highest of moral character. It is important to reduce the opportu-
nities for corruption; however, the nature of police work is such that it does
not allow for complete reduction in such opportunities.
With regards to the detection and even the deterrence of corruption, these
are in large part achieved through institutional accountability. These meth-
ods of accountability may be either internal or external and can include such
things as complaints investigation, report and incident audits, surveillance,
66 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

and personnel examinations. Methods of accountability should include a part-

nership involving both police and community. This ensures that the commu-
nity is able to make the police aware of potential problems and to hold police
accountable for these problems. It is further suggested that any such review
boards composed of police and community might be wise to include retired
police officers who no longer have a vested interest in the goings-on, but who
have knowledge and experience possibly associated with the event in ques-
tion. Sometimes it is a practice for agencies to offer an officer immunity in
order that he testify and implicate others. Informants may not only consist of
police officers, but also may consist of the public or even criminals who have
been granted immunity; all of the latter should be carefully considered because
often times the information provided turns out to be false.
Lastly, in an effort to reduce corruption, it is important that an agency sup-
port and make known its motivation to do what is morally right. It is obvious to
all concerned that reducing corruption opportunities is important. It is equally
apparent that there will always be those who will engage in illegal or immoral
behavior and, thus, there will always be a need for techniques of corruption
detection. However, a reduction in opportunities or the development of a sophis-
ticated system of detection typically comes with a large price tag. Therefore, it
is suggested that an agency spend considerable effort and time motivating its
personnel to do what is morally right and to recognize those who do the right
thing and make smart decisions. There is no system of detection, no matter how
sophisticated, that could possibly hope to control corruption. This is why it is
wise to institute a system of rewards and penalties within a police agency for
decisions and actions that will help to motivate personnel in doing the right thing
and discouraging personnel from making poor ethical, even corrupt, decisions.
Even things such as clearly defined promotion procedures and disciplinary pro-
cedures vary greatly in this area. This helps to reduce or limit a feeling of resent-
ment or injustice relating to these thoughts, which lead to corruptive behavior
or, at the very least, a hostile work environment. The chain of command also
should be further reinforced in doing what is right. With great power comes
great responsibility and, as relates to police work, great discretion. The proper
use of this discretionary power within the chain of command can be proper
reinforcement of moral decision making and aid in reducing corruption.
The nature of police solidarity can be reinforcing as well. Placing
emphasis on the collective responsibility of the police to police their own
reinforces the need for and acceptance of proper moral decision making.
Policing is cooperative in nature and, thus, corruption undermines the
effectiveness of policing. Rather than blind loyalty to one’s co-workers, col-
lective responsibility requires selective loyalty. That is, maintaining loyalty
to those individuals who do what is right, but not to those individuals who
do what is wrong. This deep-seated loyalty is only warranted to those and
by those who uphold the ideals of policing and who embody those ideals
Ethics in Law Enforcement 67

within their decisions and actions. This collective responsibility also may
include an individual engaging in what is commonly known as whistle-
blowing, as well as proper support for, rather than hostile action toward,
properly intentioned individuals involved in whistle-blowing. A whistle-
blower is a “person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of
corruption or wrongdoing” (www.dictionary.com).

Conflicts of Interest

While perhaps not overtly corrupt, an individual may be engaged in corrupt

behavior if he or she has a conflict of interest regarding the incident or person
in question. The conflict of interest exists when a person is (1) in a relationship
with another individual that requires that person to make judgments based
on the other’s behalf, or (2) when that person has a special interest that tends
to interfere with proper decision making within that relationship or incident.
The important terms to pay attention to within this definition are those of
relationship, judgment, and interest.
The term relationship, which is mentioned, must be fiduciary in nature,
which means it must involve one individual entrusted to work while trusting
another in order to make a judgment on his behalf. This judgment is the abil-
ity of the individual to make reliably correct decisions requiring knowledge
or skill. The term interest refers to any concerned, loyalty to, influence over,
or other instance in which a person’s judgment in that situation could be
deemed less reliable based on one of the aforementioned reasons.
The fundamental concern relating to a conflict of interest is that an
individual’s judgment is fundamentally less reliable than it ought to be and,
thus, results in a failure by this individual to properly execute a fiduciary
responsibility.

A conflict of interest generally arises in one of the following ways:

1. An individual has a self regarding interest that is in conflict, at

least potentially, with his or her fiduciary duty, and, therefore,
has a tendency to interfere with the proper exercise of his or her
judgment with regard to the duty.
2. An individual has potentially competing fiduciary duties or rolls
that are in conflict with each other, at least potentially, and, there-
fore, one duty or roll has the tendency to interfere with the proper
exercise of the individual’s judgment with regard to the other duty
or roll (Miller, Blackler, and Alexandra, 2006, p. 212).
68 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Conflicts of interest may be conducive to institutional corruption.

However, even when an individual, in fact, does not act corruptly (he or
she may have good moral intentions in the performance of the obligation),
a conflict of interest still may remain in the perception of this conflict of
interest and may impact the apparent ability to properly discharge his/her
role. It is best to avoid conflicts of interest when at all possible; however,
often times a conflict of interest may be a minor one that could be avoided
only through difficulty. In such a case, it may be acceptable for an indi-
vidual to simply disclose the conflict of interest rather than avoiding it and
ensure that there is a proper process of accountability in place to ensure
proper decision making.

Recruitment

The hiring and recruitment process is one of the chief areas in which ethics
issues is most effectively addressed. If an organization has a well-established
recruiting and hiring process, it is possible to identify those individuals who
may have a tendency toward making poor ethical decisions or who would
be more easily influenced and likely to make poor or unethical decisions. A
proper hiring process that will assist with reducing the likelihood of ethical
violations in the future should consist of:

• Criminal history check

• Professional references check
• Personal references check
• Financial history check
• Educational references check
• Psychological examination
• Polygraph examination

An organization is wise to invest significant resources of time, money,

and personnel in its recruiting and hiring efforts. Identifying those individu-
als most likely to be tempted or influenced, rather than adhering to a strong
set of personal beliefs in line with organizational ethics, will result in a mini-
mization of ethical violations in the future.

Conclusion

Police ethics is a subject that has been studied and evaluated due to the tremen-
dous need based on public responses through reported corruption and police
misconduct. With over 2000 police agencies in the United States, the majority
of officers, however, are not involved in scandals or police misconduct. When
Ethics in Law Enforcement 69

widespread complaints are headline news, the public’s trust is often shaken
because of the unknown. The culture of most police agencies are closed cul-
tures. This closed culture environment breeds mistrust, due to an inability to
have transparency at all levels. This mistrust is heightened further through the
widespread belief that officers protect one another (Rothwell and Baldwin,
2007). A proper recruitment and training process can minimize the potential
for corruption within law enforcement.

Ripped from the Headlines

Code of Silence
A Los Angeles Times story in May of 2009 quoted the Orange County district
attorney as saying, “There is evidence of deputies’ code of silence.” The story
revolved around an incident of police response involving a Taser® deployment,
where the DA said that veteran police officers “softened” their accounts of the
incident, and “were not truthful.” The DA further said that “inconsistencies”
relating to the testimonies of the deputies involved prevented the case from
being successfully litigated, and suggested that this was in part due to a “code
of silence” between the deputies.
The case involved a deputy as the defendant accused of excessive force
through the deployment of a Taser on an arrestee who was handcuffed and
seated in the rear seat of a patrol car. Initially, none of the deputies at the
scene reported the Taser deployment during their primary reports of the
incident. However, a grand jury was convened, based on events transpiring
after the incident, and several deputies were found to have changed their
stories with regards to when the Taser was deployed, where each individ-
ual was at prior to and during the deployment of the Taser, and whether
or not they felt the Taser deployment was justified. Several deputies told
one version of a story before the grand jury, but when testifying in court,
told another. One of the deputies with the most inconsistencies was a patrol
trainee who stated, “I was just trying to pass training,” when asked about
the inconsistencies. The DA believed that the individual feared having to
return to a jail assignment if he were to fail patrol training, which may have
led the individual to be less than forthcoming, and that he “must have felt
some sort of pressure.”
Although inconsistencies in testimony were pointed out and there
appeared to have been some collaboration amongst the deputies after the
initial incident, there was not enough evidence to charge any of the deputies
with perjury (www.articles.latimes.com/2009/may/13/local/me-da-sheriff13
(accessed February 2, 2010)).
70 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Ethical Decision Making

On January 5, 2009, CBS 4 of Miami, Florida, reported a story on how Miami
police officers were given a lecture on ethical decision making. The officers
spent several hours of in-service training studying the topic of ethics and
being quizzed on what constituted ethical and unethical behavior. While the
training was a necessary component to retain departmental accreditation,
the timing was in large part due to recent occurrences at the agency. Several
months prior, the chief was found guilty of violating ethics laws by accepting
a free sport utility vehicle, and then after lying about whether or not he had in
fact accepted a gift, he was found guilty criminally for being untruthful. This
administrative example of unethical gift acceptance and lying needed to be
pointed to and have departmental personnel learn that such behavior is not
only unacceptable, but illegal. As a result, senior Miami police administrators
issued a memo instructing all personnel to take part in the ethics lecture and
tutorial, and which stated, “the department will maintain the highest profes-
sional ethics and integrity,” a goal that had been compromised at the highest
level and which the department was hoping to avoid in the future (www.eth-
icsinpolicing.com/article.asp?id=5081 (accessed February 2, 2010)).

Abuse of Authority
On July 17, 2009, CNN reported the story of a California police officer who
admitted to sexually assaulting a woman while on a traffic stop. While on
trial in District Court, the officer admitted to pulling over a female for a
traffic violation and then subsequently forcing her to perform oral sex on
him. The officer pulled the woman over for speeding and weaving in traffic,
and had suspected her of being under the influence of alcohol while operat-
ing a motor vehicle. In the course of the traffic stop, he ascertained that the
female did not have a valid driver’s license and was driving while impaired.
He offered to drive her to her job, but instead drove to a parking lot where
he placed his hand on his gun and forced the woman to perform oral sex on
him while in his patrol car. U.S. Attorney Thomas O’Brien was quoted as
saying the officer “brutalized a person he had sworn to serve. … His conduct
eroded public confidence in law enforcement and cast a pall over his for-
mer colleagues who obey the law, proudly working to preserve public safety”
(www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/17/officer.sex.assault/index.html (accessed
August 23, 2010)).

Ethics and Race

In a 2009 poll (released April 7 by the Pew Hispanic Center and reported
April 22 in Chicago, Illinois), less than half of Hispanics present in the United
Ethics in Law Enforcement 71

States believe that they would be treated equitably by law enforcement or the
justice system. This distrust was found to be almost twice as much as whites,
but significantly less than African Americans. The report stated that, of those
polled, approximately 46 percent of Hispanics believed that law enforcement
would treat them with fairness when compared to other race or ethnicities
(compared to 74 percent of whites and 37 percent of African Americans).
This poll was conducted during a time when Hispanics were a “targeted”
group within the eyes of the justice system, with regard to illegal immigra-
tion. The associated director of the center, Mark Hugo Lopez, believed that
the distrust stemmed primarily from Hispanic’s apprehensions associated
with immigration prosecutions and police ineffectiveness in aiding victims
of crimes (www.ethicsinpolicing.com/article.asp?id=5360 (accessed February
3, 2010)).

Ethics in Policing
On February 18, 2009, the Arizona Republic reported that a police officer had
been banned from police work as a result of a pornography case. Records
showed that in September of 2007, a Youngtown police officer admitted to a
supervisor that he had attempted to print pornographic material, after his ser-
geant found explicit material when replacing a printer ink cartridge. When
confronted about the material and told that such actions violated departmental
and town policies, the officer admitted to the incident and assured the supervi-
sor it was an isolated event, which would not be repeated. However, on May 14,
2008, the officer was placed on administrative leave after further allegations of
misconduct, with regards to viewing and printing pornographic material from
a police and town computer system. The subsequent internal affairs investiga-
tion revealed that the officer had visited 21 sexually explicit sites, 18 of which
were viewed after initially being counseled by his police supervisor. The officer
admitted to the violations and resigned shortly thereafter (www.ethicsinpolic-
ing.com/article.asp?id=5192 (accessed February 3, 2010)).

Corruption
On Tuesday, July 15, 2008, the Reuters news service ran a story originat-
ing out of Harlingen, Texas, regarding the bribing of U.S. Border Patrol
agents along the Mexico border. The story claimed that there had been an
increase in the use of bribes by Mexican drug cartels with regards to attempt-
ing to corrupt U.S. border agents. The story was based upon a number of
recent incidents involving U.S. Border Patrol agents who had been arrested
for accepting bribes and attempting to smuggle drugs across the border.
According to the article, “data on agents convicted of graft are not made
public, but the U.S. government is probing hundreds of border corruption
72 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

cases where a decade ago it saw a few dozen a year.” Some have attributed
the rise to the recent increase in the number of agents hired and, thus, hav-
ing an enormous influx of fresh, impressionable agents. The drug cartels are
able to offer hundreds of thousands of dollars to an agent in an effort to gain
their assistance. This is considerably more than a border agent would make
in several years on the job. Federal agents receive training in ethics during
their initial training period; however, many worry that it is not the training,
but rather the screening process that is at fault (www.reuters.com/article/lat-
estCrisis/idUSN15311994 (accessed February 3, 2010)).

Review Questions
1.        is the act of officers getting criminals off the street as
a “noble cause.”
2. The belief that a desirable outcome is always obtained by using the
right or correct actions is the concept of        .
3. The four ideologies derived from the framework of idealism and
relativism are        ,        ,        ,
and        .
4. Organizations with stronger cultures (have, do not have) better moti-
vated personnel.
5. True or False: Law enforcement lacks a clear and concise definition
of culture.
6. The sociological concepts are represented by      ,      ,
and       .
7. Five to ten years on the job officers become filled with       .
8. What is the “code of silence” as it relates to law enforcement officers
and what does the code allow?
9. The concept that anyone who has authority has that authority over
only a certain group of persons or matters, and this authority does not
translate to other persons or matters is known as        .
10. True or False: Coercive force is exclusive of effective authority.
11. The idea that it is up to the individual officer to decide whether or
not he chooses to exercise his authority in a given situation is known
as        .
12. Why do police officers need to have discretionary powers?
13. A police officer who is competent may be considered        if
he uses his knowledge and skills in illegal or immoral ways.
14. True or False: The chain of command also can be further reinforce-
ment to do what is right.
15. When does conflict of interest exist?
Ethics in Law Enforcement 73

References
Barker, T. 1996. Police ethics crisis in law enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Bayley, B. 2009. Improving ethics training for the 21st century. www.policeone.com
(accessed February 12, 2010).
Berger, W., and C. Peed. 2010. Introduction to ethics toolkit. International Association
of Chiefs of Police global leadership in policing. Advance online publication: www.
theiacp.org (accessed July 28, 2010).
Broker, P. 2003. A glossary of cultural theory, second edition. London: Arnold.
Christopher, W. 1991. Report of the independent commission on the Los Angeles Police
Department. Los Angeles.
Cortrite, M. D. 2007. Servant leadership for law enforcement. PhD diss., University
of California, Los Angeles.
Crank, J. P., and M. A. Caldero. 2000. Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause.
Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co.
Dimitrov, D. 2006. Cultural differences in motivation for organizational learning and
training. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities &
Nations 5 (4): 37–48
Drug Reform Coordination Network. 2000. A barrel full of bad apples: Police corruption
and the war on drugs. From http://stopthedrugwar.org (accessed July 25, 2010).
Friedman, C. A. 2005. Spiritual survival for law enforcement. Linden, NJ: Compass.
Goodman, D. 2010. Detroit mayor: Ousted chief ‘blindsided’ him. Officer.com: from
http://www.officer.com (accessed July 23, 2010).
Heinzmann, D. 2009, October. Police misconduct allegations up almost 19%. Chicago
Tribune. From http://articles.chicagotribune.com (accessed July 25, 2010).
Justnews.com. 2010. Ex Fla. trooper pleads no contest in fake tickets case. From http://
www.officer.com (accessed July 23, 2010).
Klockars, C. B., S. K. Ivkovich, W. E. Harver, and M. R. Haberfeld. 2000, The measure-
ment of police integrity, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Maher, T. 2008. Police chiefs’ views on police sexual misconduct. Police Practice &
Research 9 (3): 239–250.
Marche, G. E. 2009. Integrity, culture, and scale: An empirical test of the big bad
police agency. Crime, Law and Social Change 51 (5): 463.
Miller, S., Blackler, J., and Alexandra, A. 2006. Police ethics. Crows Nest NSW,
Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Murphy, M. 2008. The role of emotions and transformational leadership on police
culture: An autoethnographic account. International Journal of Police Science
and Management (10) 2, 165–178.
Newburn, T. 1999. Understanding and Preventing Police Corruption: Lessons from the
Literature. London: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Paoline III, E. A., ed. 2001. Rethinking police culture: Officers’ occupational attitudes.
New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Police Corruption. 2004. Issues & controversies on file. From Issues & Controversies
database: www.2facts.com/article/i0400270 (accessed February 16, 2010),
Rothwell, G. and J. Baldwin. 2007. Ethical climate theory, whistle-blowing, and the
code of silence in police agencies in the State of Georgia. Journal of Business
Ethics 70 (4): 341–361.
74 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Rubio, M. 2010. COPS ethics and integrity training. International Association of Chiefs of
Police global leadership in policing: www.theiacp.org (accessed February 10, 2010).
Schafer, J. A. and T. J. Martinelli. 2008. First-line supervisor‘s perceptions of
police integrity: The measurement of police integrity revisited. Policing 31
(2): 306–323.
Wedge, D. and O. Johnson. 2010. Cop quits after on-duty viewing of midget stripper
show. From www.policeone.com (accessed July 23, 2010).
Wlwt.com. 2010. Ohio officer suspended for on-duty affair with mayor. From www.
officer.com (accessed May 15, 2010).
Wright, A. L. 2008. Spirituality-centered leadership: Perceptions of law enforcement
leaders. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University.
www.dictionary.com (accessed December 26, 2010).
Ethics in Forensic
Science
7
Key Terms: American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB), American Academy of Forensic Sciences
(AAFS), American Board of Criminalistics (ABC), Daubert test, chain of
custody, criminalistics, CSI effect, drylabbing, forensic science, Forensic
Science Educational Program Accreditation Commission (FEPAC), Frye
test/rule, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, International Association of
Identification (IAI), National Institute of Forensic Science.
Learning Objectives:
1. Define what is meant by “forensic science.”
2. Define what is meant by “drylabbing” and explain how it relates to
forensic science ethics.
3. Explain what should be the ultimate obligation of a forensic
practitioner.
4. Define and explain what is meant by the “CSI effect.”
5. Define and differentiate between “accuracy” and “precision.”
6. Understand the ways in which ethics can be involved within crime scene
investigation efforts and laboratory analyses.

Introduction

Forensic science, the application of science to civil and criminal law, is a field
that is grounded in applied ethics. The identification, collection, and pres-
ervation of any piece of forensic evidence will ultimately involve numerous
individuals. At any step within the process, evidence can be deliberately or
accidentally mishandled. This risk begins at the scene of the crime where
there is the possibility of evidence planting, destruction, or mishandling.
After the scene has been processed, evidence is then sent to a forensic labo-
ratory for analysis. Here it can be subjected to contamination through poor
testing methods, excess consumption, mislabeling, and even loss or destruc-
tion. After the analysis has been performed, those analyzing the evidence
must then report on their findings. With regards to the reporting of exami-
nation results, personnel must be accurate and honest with regard to their
findings. There have been instances uncovered where individuals trusted
with such reporting have misrepresented their findings and have even been
involved in drylabbing, which is the reporting of results based on forensic
analysis when no test or analysis was ever performed.

75
76 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

These errors, omissions, or completely fraudulent testimonies or report-

ing are of special concern due to the fact that forensic evidence, which is
testified to or reported on by “experts,” is routinely given more weight and
consideration by jurors. As a result, false testimony, inflated statistics, and
laboratory fraud have led to wrongful conviction in many states due to juror
trust in the system, but with forensic fraud being the impetus.

Ethics and Forensic Testimony

As was stated earlier, juries and jurors give increased weight to the testimony
of forensic experts. They are correct in doing so in some respects because
criminalistics (the field of forensic analysis) “has as its primary objective a
determination of physical facts, which may be significant in legal cases.”
(Barnett, 2001). Therefore, an ethical analyst has an obligation to the truth
and, as such, they have an obligation not to mislead the jury, defense, or the
state when testifying before the court or when preparing their reports relat-
ing to their analyses of forensic evidence.
Chapter 5 covered ethical codes and standards and, while there exists
no single ethical code that applies to all disciplines of forensic science or to
all practicing criminalists, there are two primary organizations that have
developed ethical codes relating to forensic testimony and the presentation
of forensic analyses within court. The American Board of Criminalistics
(ABC), and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) are the two
primary certifying bodies for forensic scientists within the United States.
The ABC code of ethics requires each certified member to ensure that any
opinions rendered with regards to his/her analyses are done so “only to the
extent justified” by the evidence in question, and also to ensure that the tes-
timony given is presented “in a clear, straightforward manner,” which in
no way misrepresents or extends “themselves beyond their field of compe-
tence.” Testimony should be given “in such a manner so that the results are
not misinterpreted” (ABC, 2010). The AAFS code is equally as articulate in
spelling out the expectation of its members, stating that it forbids a “mate-
rial misrepresentation of data upon which an expert opinion or conclusion
is based” (AAFS, 2010). An addition to the AAFS code is a section that lists
“Guidelines” for members and analysts. Under this section, it says that ana-
lysts should “adopt good forensic practice guidelines and that, unlike attor-
neys, forensic scientists are not adversaries. They take an oath in court to tell
the whole truth. They should make every effort to uphold that oath. Every
reasonable effort should be made to ensure that others (including attorneys)
do not distort the forensic scientist’s opinions” (AAFS, 2010).
Ethics in Forensic Science 77

Forensic Science Gone Awry

The March 2009 volume of the Virginia Law Review (www.virginialawreview.

org) included an article entitled “Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and
Wrongful Convictions.” This study, conducted by Brandon L. Garrett and
Peter J. Neufeld, was the first study undertaken to explore the relationship
between forensic testimony and convictions ultimately leading to exonera-
tions based on postconviction DNA analysis. The study sought out court
transcripts and results for the 156 exonerees who had been identified at
that time, with ultimately 137 being located for review. The testimony that
was reviewed for the 137 exonerees primarily involved serological analysis
testimony (100 cases) and testimony regarding microscopic hair compari-
son (65 cases), with the majority of the cases being cases of sexual assaults
(Figure 7.1).
Of those reviewed for the study, 82 of the cases, or approximately 60
percent, included invalid forensic testimony by prosecution experts, or “tes-
timony with conclusions misstating empirical data or wholly unsupported by
empirical data.” According to the article, two basic categories of invalid sci-
entific testimony were recurring themes within the cases reviewed: “(1) The
misuse of empirical population data; (2) conclusions regarding the probative
value of evidence in the absence of empirical data.”
Invalid Forensic Science Testimony by Type of Analysis

Cases including trial

transcripts
Cases involving invalid
100 testimony regaring forensic
science
90 Percentage of cases with
transcripts involving invalid
80 scientific testimony

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

t n g n
on on rin so k on t n
in iso tin iso
gy r is r is r p ari ar aris Pr par Te
s
ar
ol
o r a a e M ice p
ai mp il p ng
p te m
p e
o m A
S er H Co So Com Fi Com Bi Co Sh Co D
N Vo Com

Figure 7.1 Invalid forensic testimony by type of analysis. (Graphic courtesy of

Ellie Bruchez, University of Wisconsin-Platteville.)
78 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

The six types of invalid testimony that were identified pertained to

the following:

1. Evidence that was nonprobative presented as probative.

2. Discounting exculpatory evidence.
3. Inaccurate presentation regarding statistics or frequency.
4. Providing statistics without supporting empirical data.
5. Nonstatistical statements made without supporting empirical data.
6. Conclusion of evidence originating from defendant without sup-
porting empirical data.

In a statement made at a hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary,

107th Congress, Senator Orrin Hatch commented on the need to provide
new resources for forensic science, while referring to the unethical work of
an Oklahoma City forensic analyst (see Ripped from the Headlines at the end
of this chapter).

This isolated situation should not be used unfairly to indict the thousands of
forensic scientists who perform their work professionally and responsibly. It
should, however, remind us that those who work in our criminal justice sys-
tem have an obligation to be diligent, honest, and fair-minded.

(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_
hearings&docid=f:78008.pdf)

However, while not attempting to disagree with the senator’s remarks,

what this study found was that it was not necessarily a “few bad apples”
who were making the bunch bad, and was not simply isolated incidents
involving a handful of analysts. The trials reviewed included invalid testi-
mony by 72 forensic experts, employed by 52 different agencies, in 25 differ-
ent states. As shocking as these statistics may seem, more shocking is that
in the majority of these instances, “defense counsel rarely cross-examined
analysts concerning invalid testimony and rarely obtained experts of their
own.” In the rare case in which invalid forensic testimony was challenged
or in dispute between the prosecution and defense, “judges seldom pro-
vided relief.”

Legal Rulings Regarding Forensic Testimony

Frye v. United States 54 App. D.C., at 47, 293 F., at 1014

The “Frye test” or “Frye rule” was produced by Frye v. United States in 1923.
This test/rule directly affected the admissibility of scientific evidence for
Ethics in Forensic Science 79

over 70 years. According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(NCJRS), “The Frye rule determined that to have scientific evidence admitted
into court, the evidence must be generally accepted by the scientific commu-
nity” (NCJRS, Frye v. United States). Thus, in order for scientific evidence to
be admitted, it must be shown that the evidence itself and the examination of
that evidence are generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.

Federal Rules of Evidence: Article VII. Rule 702

Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702 is fairly significant in regards to forensic
science and the ability of expert witnesses to testify about scientific evidence.
Rule 702 is essentially a legal “check” on experts who are expected to be ren-
dering opinion in a trial. The rule is spelled out as follows:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness quali-
fied as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may
testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is
based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and
methods reliably to the facts of the case (Legal Information Institute, 2009).

Federal Evidence Rule 702 was enacted in 1975, nearly 52 years after the
Frye Rule was created.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. 509 U.S. 579

The “Daubert test” was as a result of the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals Inc. that occurred in 1993. The Daubert test was intended
to replace the Frye Rule/Test that was imposed in 1923, nearly 70 years ear-
lier. Having scientific evidence admitted into trial due to its general accep-
tance within the relevant scientific community was considered insufficient.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. established that the scientific
evidence must pass four tests before it can be admitted into trial. “The four
tests determine whether the theory or technique has been tested, whether it
has been peer reviewed, its known or potential error rate and the existence
and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has
been accepted within a relevant scientific community” (NCJRS, Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.). This new test serves more or less as a
checklist for judges to follow when analyzing the admissibility of scientific
evidence. It is, of course, the burden of the experts to show that the scien-
tific evidence and the examination of such evidence satisfies each of these
four criteria within the test. If the evidence passes the test, the defense or
80 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

prosecution, based on which party submits the evidence, is then given the
task to provide evidence that challenges the validity and reliability of the evi-
dence and the methods used to examine it (depending if such contradictory
evidence exists).

Kumho Tire v. Carmichael 119 S. Ct. 1167

In Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1998), “the wording of the Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals decision came into question” (NCJRS, Kumho
Tire Co. v. Carmichael).
The Daubert test only addressed the scientific nature of expert testimony
when assessing the admissibility. What if the expert testimony is not neces-
sarily scientific? “Kumho Tire v. Carmichael brought to question that not all
testimony given by experts is scientifically based; instead it can be nonscien-
tific technical evidence. It was determined that the text of the Daubert rule
when determining reliability and relevancy can be “flexible” based on the
occupation of the expert witness” (NCJRS, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael).
Making the reliability and relevancy of the evidence and testimony “flex-
ible” based on the occupation of the expert, the use of the Daubert test is
not limited to evidence considered scientifically based. Thus, the courtroom
is opened to all areas of forensics if it can pass the four criteria listed in the
Daubert test.

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report

In 1989, in an article entitled “DNA Fingerprinting on Trial,” Eric Lander

stated, “At present, forensic science is virtually unregulated—with the par-
adoxical result that clinical laboratories must meet higher standards to be
allowed to diagnose strep throat than forensic labs must meet to put a defen-
dant on death row” (Lander, 1989). Now, over two decades later, little has
changed. There continues to be no legislation or oversight mechanisms that
regulate the quality of forensic science testimony or reporting. However,
there are rumblings of change on the horizon.
In early 2009, the National Academy of Sciences produced a docu-
ment titled Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
Forward. This was the first step in attempting to standardize forensic sci-
ence throughout the United States, and to back such standardization with
legislation. Of specific importance was the suggestion of a need for bet-
ter “oversight of practices.” Such oversight would pertain to accreditation,
quality control, proficiency testing, certification, and codes of ethics. “A
uniform code of ethics should be in place across all forensic organizations
to which forensic practitioners and laboratories should adhere” (p. 214).
Ethics in Forensic Science 81

With regards to such a code of ethics, the National Academy of Sciences

recommended the following:

The National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS), in consultation with its

advisory board, should establish a national code of ethics for all forensic
science disciplines and encourage individual societies to incorporate this
national code as part of the professional code of ethics. Additionally, NIFS
should explore mechanisms of enforcement for those forensic scientists who
commit serious ethical violations. Such a code should be enforced through
certification process for forensic scientists (p. 26).

While there would be both positives and negatives to a nationalized code

of ethics, the implementation of such a code would undoubtedly reduce gray
areas that analysts often find themselves within, and it would also create a
uniform way in which to deal with associated misconduct.
The NAS report also recommended the establishment of an indepen-
dent federal agency, a National Institute of Forensic Science, which would
be responsible for standardizing terminology, which would greatly impact
report writing and forensic testimony. If such an agency was created, and
made up of truly independent scientists (not those employed by state or fed-
eral crime laboratories), they could be responsible for developing criteria and
protocols for the interpretation of data within forensic subdisciplines, which
would promote consistency.

Ethics at the Crime Scene

The variety of crime scene types and circumstances facing forensic investiga-
tors produces many ambiguous situations, which do not conform to a specific
policy or procedure. This, coupled with the fact that their skills and knowl-
edge in the forensic investigation may assist in establishing the innocence or
guilt of a defendant mandate that professional ethics and integrity be essen-
tial to a forensic investigator’s decisions and efforts. A forensic practitioner’s
ultimate obligation is to the truth. He or she must never be biased for or
against a suspect in an investigation. Legal, scientific, and ethical values can
become tangled in the courtroom; however, the most important aspect of the
trial is that the guilty are convicted and the innocent are exonerated (Fish,
Miller, and Braswell, 2007). The sole obligation must be to serve the aims of
justice. Of ultimate importance is that the forensic practitioner conducted
their efforts in a thorough, competent, unbiased manner.
To ensure ethical behavior, veracity of testimony, and professionalism
amongst individuals engaged within the field of crime scene investigations,
some departments and organizations have implemented a code of ethics that
82 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

an employee must sign and agree to function by as terms of his/her employ-

ment or membership. For an example of one of these codes, the reader is
directed to the Web site of the International Association of Identification
(IAI) to peruse their listed “code of ethics” for certified crime scene person-
nel. This can be located by going to: www.theiai.org/certifications/crime_
scene/ethics.php. Other examples of codes of ethics can be located on the
Web site, for various crime scene–related positions.
No forensic investigator wants to live with the possibility that a guilty
person escapes prosecution or that an innocent person is punished based on
his or her actions or inactions. Therefore, he or she should do everything pos-
sible to preserve the chain of custody, take all necessary precautions to pre-
vent cross-contamination or deterioration of physical evidence, and leave the
forensic analysis up to the criminalists and the courts. It is up to the judicial
system, not the crime scene personnel, to weigh the evidence and come to a
determination of guilt or innocence (Fish, Miller, and Braswell, 2007).
A search of recent cases involving mismanagement, improper documen-
tation, unethical testimony, and improper analysis of physical evidence is
bound to bring the searcher a plethora of cases associated with such matters.
(The reader’s attention is directed to Ripped from the Headlines at the end of
this chapter). Of course, these are only a sample of the ones that made head-
lines. For each that made the headline, there are perhaps dozens that didn’t.
Ethics, or lack thereof, has been found to permeate all areas of the criminal
investigative process. With very little research effort, the reader will find that
there are ethical transgressions that occur at all steps in the evidentiary pro-
cess: crime scene security, physical evidence collection and documentation,
physical evidence processing and analysis, testimony regarding all aforemen-
tioned phases, and final evidence disposition. These issues are not isolated to
particular geographic regions or to particular departments. They are instead
a product of training (or lack of) and personal values (or lack of), which can
be present in any setting.
An examination of unethical issues relating to crime scene work shows
a variety of motivations for committing unethical acts. Sometimes the
motivation is greed, other times it is power, status, or promotion. But more
often it is a case of the individual forgetting that his or her obligation is
to the truth and not to one side or the other. Many times individuals feel
as though they are members of a particular team (prosecution?) and, thus,
may fail to present testimony or analysis that could prove damaging to the
prosecutorial team and would be tantamount to letting the team down. As
addressed previously, many times such instances can be avoided through
a thorough background investigation, proper ethical training, and correct
management practices.
Ethics in Forensic Science 83

Misconduct within Crime Laboratories

R. T. Bowen (2010, pp. 71–74)

Crime laboratories face high demands, large workloads, minimal budgets,
and extensive backlogs all under the scrutiny of the public. Misconduct
occurs by agencies as a whole just as occurs by individuals. Areas of con-
cern for the scientist where ethical dilemmas could most easily occur include
chain of custody, turnaround time for testing, preservation and sampling of
evidence, and provision of adequate reports. Sources of pressure that may
lead to ethical misconduct vary. First, it is not mandatory for forensic labora-
tories to seek accreditation. Currently there is an elective mechanism in place
set forth by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors–Laboratory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB). Many states are requiring laboratories
to seek accreditation, and many of the states not required to seek accredita-
tion still aspire to meet the criteria of accreditation. Another issue regarding
accreditation is that the process endorses laboratory itself, not the individual
scientists. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E30 stan-
dards for forensic science are voluntary standards to assist in accreditation of
agencies. Another source of pressure that influences a scientist’s experience
in court is access to the laboratory and its resources. Laboratories typically
support a parent agency, customarily a law enforcement agency. This means
that police officers, detectives, crime scene personnel, and prosecutors have
access to laboratory services, while defense attorneys do not have the same
resources (free laboratory services) available to them. The imbalance caused
by this access may provide an additional source of pressure on the forensic
scientist, although it is beyond the scientist’s control.
Conflicts and frustrations among forensic scientists occur because of the
law enforcement culture, the adversary system, rules of science, and from
within individuals. A common problem for forensic laboratories is that some
are expected to function according to the mandates of their consumers,
which is often the law enforcement community or lawyers. It is not easy to
determine which ethics to follow when involved with more than one pro-
fession. These relationships can create pressure to expand the area of ethi-
cal conduct and can have some serious consequences. First, tasks assigned
to scientists by supervisors might reflect priorities set by the prosecutor’s
office or the police department, whichever is the governing organization.
Funding allocation to the laboratories may also be affected by the governing
organization. Next, the pursuit of criminal convictions along with selective
consideration of evidence may determine what information or evidence is
provided to scientists to evaluate, and this is typically beyond the scientists’
control. Finally, the law enforcement agency that houses a laboratory can
control rewards and sanctions for the forensic scientists. Additional pressure
84 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

stems from the conflicting ethics of science and law enforcement cultures.
Scientists are expected to find the “right” answers for tests, and typically
police officers think the right answer is the one that points toward guilt of
the defendant. Science is supported in the criminal justice system, so one
would expect such pressures and expectations not to be an issue. Scientists
must have control over their work and convince others in the criminal justice
system that objectivity is of the utmost importance. Forensic scientist with a
good sense of personal and professional ethics will avoid dilemmas no matter
how great the differences are in the professional cultures. These are some of
the issues forensic scientist may face when dealing with the conflicting goals
of scientific laboratories and law enforcement.
Barry Fisher’s (2000) Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation includes a
list of ethical misconduct specific to forensic science:
• Planting evidence at a crime scene to point to a defendant.
• Collecting evidence without a warrant by claiming exigent
circumstances.
• Falsifying laboratory examinations to enhance the prosecutor’s case.
• Ignoring evidence at a crime scene that might exonerate a suspect or
be a mitigating factor.
• Reporting on forensic tests not actually done out of a misguided
belief that the tests are unnecessary.
• Fabricating scientific opinions based on invalid interpretations of
tests or evidence to assist the prosecution.
• Examining physical evidence when not qualified to do so.
• Extending expertise beyond one’s knowledge.
• Using unproved methodologies.
• Overstating an expert opinion by using “terms of art” unfamiliar to
juries.
• Failing to report a colleague, superior, or subordinate who engages in
any of the previously listed activities to the proper authorities.
Forensic scientists are in high-pressure positions. Power and influence
accompany the professional privilege of public trust. This power and influ-
ence is why some courts are against expert testimony. Professional privilege of
forensic scientists is a common misconception of the layperson as a result of
the “CSI effect.” Some lawyers and judges feel that jurors educated about foren-
sic science through shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation now demand
unreasonable levels of physical evidence in trials. Other jurors may actually
think there is not “sufficient evidence” in a particular case (e.g., “Why is there
no fingerprint evidence from the victim’s body in this homicide”?). There is
a responsibility associated with forensic science’s commitment to serve social
needs and values. Scientists who are aware of the influence to meet the needs
and expectations of employers; feeling forced, threatened, or the need to pacify
Ethics in Forensic Science 85

superiors can lead to poor ethical decisions. Finally, a major source of pressure
is the preference for self-regulation in forensic science. Self-regulation requires
greater internal control from every individual. Examples of individual miscon-
duct include lying about degrees never earned or embellishing training and
education received. Though forensic science is a high-pressure field that has
many unusual stressors, it does not excuse unethical behavior.
The professional duties of forensic scientists are coupled with pressure.
Unprofessional conduct includes any actions that may tarnish the reputa-
tion of an agency or enable the public to lose trust. An example is a case
where management publicly denies that one of its scientists was drylabbing,
even though, in fact, he or she was drylabbing, demonstrates unprofessional
conduct leading to unethical conduct. Drylabbing is creating scientific data
without performing a test used in part to describe forensic laboratory actions
of creating a report without performing tests on crime scene evidence (www.
statemaster.com/encyclopedia/drylabbing). Some of the professional duties
presenting ethical issues specifically for forensic scientists include:
1. The duty to remain competent in a wide range of scientific fields,
while often limited resources for library and professional meet-
ings are available. If appropriate resources are not provided and the
forensic scientist cannot meet his or her responsibilities, is it ethical
to continue to present oneself as such?
2. The duty to be as objective as reasonably possible in the selection of
samples, examinations, and the interpretation of results. Is it ethical
to ignore relevant samples known to exist simply because they were
not submitted or marked? Can one refrain from certain significant
tests on request and still be considered ethical?
3. The duty to act thoroughly and to produce results and conclusions
within the capabilities and limitations of science and within the
expertise of the individual scientist. Forensic science often involves
examinations of one-of-a-kind. In these cases, is it ethical to not
fully reveal the procedures used, the supporting data, or the result
of blind trials? Is it ethical to use a procedure in the absence of such
data? How far is it necessary to go exploring things that are critical
scientifically, but that may have little or no legal relevance? Should
the reasons for inconclusive results not be explained?
4. The duty to be openly communicative. When open to communication
between scientists is restricted by the demands of others, the scientist
is faced with an ethical dilemma. Is it ethical for the scientist not to
publish results of his or her research for the benefit of all? Should one
refuse to talk to other scientists because they may have a different inter-
pretation? Should scientists use a technique that has not received peer
review?
86 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Another area of scientific difficulty is having precision without accuracy.

Accuracy is the degree of exactness possessed by an approximation or mea-
surement, while precision is the degree of exactness with which a quantity is
expressed. Although it is possible to have precision without accuracy and to
have accuracy without being precise, the latter is actually the better situation.
Accuracy is extremely important to forensic science; however, it has been
argued that some forensic methods are more accurate than others. DNA is
said to be the most accurate forensic evidence, while fingerprints are consid-
ered less accurate due to conclusions based on an examiner. A precisionist is
a person who courts exact numbers instead of giving approximations (99 ft.
10.78 in. as opposed to 100 ft.). Although this person seems as though she is a
wonderful scientists, juries may be wrongly seduced by her. In addition, such
precision is an excessive and ineffective action. The aforementioned dimen-
sions are useful for crime scene sketches requiring accurate measurements of
bullet holes or angles. However, such an example is unnecessary for parking
lots because the nearest inch is usually sufficient (although it depends on
what is measured). As with any ethical situation, best practices and personal
judgment are reliable guiding factors (Garrison, 2004).
The problem of practicing science and an adversary system is yet another
reason why ethical dilemmas occur in forensic science. Some issues include
the amount of detail tests or reports require and the amount of disclosure
that the forensic scientist necessitates. An additional issue is how to decide
what information needs to be presented. How does the information get pre-
sented? Should the expert offer extra information in which neither lawyer
showed interest? What if additional information is pertinent to explain
results? Unfortunately, these problems are nearly impossible to solve due to
conflicting goals of science and law. Knowledge of the differences may help
each side overcomes some common obstacles.

Ethics Education in Forensic Science

R. T. Bowen (2010, pp. 123–126)

Forensic science has a few guiding principles for the profession. First, forensic
scientists should have technical competence and employ reliable methods of
analysis. Second, scientists should maintain honesty with respect to qualifi-
cations and should confine examinations to their areas of expertise. Next, sci-
entists should partake in intellectual honesty concerning the scientific data
on which their conclusions and opinions are based. Finally, objectivity in the
review of evidence and the delivery of expert testimony is a principle of foren-
sic science. The delivery of expert testimony refers to assuring the informa-
tion is understandable to nonscientific fact-finders. These guiding principles
Ethics in Forensic Science 87

are the basics of ethics in forensic science, but how do we provide all forensic
scientists with this understanding of the profession? In a word, education.
Ethics is a difficult subject to teach, which is why historically there has
been a perceived lack of ethics training in forensic science. There is a debate
about how and where to teach ethics. Ethics has been taught informally by
example or through the use of examples from “the real world” in the past, so
why change the passive, informal, implicit instruction? Science is now larger,
faster, more complex, more expensive; is under the scrutiny of government,
media, and society; and consists of greater pressures to publish and obtain
funding. Recently, higher education forensic science programs cover ethics
at the goal issues in a variety of courses as an underlying theme of forensics.
When college students are asked if they have had an ethics course (or even
the lecture dedicated to the topic), most respond that they have not. Colleges
and universities are equipping students with information on the ethics and
the practice of forensic science; however, the students do not realize the value
of the lessons are taught until they need to apply the lessons to real-world
situations. In the discussion of ethics in higher education, one must con-
sider some additional questions. Is it the responsibility for high schools to
teach ethics? Does ethics undermine, support, or stay indifferent to religion?
How should ethics be taught? Who should teach ethics? Should ethics be cov-
ered in undergraduate programs or only in master’s programs? Why should
people take an ethics class if they have learned ethics throughout their lives?
Should laboratories ensure that all employees receive ethics training after
hiring? Should agencies be required to update employees occasionally?
Currently there are steps toward a decision regarding how and where
to teach ethics in forensic science in a uniform curriculum provided by the
Forensic Science Educational Program Accreditation Commission (FEPAC)
for all college-level academic programs in forensic science. Ethics is a
required part of accredited degree programs. In addition, scientific work-
ing groups (SWGs) provide guidelines and certification programs. The work-
ing groups established training, validation, and interpretation of standards.
These groups indicate that the profession is interested in creating and main-
taining good scientific practices. Recently, the American Society of Crime
Laboratory Directors–Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD-LAB) has
begun requiring laboratories seeking accreditation to ensure that new labo-
ratory employees have a minimum amount of ethics training. Currently, the
major objections to teaching ethics are that professional ethics are best taught
within the profession and that it is impossible to teach ethics because people
are either moral or they are not. To the first point, how can we assure that the
subject is taught and taught well through informal on-the-job training? To
the second point, it is correct that a class cannot change an inherently uneth-
ical person; how does the concept of personal ethics and professional ethics
differ? Ethics classes do not seek to teach right from wrong; information is
88 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

provided regarding the importance of ethical conduct and potential areas of

conflict to facilitate advanced knowledge of the subject. Ethics courses are
not intended to make a person ethical as much as they strive to provide a
foundation to expand people’s perspectives, to assist in maintaining open
minds, and to create awareness. It seems that refresher courses have an effect
on people, even if it is subconscious. Dan Ariely (2008), who teaches behav-
ioral economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), dis-
cusses the surprising effectiveness of honor codes in schools and workplaces
in his book, Predictably Irrational:

It does seem more effective if people are reminded of their ethical responsibili-
ties on a regular basis—even if they are ethical people, the reminder serves as
a booster. Annual refresher training would be a useful addition to professional
meetings or in-service classes.

Guidelines for education in forensic ethics include reading, writing, and

discussing the topic. Education on ethics should encourage the acceptance
of uncertainty while fostering the responsibility for a questioning attitude.
The goal of teaching ethics is to shape human conduct through the ability to
observe the big picture. Those who teach ethics should promote formal learn-
ing by acting as role models and mentors and through casual discussions
with students. A high-quality ethics course teaches students awareness of
the types of errors, sources for errors, and the importance of avoiding errors.
Requirements for specific and appropriate education are necessary to stan-
dardize curriculum of ethics courses. Standardization of content is difficult
because of a lack of funding, the widespread physical location of scientists,
and the range of experience level or discipline focus. In the past, scientists
have become forensic scientists as a response to a need in the field and a
lack of formalized training. With the development of academic programs
in forensic science at the college level and the forensic educational program
accreditation commission, ethics courses in forensic science are becoming
part of the regular curriculum. Ethics courses are implemented because the
codes of ethics are general in nature, the proper cause of action is not always
obvious in every situation, or not all professional standards are appropriate
in every situation. It is important to remember that a course in ethics will not
provide answers to dilemmas or provide the correct answers for situations;
however, ethics courses should provide people with the tools to question,
evaluate, and discuss situations and possible outcomes.
What are the necessary points to cover in a forensic ethics course? The
three core values in teaching ethics are integrity, innovation, and commitment.
Course materials should contain a balance of case studies, theory, and meth-
ods. Students should learn official codes of ethics, terminology, and the key
concepts in the profession. It is important for instructors to present a range
Ethics in Forensic Science 89

of values beyond their own, just as exposure to differing views is necessary

for students. As instructors develop ethics courses, they should consider what
texts to use, what additional resources are available, and what copyright infor-
mation is necessary. Textbooks, published articles, computer programs, Web
pages, and video recordings are excellent means of providing information. Any
new knowledge is useful for stimulating ideas and creativity that encourage
people to make changes and to perceive future problems. The goal of ethics
courses is to provide students with the skills to identify, articulate, and resolve
ethical problems. Courses should increase students understanding of underly-
ing moral and ethical principles, should help develop a student’s ability to ana-
lyze problem and situations and to make decisions, and should encourage the
development of skills and confidence to resolve ethical problems. Requirements
provide an outline of the important aspects of a course on forensic ethics.

National Forensic Center

R. T. Bowen (2010, pp. 109–110)

The National Forensic Center has proposed a code of ethical conduct for
forensic experts. The code, as described in Shiffman’s (2000) Ethics in Forensic
Science and Medicine, is in place to help experts recognize their social respon-
sibility and to promote high moral and ethical standards. As with any code of
ethics, the details are a guide, not a rulebook. The National Forensic Center is
not a regulatory body, and compliance with the code is voluntary. The code
is divided into two parts: (1) the principles, which provide a framework for
responsibility; and (2) the precepts, which are the standard for performance.
It is the organization’s goal to eventually add a portion for enforcement.
The principles are set forth so professional experts are mindful of their
responsibilities and effect on the justice system. Public trust is the first
responsibility because the actions of experts should serve and honor public
interest. Experts are considered professional only when they employ a high
standard of ethical commitment to the community and believe that their role
is to serve the public. Dilemmas may stem from advocacy role of attorneys,
the vested interests of clients, and outside pressures; however, the experts
who seek professional excellence and integrity after qualification as an expert
are honoring their duty. The second responsibility of an expert is integrity.
All aspects of professional responsibility must be performed with integrity.
Not having specific rules regarding the relationship between experts in the
adversary process necessitates that experts rely on their personal and profes-
sional integrity. The third responsibility of the expert is the objectivity and
independence of decisions that are free from conflicts of interest. Experts
advocate for their knowledge of the subject matter, not the client’s cause. The
90 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

next responsibility is professional care and competence for technical and

ethical standards of the profession. Experts should exemplify competence
in their role as an expert and as a teacher. The final responsibility for experts
is an understanding of the scope and nature of their services. A person is an
expert only on specific topics. Here, she has a moral and social obligation
to decline services that did not support the honest interpretation of facts.
The background, qualifications, and professional records of experts should
be kept current and made available for the triers of fact. Experts who assume
these responsibilities maintain quality standards for performance.
The precepts section of the code of ethics sets forth the experts’ standards
for performance. Personal standards include independence, integrity, and
objectivity. The general practice standards clarify issues such as promotion
and solicitation, background and qualifications, fee structure, professional
cooperation, attorney–expert relationship, and personal publicity. The pro-
fessional and technical standards are a guide for experts. Standards explain
professional competence, due professional care, and significance of continu-
ing education and training. The technical standards guide experts in meth-
odology, professional criteria, and assuring that adequate data are available.
The standards of presentations specifically relate to the world of the expert
in court. Factors, such as expert versus personal opinion, degree of certainty,
contents of written conclusions and opinions, form and impartiality of pre-
sentation, verification of conclusions, demonstrative evidence, discovery
process, and differing opinions among opposing experts, are included in the
roles and responsibilities of expert witnesses. The final standard concerns
expert’s responsibility to fellow experts regarding integrity in opportunity.
The National Forensic Center’s code of ethical conduct provides a guide for
professionals working in the adversary system.

Conclusion

Each time that a crime scene investigator responds to a crime scene or a crimi-
nalist performs an analysis, the potential exists that the actions taken and
observations made will be presented within a courtroom. A forensic special-
ist’s reputation is based on the veracity of their work and the integrity of their
actions. Their actions, or lack thereof, are the voice of the victim. While justice
may be blind, forensic scientists must present objective and unbiased testimony
that clearly and accurately recreates the crime scene for the judge and jury. A
forensic specialist’s actions in no way should detract from the credibility of the
physical evidence or tarnish its voice. As was said by Paul Kirk (1953):

Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even uncon-

sciously, will serve as silent evidence against him. Not only his fingerprints
Ethics in Forensic Science 91

or his footprints, but also his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he
breaks, the tool marks he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen
that he deposits or collects—all of these and more bear mute witness against
him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement
of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evi-
dence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot
be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find
it, study and understand it can diminish its value.

Ripped from the Headlines

Ethics: Credibility
In May of 2001, the FBI was called in to investigate an employee of the
Oklahoma City crime lab. A 21-year veteran of the Oklahoma City Police
Department, Joyce Gilchrist, was being investigated about credibility issues
that had surfaced with regard to her forensic analysis in hundreds of cases.
Gilchrist was a chemist for the police lab and her work was being questioned
due to inconsistencies and inaccuracies. According to one report, “her expert
testimony went beyond the acceptable limits of forensic science.” Gilchrist
was involved in 11 cases that resulted in executions due to the death penalty,
and there were an additional 13 individuals on death row awaiting execution,
where her testimony or work had been a key piece of trial testimony. Gilchrist
was eventually relieved of her duties and terminated and a review of 583 of
her cases was conducted, resulting in several exonerations. It was determined
that there was “no indication that any innocent people had been executed” as
a result of Gilchrist’s errors, omissions, or inaccuracies (http://archives.cnn.
com/2001/LAW/05/01/oklahoma.evidence/index.html).

Forensic Fraud
According to its Web site, the Innocence Project “is a national litigation and
public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted peo-
ple through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent
future injustice” (www.innocenceproject.org). As a result of its efforts, there have
been numerous incidents where individuals and/or processes have been deter-
mined to be in error. More egregious issues, such as forensic misconduct by sci-
entists, experts, and prosecutors, have been uncovered as well. Those that have
led to wrongful convictions and are among the most notorious are as follows:

• Fred Zain, former director of the West Virginia state crime lab, whose
testimony in 12 states showed that he had “fabricated results, lied on the
stand about results, and willfully omitted evidence from his reports.”
92 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

• Pamela Fish, a lab technician for the Chicago Police Department crime
lab, was discovered to have testified “about false matches and suspi-
cious results” in the trials of at a minimum of eight different defen-
dants. DNA analysis proved her testimony incorrect and fraudulent.
• Houston Police Department crime lab, where a “two-year investiga-
tion, completed in 2007, showed that evidence in the lab was mis-
handled and results were misreported.”

These are the more notorious examples; however, there have been numer-
ous others since the Innocence Project began its work in 1992. As a result,
the “Innocence Project calls for states to impose standards on the preserva-
tion and handling of evidence. When exonerations suggest that an analyst
engaged in misconduct or that a facility lacked proper procedures or over-
sight, the Innocence Project advocates for independent audits of their work
in other cases that may have also resulted in wrongful convictions” (http://
www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Forensic-Science-Misconduct.php).

Discipline Issues
On Wednesday, September 10, 2008, the Wisconsin State Journal ran an article
titled, Probe of Wisconsin Crime Lab Requested, regarding a requested probe
into issues relating to the Wisconsin State Crime Lab system. The probe was
requested by an attorney for convicted murderer Steven Avery. In the 11-page
complaint, the work of up to six state employees was called into question, spe-
cifically as it related to misconduct and ethical issues. The complaint alleged
that not only had the employees been involved in misconduct, and received dis-
cipline for their discretions, but that the incidents were investigated internally
and not by an outside agency. Jerome Buting, defense counsel for Avery, argued
that an external and independent probe of the labs and incidents should occur
because perpetrators of the crimes related to the mishandled evidence, which
related to the various situations, may have eluded justice. The result of this
could very well have been that innocent individuals may have been convicted
with the aid of poorly executed and possibly unethical laboratory forensics.
The complaint specifically related to and was founded upon six disciplin-
ary letters given to six forensic analysts employed by the State of Wisconsin.
According to the letters:

• In 2002, an analyst falsely claimed to have conducted a fingerprint

match and had submitted falsified documentation to support it. The
analyst drew a written reprimand for this ethical violation.
• In 2004, an analyst in an unnamed department was fired after super-
visors documented an extremely high error rate and a pattern in
inattentiveness over a three-year period.
Ethics in Forensic Science 93

• In 2006, a DNA analyst was suspended for two days for being intoxi-
cated while on the job. The misconduct was reported to have occurred
around the same time, and in the same laboratory, where evidence
in the Steven Avery case (Jerome Buting served as defense counsel)
was analyzed.
• In 2004, an analyst received a two-day suspension for performing
an incorrect fingerprint identification that incorrectly eliminated a
suspect in a fingerprint match. The same analyst had “false positive”
fingerprint matches that were documented in two previous cases.
• In 2005, a fingerprint technician was suspended for three days for a
series of incidents, which included taking fingerprint cards home.

The probe was requested and eventually conducted due to the possibility
that serious negligence or misconduct may have compromised an unknown
number of Wisconsin cases. The ethical decisions of several affected the work
and lives of many.

Review Questions
1. The application of science to civil and criminal law is known
as        .
2. What is drylabbing?
3.        is the field of forensic analysis.
4. An ethical analyst has an obligation to the        and not
to mislead the jury, defense, or the state when testifying before the
court, or when preparing his/her reports relating to his/her analyses
of forensic evidence.
5. What are the two primary organizations that have developed ethical
codes relating to forensic testimony and the presentation of forensic
analyses within court?
6. Those who work in our criminal justice system have an obligation to
be        ,        , and        .
7. The       determined that, to have scientific evidence
admitted into court, the evidence must be generally accepted by the
scientific community.
8. True or False: Federal Evidence Rule 702 is fairly significant in
regards to forensic science and the ability of expert witnesses to tes-
tify about scientific evidence.
9. A forensic practitioner’s ultimate obligation is to the        .
10. It is up to the      system, not the crime scene personnel, to weigh
the evidence and come to a determination of guilt or innocence.
94 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

11. True or False: It is mandatory for forensic laboratories to seek

accreditation
12. Why do conflicts and frustrations occur among forensic scientists?
13. What is the “CSI effect”?
14. Differentiate between accuracy and precision.
15.        is said to be the most accurate forensic evidence.
16. The three core values in teaching ethics are       ,       ,
and        .
17. True or False: The technical standards guide experts in methodology,
professional criteria, and assuring that adequate data are available.

References
American Board of Criminalists. 2010. Code of Ethics, www.abc.org (accessed June
23, 2010).
Ariely, D. 2008. Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New
York: HarperCollins.
Barnett, P. D. 2001. Ethics in forensic science: Professional standards for the practice of
criminalistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Bowen, R. T. 2010. Ethics and the practice of forensic science. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor
and Francis Group.
Fish, J. T., Miller, L. S., and Braswell, M. C. 2007. Crime Scene Investigation. Newark,
NJ: LexisNexis Group.
Fisher, B. A. J. 2000. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation, 6th Edition. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.
Garrett, B. L. and Neufeld, P. J. 2009. Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful
convictions. Virginia Law Review 95(1). www.virginialawreview.org (accessed
June 25, 2010).
Garrison, D. 2004. Precision without accuracy in the cruel world of crime scene work.
Midwestern Association of Forensic Sciences Newsletter. April.
Kirk, P. L. 1953. Crime investigation: Physical evidence and the police laboratory. New
York: Interscience.
Lander, E. S. 1989. DNA fingerprinting on trial. Nature 339 (501): 505.
Legal Information Institute. 2009. Federal Rules of Evidence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Law
School. From: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm (accessed June 26, 2010).
National Academy of Science. (2009). Strengthening forensic sciences in the United
States: A path forward. From: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf
(accessed June 26, 2010).
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Frye v. United States 54 App. D.C., at
47, 293F., at 1014; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. 509 U.S 579.;
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 119 S. Ct. 1167. http://www.ncjrs.gov/spotlight/
forensic/legislation.html (accessed June 29, 2010).
Schiffman, M. 2000. Ethics in forensic science and medicine. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas Publisher, Ltd.
The American Academy of Forensic Sciences. www.aafs.org (accessed June 23, 2010)
Ethics in Corrections
Systems
8
Key Terms: Deterrence, just deserts, retribution, social contract theory.
Learning Objectives:
1. Define and explain the purposes of punishment.
2. Define what is meant by retribution and explain how it relates to cor-
rectional ethics.
3. Define what is meant by deterrence and explain how it relates to correc-
tional ethics.
4. Define rehabilitation and explain how it relates to correctional ethics.

Ethics in Corrections

By C. Roberson and S. Mire (2010, p. 221–227)

The basic ethical questions in corrections involve asking whether our soci-
ety has a right to punish or correct individuals who commit crimes against
society and, if so, from where does the right come. We often answer these
questions with the general assumption that the state has the power to control
the population for the greater good of society.
The social contract theory is often used to justify a state’s right to
punish an offender. Under the social contract theory, we give certain pow-
ers to the state in return for protection by the state. If we overstepped
the bounds of the retained rights, then the state has a right to punish
us. Accordingly, there is a social contract between the individual and the
state. As described by Thomas Hobbes in 1691 (1985), it is a voluntary
agreement among people defining the relationship of individuals with one
another and with government and by this process of forming a distinct
organized society.
Punishment power by the state is limited under the social contract the-
ory. As noted by von Hirsch (1976), it is generally assumed to be limited by
the following restrictive guidelines:

• Our liberties are to be protected as long as they are consistent with

the liberties of others.
• The state is obligated to use the minimum punishment necessary to
protect our liberties. Excessive punishment by the state is in itself a
violation of the social contract.
95
96 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

• The state must be prepared to justify any intrusion into citizen’s

liberty.
• Requirements of justice should constrain the pursuit of crime
prevention.

Cesare Beccaria (1774), considered as the founder of the classical school

of criminology, in his On Crimes and Punishment contended that the true
measure of crimes is the harm they do to society. He stated that it is an error
to believe that the true measure of crimes is to be found in the intention of
the people who commit them. Sometimes men with the best intentions do
the greatest injury to society, at other times, intending the worst for it, they
do the greatest good. At the time of his writing (January, 1764), Beccaria was
objecting to the existing practices in the Italian penal system. He especially
disliked the capricious and purely personal justice the judges were dispens-
ing. He also objected to the severe and barbaric punishments of the day. The
judges exercised their power to add to any punishments prescribed by law
and, thus, to promote their personal views as to the special circumstances
involved (Roberson and Wallace, 1998).
In his writings about the concept of the contractual society and the need
for punishment, Beccaria stated that laws are the conditions under which
independent and isolated men unite to form a society, and that men weary
of living in a continual state of war and enjoying liberty rendered useless by
the uncertainty of preserving it, sacrifice some of their liberty so that they
might enjoy the rest of it in peace and safety. Tangible motives in the form of
punishments are needed to protect society and to prevent it from plunging
into its original chaos. Those who infract the law must be punished to protect
society (Roberson and Wallace, 1998).
Beccaria contended that only laws can decree punishments for crimes,
and the authority for making those laws resides only with the legislator who
represents the entire society united by a social contract. A magistrate should
not be allowed, under any pretext of zeal or concern for the public good, to
augment the prescribed punishments.

Subculture in Corrections

The American Correctional Association published a code of ethics for cor-

rectional personnel. The overriding theme of the code is that the correctional
personnel will respect and protect the civil and legal rights of all individu-
als, including prisoners. In addition, members are cautioned against using
their professional position to secure personal privileges or advantages. It is
often said that, within the corrections system, a subculture exists in which
the inmate is the enemy and the use of force and deception is acceptable.
Ethics in Corrections Systems 97

Even the occasional use of deceit to cover up wrongs is acceptable (Muraskin

and Muraskin, 2001). In examining the ethical considerations of correctional
personnel, Pollock (2006) divided them into two general groups: correctional
officers and their supervisors, and treatment professionals. She concluded
that treatment professionals in the corrections system face a number of ethi-
cal issues that are similar to those faced by treatment professionals, such as
medical doctors, in the outside world. The majority of the discussions within
this chapter will center on the issues facing correctional officers and the pub-
lic issues involving punishment.
Kauffman (1988, pp. 85–92) concluded that the correctional officer sub-
culture accepts the following norms:

• Always go to the aid of another officer.

• Don’t lug drugs.
• Don’t rat on fellow officers.
• Never make an officer look bad in front of inmates.
• Always support an officer in a dispute with an inmate.
• Don’t be sympathetic toward inmates.
• Maintain officer solidarity against all outside groups.
• Be concerned about fellow officers.

Sentencing

Judge Jack B. Weinstein, senior U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District
of New York, noted in the 58th annual Benjamin Cardozo lecture at the
Association of the Bar of the City of New York, November 28, 2007:

A judge must remember whose government this is: it is the people’s. This view
controls the court’s attitude toward those who come before it. The judges are
the representatives of the litigants’ government, there to serve and help them
as well as the public at large. The attitude required of the people’s servants
plays out in a range of matters from sentencing of individuals by avoiding
unnecessary harshness to devising effective techniques for satisfying valid
claims of large masses of people injured in toxic tort or pharmaceutical cases.

The Case against Socrates

In 399 BC, Socrates was charged with the offense of impiety (corrupting
young minds and believing in new gods). He was tried before a jury of 500
members. The trial lasted only one day. He was found guilty by a margin of
98 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

30 jurors. The prosecution proposed the death penalty. Socrates had a right to
propose an alternative penalty. He stated:

Shall I propose imprisonment? And why should I spend my days in prison,

and a slave of the magistrates? Or shall the penalty be of fine and imprison-
ment until the fine is paid? There is the same objection. I should have to lie
in prison, for money I have none, and cannot pay. And if I say exile, I must
indeed be blinded by the love of life, if I am so irrational as to expect that when
you, who are my own citizens, cannot endure my discourses and arguments,
and have found them so grievous and odious that you will have no more of
them, that others are likely to endure them.

The jury condemned him to death. He committed compulsory suicide by

drinking poison, the Athenian method of execution (Roberson and Wallace,
1998, p. 284).

Purposes of Punishment

The problem of punishment causes constant anguished reassessment,

not only because we keep speculating on what the effective consequences
of crime should be, but also because there is a confusion of the ends and
means. We are still far from answering the following ultimate questions:
What is the right punishment? On what grounds do we punish others
(Schafer, 1969)?
There is an old Chinese proverb that states, “It is better to hang the
wrong fellow than no fellow.” This proverb is based on the concept that when
a crime is committed, there should be certainty that punishment will follow.
Accordingly, if a crime has occurred, punish the person most likely to have
committed it. While this practice would probably reduce crime, how does it
conflict with our requirement of establishing criminal’s guilt beyond a rea-
sonable doubt?
California rules of court ruled that Rule 410 provides that the general
objectives of sentencing include the following:

1. Protecting society.
2. Punishing the defendant.
3. Encouraging the defendant to lead a law-abiding life in the future
and deterring him from future offenses.
4. Deterring others from criminal conduct by demonstrating its
consequences.
5. Preventing the defendant from committing new crimes by isolating
him for the period of incarceration.
Ethics in Corrections Systems 99

6. Securing restitution for the victims of crime.

7. Achieving uniformity in sentencing.

Retribution

Retribution generally means getting even. Retribution is based on the ideol-

ogy that the criminal is an enemy of society and deserves severe punishment
for willfully breaking its rules. Retribution is often mistaken for revenge.
There are, however, important differences between the two. Both retribution
and revenge are primarily concerned with punishing the offender, and nei-
ther is overly concerned with the impact of the punishment on the offender’s
future behavior or behavior of others. Unlike revenge, however, retribu-
tion attempts to match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the
crime. Revenge acts on passion, whereas retribution follows specific rules
regarding the types and amounts of punishment that may be inflicted. The
biblical response of an ”eye for an eye” is a retributive response to punish-
ment. While the eye-for-an-eye concept is often cited as an excuse to use
harsh punishment, it is less harsh than revenge-based punishment, which
does not rule out two-eyes-for-an-eye punishment. Sir James Stephen, an
English judge, expressed the retributive view by stating, “The punishment of
criminals was simply a desirable expression of the hatred and fear aroused
in the community by criminal acts” (Packer, 1968, p 37). This line of reason-
ing conveys the message that punishment is justifiable because it provides an
orderly outlet for emotions that if denied may express themselves in socially
less acceptable ways. Another justification under the retribution ideology is
that only through suffering punishment can the criminal expiate his sin. In
one manner, retribution treats all crimes as if they were financial transac-
tions. If you got something or did something, then you must give equivalent
value (suffering).
Retribution is also referred to as just deserts. The just deserts movement
reflects the retribution viewpoint and provides a justifiable rationale for sup-
port of the death penalty. This viewpoint has its roots in a societal need for
retribution. It can be traced back to the individual need for retaliation and
vengeance. The transfer of vengeance motive from the individual to the state
has been justified based on theories involving theological, aesthetic, and
expiatory views. According to the theological view, retaliation fulfills the
religious need to punish the sinner. Under the aesthetic view, punishment
helps reestablish a sense of harmony through requital and, thus, solves the
social discord created by the crime. The expiatory view is that guilt must be
washed or cleansed away through suffering. There is even a utilitarian view
that punishment is the means of achieving beneficial and social consequences
for the application of a specific form and degree of punishment deemed most
100 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

appropriate to the particular offender after careful individualized study of

the offender (Johnson, 1974, p 173).

Deterrence

Deterrence is a punishment viewpoint that focuses on future outcomes rather

than past misconduct. It also is based on the theory that creating a fear of
future punishments will deter crime. It is based on the belief that punish-
ments have a deterrent effect. There is substantial debate as to the validity
of this concept. Specific deterrence deters specifically the offender, whereas
general deterrence works mostly on others who might consider similar acts.
According to this viewpoint, the fear of future suffering motivates individu-
als to avoid involvement in criminal misconduct. This concept assumes that
the criminal is a rational being who will weigh the consequences of his or her
criminal actions before deciding to commit them.
One of the problems with deterrence is determining the appropriate
magnitude and nature of punishment to be imposed to deter future criminal
misconduct. For example, an individual commits a serious crime and then
feels bad about the act may need only slight punishment to achieve deter-
rent effects, whereas a professional shoplifter may need severe fear-producing
punishments to prevent future shoplifting.
Increases in crime rates and high rates of recidivism are often used to cast
doubt on the effectiveness of the deterrence approach. Recidivism may cause
some doubt about the efficacy of specific deterrence, but says nothing of the
effect of general deterrence. In addition, unless we know what the crime rate
or rates of recidivism would be if we did not attempt to deter criminal mis-
conduct, the assertions are unfounded. Are we certain that the rate would
not be higher had we not attempted to deter criminals?

Incapacitation

In the incapacitation model, the individual is confined as a prisoner and,

thus, incapable of committing crimes in the general public. At least while the
prisoner is in confinement, he or she is unlikely to commit crimes against
innocent persons outside of prison. To this extent, confinement clearly helps
reduce total behavior. Under this viewpoint, there is no hope for the indi-
vidual as far as rehabilitation is concerned. Therefore, the only solution is to
incapacitate the offender.
There are two variations in the incapacitation viewpoint. Collective inca-
pacitation refers to sanctions imposed on offenders without regard to their
personal characteristics, such as all violent offenders. Selective incapacitation
Ethics in Corrections Systems 101

refers to incapacitation of certain groups of individuals who have been identi-

fied as high-risk offenders, such as robbers with a history of drug use. Under
selective incapacitation, offenders with certain characteristics or history
would receive longer prison terms that others convicted of the same crime.
The purpose of incapacitation is to prevent future crimes, and the moral con-
cerns associated with retribution are not as important as the reduction of
future victimization. As Packer (1968, p. 55) stated, “Incapacitation is a mode
of punishment that uses the fact that a person has committed a crime as a
basis for predicting that he will commit future crimes.” Packer also stated
that the logic of the incapacitation position is that until the offender stops
being a danger, we will continue to restrain him. Accordingly, Packer con-
tended that the logical conclusion is that offenses that are regarded as rela-
tively trivial may be punished by imprisonment for life.

Rehabilitation

The rehabilitation approach is that punishment should be directed toward

correcting the offender. This approach also is considered the treatment
approach. This approach considers criminal misconduct as a manifesta-
tion of a pathology that can be handled by some form of therapeutic activ-
ity. While this viewpoint may consider the offender as “sick,” it is not the
same as the medical approach. Under the rehabilitation viewpoint, we need
to teach offenders to recognize the undesirability of their criminal behavior
and to make significant efforts to rid themselves of that behavior. The main
difference between the rehabilitation approach and the retribution approach
is that under the rehabilitation approach, the offenders are assigned to pro-
grams designed to propel them for readjustment or reintegration into the
community, whereas the latter approach is more concerned with the pun-
ishment aspects of the sentence. Packer saw two major objections to mak-
ing rehabilitation the primary justification for punishment. First, we do not
know how to rehabilitate offenders; second, we know little about who is likely
to commit crimes and less about what makes them apt to do so. As long as we
are ignorant in these matters, Packer contended, punishment in the name of
rehabilitation is gratuitous cruelty.

VIEW FROM AN EXPERT

In the area of criminal justice, the corrections system is somewhat
unique in regards to its role in dealing with persons who have been
convicted by the court and sentenced to either a period of probation or
102 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

prison. The offenders can be confined or supervised for varying lengths

of time and, in some instances, for the remainder of their lives. As a
result, interaction with offenders is much different than interaction
with law enforcement, which, for all practical purposes, is completed at
the time of disposition.
People working in the field of corrections can have daily contact with
inmates in a prison setting. In probation and parole, contact can be less
frequent, but can reach into all aspect of an individual’s life.
The interaction with offenders is much more intense and requires
one to develop at least a surface relationship. In order to be effective in
performing one’s job, it is important to be able to establish an amena-
ble interaction in order to coexist. This relationship is needed in order
to hopefully attain a degree of compliance in both the institution and
community settings.
Consequently, the lines sometimes get blurred in regards to the rela-
tionship between correctional personnel and offenders. Depending on
the setting, correctional personnel hold a great deal of influence over
how an offender will be treated and possibly impacting their individual
freedom.
As a result of the relationship that forms between correctional per-
sonnel and those for which they are responsible, it is important to set
clear parameters that they must adhere to when involved with offend-
ers. Most, if not all, departments of correction require all employees
to sign what is referred to most commonly as a “fraternization policy.”
This policy outlines what behaviors are not allowed, and the conse-
quences of violating the policy can in some instances result in dismissal
and possible criminal charges. The following list is not all-inclusive, but
addresses some of the more obvious behaviors that would be forbidden.
(The following excerpts from a fraternization policy are taken from the
State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections Executive Directive 16
dated August 2004.

a. Employees shall not engage in sexual conduct with offenders.

Today this behavior is against the State of Wisconsin Statutes
Section 940.225(2) (b). Having personal contact with, meaning
a one-on one, such as dating, forming a close relationship, cor-
responding or communicating without the exemption being
granted.
b. Living within the same household.
c. Working for an individual or employing an individual under
one’s supervision.
Ethics in Corrections Systems 103

d. Granting special privileges or consideration when they do

meet the requirements.
e. Providing or receiving goods or services to or from an indi-
vidual under one’s supervision.
f. Employees are required to report in writing any present rela-
tionship or relationship being consider with an individual
under the control of the department.

In summary, the relationship between offenders and staff in a cor-

rectional setting is ongoing and does result in a degree of familiarity,
which can at times impact a person’s decision-making process. What is
important is that the person employed by a correctional institution is
in a position of power over another person, and needs to be constantly
vigilant not to abuse such authority for his own personal benefit either
monetarily or emotionally. It is also important to note that any co-
worker who is aware of such violations of conduct is required to report
such, or be subjected to similar consequences as the offending party.

Edward Ross
Wisconsin Department of Corrections (Retired)

Conclusion

As with all areas of public service, a proper ethical foundation and proper
ethics-based decisions are of equal importance within the public service field
of corrections. Activities that are ethically questionable may pose a clear and
obvious threat to the maintenance of correctional order and security. This can
prove to not simply undermine authority, but, in fact, can place inmates and
correctional employees at risk of physical harm. Proper hiring and recruiting
methods, as discussed in Chapter 6, and the establishment of, and adherence
to, a code of ethics, as discussed in Chapter 5, can aid in reducing unethical
behavior related to corrections.

Ripped from the Headlines

Ethics in Correctional Leadership

On March 4, 2010, the L.A. Times ran a story by Scott Glover, which
explained how a warden of a federal prison in San Bernardino County had
been indicted for posting confidential information on the Web, and then
104 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

lying about it to investigators. The postings allegedly contained “sensitive

information concerning criminal investigations at the prison” in addi-
tion to other confidential information. The postings dealt specifically with
prison employees who worked for the warden, and were being investigated
for their involvement in an inmate gambling operation. There were also spe-
cific details relating to a prison homicide, which were posted to the Web
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/04/local/la-me-warden4-2010mar04.

Inappropriate Behavior
In January 2011, a news story out of California told of a detention deputy
who was charged with having sex with an inmate whom he was charged with
supervising. A news release out of the Kern County Sheriff’s Office reported
that a 48-year-old veteran, who had been with the department for 11 years,
was arrested for “having sexual activity” with a 41-year-old death row inmate
of the Lerdo Pretrial Facility. The sheriff said that he was “disgusted” and
“offended” by the allegations. According to California law, a charge of sex-
ual activity with an inmate by a detention employee is punishable by up to
three years in prison (http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x113239575/
Detentions-deputy-charged-with-having-sex-with-inmate).

Inappropriate Behavior
In July of 2008, a news story originated out of the Madison, Wisconsin area
regarding two female prison guards who were charged with sexual assault
against a prisoner who both say “seduced them.” A letter from the victim in
the case was discovered by one of the suspect’s husbands, and was reported
to the agency, thus initiating the probe. The probe of prison activity revealed
that the victim had seduced the two female guards at different times, con-
vincing both to have sexual relations with him within secluded areas of the
prison. One of the guards admitted that she had become “smitten” with an
inmate and had even bought him gifts. “I crossed the line. I knew it. I let
myself get comfortable with someone I shouldn’t have.” The charges went
on to suggest that one of the guards also had a physical relationship with a
second inmate and had been involved in lewd correspondence with a third.
Although the incidents outwardly appear consensual and the women both
claimed to have been seduced, sexual relations with a prisoner by a person in
position of trust is felony sexual assault within the state. Both women were
charged with second-degree sexual assault, which is a felony punishable up to
40 years (http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Wisconsin-
Female-Prison-Guards-Face-Sexual-Assault-Charges/1$29723).
Ethics in Corrections Systems 105

Review Questions
1. Under the        , we give certain powers to the state in
return for protection by the state.
2. True or False: Punishment power by the state is not limited under
the social contact theory.
3. What is the theme of the code of ethics for correctional personnel?
4.        generally means “getting even.”
5. The        movement reflects the retribution viewpoint and
provides a justifiable rationale for support of the death penalty.
6.        is a punishment viewpoint that focuses on future
outcomes rather than past misconduct.
7. What is one of the problems with deterrence?
8. The two variations in the incapacitation viewpoint include     
and        .
9. The idea that punishment should be directed toward correcting the
offender is known as the        approach.
10. True or False: Almost all departments of correction require all
employees to sign a “fraternization policy.”

References
Beccaria, C. 1774. Essay on crimes and punishment. Trans. by Henry Paolucci. New
York: Bobbs–Merrill, 1963.
Hobbes, T. 1985. Leviathan. ed. C.B. Macpherson. London: Penguin Books. (Original
work published in 1691.)
Johnson, V. 1974. Crime correction, and society. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Kauffman, K. 1988. Prison officers and their world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Muraskin R. and Muraskin M. 2001. Morality and the law. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Packer, H. L. 1968. The limits of criminal sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Pollock, J. M. 2006 Ethics in crime and justice: Ethical dilemmas and decisions in crimi-
nal justice, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Roberson, C. and S. Mire. 2010. Ethics for criminal justice professionals. Boca Raton,
FL: Taylor and Francis Group.
Roberson, C. and H. Wallace. 1998. Introduction to criminology. Incline Village,
NV: Copperhouse.
Sandberg, L. and M. Stiles. 2009. Texas prisons: An illicit bazaar. Houston Chronicle,
March 15, pp. A1, A3.
Schafer, S. 1969. Theories in criminology. New York: Random House.
Von Hirsch, A. 1976. Doing justice. New York: Hill and Wang.
Ethics in the Legal
System
9
In law, a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics, he is
guilty if he only thinks of doing so.
Immanuel Kant
Key Terms: Canons, credentials, expert witness, fair, hearsay, impartial, per-
jury, trier of fact.
Learning Objectives:
1. Define and differentiate between fairness and impartiality.
2. Define expert witness and explain his/her role in the legal system.
3. Explain credentials and how they relate to ethics.
4. Understand the various ways in which ethics impact the legal system.

Introduction

The legal system of the United States is based on fairness and impartiality. This
is true for the litigation aspect as well as for the interpretation and application
of the laws within the courts. But, what is meant by the terms fair and impar-
tial? Fair typically refers to being free from dishonesty or injustice and being
consistent with regards to dispensing discipline or justice. Whereas impartial
refers to being free from bias and having the ability to be fair. As stated by the
American Bar Association, “Our legal system is based on the principle that an
independent, fair, and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that
govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice
and the rule of law” (www.abanet.org/cpr/mcjc/pream_term.html). For this to
occur there has to be fairness and impartiality, as well as competence and vir-
tue, at multiple levels and by all individuals involved in the legal process.

Judges and Magistrates

Judges’ and magistrates’ roles within the criminal justice system and in the
greater area of public service are very visible positions with the ability to
enact change and greatly impact individuals and society as a whole. It is for
this reason that a strong ethical foundation is of paramount concern. For a
judge or magistrate to be effective within his or her position, it is necessary

107
108 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

for them to be trusted and for their integrity to be without question. If their
integrity is questioned or tarnished in any manner, so, too, will their rulings
and interpretations of law be called into question.
Most judges or magistrates begin their professional careers as lawyers and
then practice significant amounts of law prior to being elected or appointed
to the judicial court, and many belong to the American Bar Association. As
with many professions, the profession of law has codes of ethics and codes of
conduct for professionals practicing within the field. This is true for judges
as well. On its Web site (www.abanet.org/cpr/mcjc/toc.html), the American
Bar Association (ABA) lists a “Model Code of Judicial Conduct.” This code
of conduct is separated into five principles or rules, referred to as canons. The
five canons of judicial conduct include:

Canon 1: A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of

the judiciary.
Canon 2: A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impro-
priety in all of the judge’s activities.
Canon 3: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially
and diligently.
Canon 4: A judge shall so conduct the judge’s extrajudicial activities as
to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
Canon 5: A judge or judicial candidate shall refrain from inappropriate
political activity.

Attorneys

In a November 2009 Gallup Poll, only 13 percent of those polled believed

attorneys to be ethical (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/Honesty-Ethics-
Professions.aspx (accessed August 29, 2010)). This is reflective of a global
phenomenon that has been the result of many decades of the erosion of a profes-
sion’s integrity due to ethical misconduct. Unfortunately, for the profession of
law, this is not something that can be quickly or very easily rectified. The ABA
has attempted to hold its members to a higher standard through the incorpo-
ration and recently revised code of ethics, but, as with all professions, it is the
actions of a few that impact the abilities of the many. The ABA has been proac-
tive in its attempt to provide practitioners with a 24-hour phone number that
they can use to inquire about ethics-related questions and attempt to locate the
correct resources to resolve whatever the dilemma presented to them is. The
number is staffed by lawyers with experience in legal ethics research, enabling
them to “provide citations to relevant ABA rules and opinions, and other eth-
ics resources” (http://www.abanet.org/cpr/professionalism/home.html).
Ethics in the Legal System 109

In order for attorneys to maintain the integrity of their profession,

they must:

• Not knowingly make statements that are false as to material fact.

• Must not make false or reckless statements concerning the integrity
or qualifications of judges.
• Must inform the appropriate professional authority when he or she
knows that another lawyer or judge has committed violations of pro-
fessional conduct.
• Must not imply or attempt to influence judges or government offi-
cials in an attempt to achieve results.
• Must not engage in conduct, criminal or otherwise, that adversely
reflects upon his or her honesty, integrity, and ability as a lawyer.

Adhering to the above guidelines will not sway public opinion as to the
overall integrity of the profession; however, it will have an impact on indi-
vidual credibility and, with no further erosion of the profession, could prove
to slowly gain back some credibility that has eroded over many decades of
unethical acts by attorneys.

Reporting Professional Misconduct

As with other areas of public service, those within the field of law have an
obligation to report conduct that is unethical or inappropriate. Failure to
report professional misconduct can impact a number of areas:

• The individual involved in the misconduct is not given the opportunity

to learn from his error, or if intentional, is not brought to task on the
misconduct and, thus, feel that he has successfully gotten away with the
misconduct, which could lead to further misconduct in the future.
• The individual who observes the misconduct is affected by the mere
fact that he has made the observation and could possibly have lost
trust in the individual committing the misconduct, as well as losing
trust in the system, which allows it to occur.
• The profession of the individual committing the misconduct is
effected through association, and risks losing credibility as a profes-
sion if the misconduct is not identified, disciplined, and rectified.
Failing to properly identify misconduct by individuals within a pro-
fession risks an erosion of the entire profession.

Most states have procedures for reporting judicial or attorney mis-

conduct, both by clients and individuals involved in the litigation process,
110 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

outside of the profession as well as by those within the profession. The code
of ethics presented by the ABA requires its members to report misconduct or
else failing to report such misconduct is tantamount to misconduct in itself.

Expert Witnesses

In public service, there are many examples of specially trained personnel

who are called upon to testify as expert witnesses. An expert witness is some-
one who is called upon to answer questions within a court of law in order
to provide specialized information relevant to the case being tried, and to
assist the trier-of-fact (judge or jury) with understanding the information
presented. Therefore, it is the duty of the expert witness to educate the jury
and provide testimony using terminology that is easily explainable and not
misunderstood (Fish, Miller, and Braswell, 2007). An effective expert witness
is one who speaks clearly, honestly, and with simplicity. Expert witnesses
must not deliberately omit relevant facts or encourage incorrect conclusions.
Doing so is a distortion of the fact and is unethical. The opposite is also true.
Overstatements of the facts could impact an expert witness’s credibility.
So, what qualifies an individual as an “expert”? And when is such testi-
mony admissible? Historically, there has been great debate and much litiga-
tion pertaining to what should be permitted as “expert testimony” and what
should qualify an individual as an “expert” within the court. Chapter 7 cov-
ered the primary cases relating to such matters. The reader is encouraged to
revisit the mention of the Frye ruling, Daubert ruling, and Federal Rules of
Evidence (FRE) pertaining to expert testimony mentioned in that chapter.
Typically, when one talks about experience, the term credentials is used.
This usually refers to a certificate, letter, the individual’s experience, or any-
thing that can be used to provide authentication for a claim or that quali-
fies somebody to do something. However, as pertains to expert testimony
within a court of law, credentials as an expert will be established by the court
through questioning pertaining to the witness’s education, training, and
experience. The competence of the witness must be demonstrated through
testimony relating to education, specific training, publications, research,
and a variety of other possibilities that are evidence of thorough knowledge
within the area of expertise being considered.
Once credentialing as an expert has been established by the court, an
expert witness can provide opinions based on the outcomes of his exami-
nations and present the significance of his findings. This is different from
those who have not been declared as experts by the court. Nonexperts who
state opinions as part of their testimony will have such statements stricken
from the record due to their being classified as hearsay. Hearsay is unfounded
information or opinions oftentimes, which is heard from other people. The
Ethics in the Legal System 111

court allows experts to offer opinions as testimony in an effort to assist the

court in better comprehending the topic under consideration. However, sim-
ply because there is the ability to state an opinion does not mean it is always a
legal possibility. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 703 provides for an explana-
tion of the bases of opinion testimony relating to expert witnesses.

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion
or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or
before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the partic-
ular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data
need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be
admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed
to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court deter-
mines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s
opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect (Expert, 2008).
www.expertpages.com (accessed August 20, 2010)
An expert must be confident in the statements that he makes within a
court of law. If such statements are found to be contradictory or in error, or
if it is pointed out that the witness intentionally lied or misrepresented the
facts, there remains the possibility that he could be charged with perjury.
Perjury is the telling of a lie within a court of law by somebody who has taken
an oath to tell the truth.
An expert witness must remember that his integrity and professionalism
are open for inspection. He must be familiar with the scope of his actions and
knowledge, and know where his level of expertise ends. When subpoenaed
to testify as an expert witness, the way others perceive the expert is more
important than the way experts perceive themselves. Once credibility as an
expert witness is compromised, it is nearly impossible to recover in court.

VIEW FROM AN EXPERT

As a United States pretrial services officer for the Northern District
of Illinois, United States District Court, I am considered a judicial
employee and must follow the same ethical code of conduct as set forth
in this chapter. To provide a little background, my job consists of inter-
viewing all individuals arrested for a federal crime and assisting the
judge in determining whether or not the individual should be released
on bond. If the individual is released on bond, my job is to ensure
the defendant complies with his Order-Setting Conditions of Release
throughout the duration of his pending criminal matter. A United
States pretrial services officer is seen as the eyes and ears of the court
and interacts with all parties throughout criminal proceedings. Pretrial
112 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

services officer’s have the unique experience of working with all aspects
of the judiciary system and experience firsthand how crucial ethics are
in court proceedings.
Impartiality is the cornerstone to ethics within the judiciary system.
While judges and their respective judicial employees have slightly vary-
ing degrees of ethics, one’s ability to avoid impropriety and the appear-
ance of impropriety in court proceedings is first and foremost for judges
and judicial employees. It is essential that each order a judge or judicial
employee imposes is based solely on the defendant’s circumstances
and not reflective of personal bias or opinions of the defense attorney,
assistant U.S. attorney, arresting agency, or other judicial employee. To
assist judicial employees in avoiding improprieties, “rules” are often
set in place to further enforce the code of conduct. For example, a fel-
low pretrial services officer is married to an assistant U.S. attorney and
rules have been established prohibiting that officer from handling any
case to which her husband or his subordinates also are working on. An
additional example is that the 7th District has enforced an order that
pretrial or probation employees who have pending applications with
other federal law enforcement agencies must disclose their potential
employment with the respective agency to all parties on a case to avoid
any appearance of impropriety toward the government.
Impartiality with all judiciary employees is necessary to uphold the
integrity of court proceedings to ensure that rulings are unbiased and
based solely on the laws in place. Even attorneys must be cognizance of
their relationship with judges so that it does not create a view of impar-
tiality between the plaintiffs and defendants. Many assistant U.S. attor-
neys started their career as a law clerk for certain judges. As a result,
judges often will not accept cases with those individuals as a means to
maintain fairness and equality with the case and to avoid any poten-
tial biases amongst all parties involved. In one court proceeding, an
assistant U.S. attorney had to request permission from the judge and
defense attorneys to represent the government on the case because he
was engaged to one of the judge’s law clerks.
Judges are required to be fair, impartial, and diligent in their per-
formance of judicial duties. Judges often are the deciding factor in
preventing unethical circumstances in court proceedings. I have seen
judges disqualify themselves from a case for reasons such as owning
stock from a company involved in the case, being a resident of the same
neighborhood as the defendant, having purchased a home from a mort-
gage company that a defendant worked for, or being a client of a store
owned by the defendant.
Ethics in the Legal System 113

All parties in a case are required to withdraw from cases that bear
a conflict of interest because they assume the same ethical responsi-
bilities as the presiding judge. Most recently, I saw a defense attorney,
who was fluent in English and Mandarin, called upon to assist dur-
ing a 16-defendant arrest where the majority of the defendants spoke
Mandarin. While the judge on the matter allowed the attorney to rep-
resent the defendants during the initial appearance, due to a shortage
of court-certified interpreters of that language, the judge prohibited the
attorney from representing all of the defendants throughout the dura-
tion of the case. This defense attorney had already spoken and told all of
the defendants that he personally wanted to represent them in all of the
proceedings without informing the defendants that he would represent
other defendant’s as well.
While most judges address ethical boundaries upfront in the court-
room, there are times when the ethical issue of representation and con-
flict of interests are not as obvious. I supervised a former police officer
who was indicted for mail fraud in a corruption case. After paying his
attorney several thousands of dollars, three months before his trial was
to begin, it was revealed that the defendant’s attorney was also repre-
senting two witnesses in the case, and the judge prohibited the attorney
from representing the police officer in his criminal case. The defendant
was not given his money back by the defense attorney, even though he
had been representing both parties throughout the previous 18 months
of the case and knew the behavior was not going to be allowed unless he
obtained approval from all parties in advance.
As you’ve just read in this chapter, judicial employees must refrain
from partisan political involvement. More specifically, judicial employ-
ees are prohibited from publically displaying a campaign picture, sign,
sticker, badge, or button for a partisan political candidate or organiza-
tion in their yard, on their person, or any personal property. During
election time, reminders are sent out to employees prohibiting them
from publically endorsing or opposing a partisan political organiza-
tion or candidate during election time. By closely associating oneself
with a certain political party, impartiality within the judicial system
can be compromised. This is important in the federal judiciary because
we prosecute political figures who are criminally charged with cor-
ruption within their position of power. Illinois itself has a history of
corrupt politicians and public figures in position of power within the
Northern District of Illinois United States District Court, such as for-
mer Governor George Ryan, who was convicted of corruption in 2006
and former Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted with lying
114 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

to federal agents in 2010. As a U.S. pretrial services officer, I have inter-

viewed and supervised several individuals who were voted into their
position of power, including police chiefs, aldermen, city officials,
fundraising advocates, city contractors, and city workers. By enforcing
impartial political involvement, one cannot request an appeal because
someone in the case was biased toward a certain political party or cam-
paign. It goes without saying that if a judicial employee feels at anytime
that he cannot be impartial and uphold the laws and regulations of his
duties than he is obligated to remove himself from the case.
Ethical dilemmas will continue to be present throughout the judicial
process and there is often no clear guidance on the resolutions besides
a code of ethical conduct that is discussed within this chapter. It’s often
the various interpretations of these ethical codes that leads to so many
ethical issues noted above. Subsequently, continuous and ongoing eth-
ics training is important for judicial employees in order to continue to
uphold the integrity of the court system in a unified manner. Annual
training is provided to judicial employees within my district, but it’s the
ethical dilemmas that I see on a daily basis throughout different court-
rooms in all types of proceedings that provides the most knowledge. At
the end of the day, it is up to each judicial employee to be aware of the
ethical code of conduct that applies to him and to remember the duty to
report any unethical behavior he is aware of to his superior.

Carrie J. Holberg, M.S.

Senior U.S. Pretrial Services Officer
Northern District of Illinois

Conclusion

The laws of a nation are only effective if they are properly enforced and inter-
preted. The interpretation of the law is left up to judges or magistrates. The lit-
igation of law is left up to attorneys. Assisting each of the aforementioned are
expert witnesses who attempt to clarify the issues at question so as to enable
the proper interpretation and assist with the decision-making process. At
each level within the legal system, it is necessary for the individuals involved
to have a proper ethical foundation and to make good decisions. Doing so
will maintain the integrity of the individual, and also the integrity of the
legal system as a whole. Chapter 10 will discuss the importance of maintain-
ing the same level of integrity within public office because, before laws can be
enforced and interpreted, they must be proposed and implemented.
Ethics in the Legal System 115

Ripped from the Headlines

No Hiding from Ethic’s Violations in New Hampshire

On, Friday, July 9, 2010, the Concord Monitor printed a story, written by Ann
Marie Timmins, that explained how there was a new site that had been cre-
ated to list disciplined lawyers within the state of New Hampshire. If one is
to visit www.nhattyreg.org, they will be able to search a lawyer by name or
the penalties imposed. The penalties listed range from warnings, to censure,
to disbarment. As of July, 2010, approximately 30 attorneys had already been
posted as being in violation at some level. New Hampshire also makes more
information pertaining to accused judges available than any other state,
through a Judicial Conduct Committee Web site, www.courts.state.nh.us.
The Web site is not searchable and does not include many case details per-
taining to the accusation; however, it does explain how and when to file a
grievance against a judge. The stated purpose of making such files mostly
available to the public is to show that allegations of misconduct are thor-
oughly investigated and taken quite seriously (http://www.concordmonitor.
com/print/208122 (accessed July 14, 2010)).

Keeping a Watchful Eye on Ethics

The people of the State of Colorado have some assistance with keeping a watch-
ful eye on public service ethics. Colorado Ethics Watch was founded in 2006
and is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that lists its mission as using “high impact
legal actions to hold public officials and organizations accountable for unethical
activities that undermine the integrity of state and local government.” The orga-
nization accomplishes its mission through litigation, use of open records, filing
of ethics complaints, and requests for government audits and investigations.
This is by no means a unique organization; it is found only in the State
of Colorado. Many states have similar watchdog groups, basing themselves
on the organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
(CREW), an organization that “targets government officials who sacrifice the
common good to special interests.” CREW has chosen to fight corruption at
the federal level through aggressive litigation and research.
Whether at the state or federal level, watchdog groups, such as Colorado
Ethics Watch and CREW, encourage cleaner, more responsible government
(http://www.coloradoforethics.org/about (accessed July 14, 2010)).

Ethics Violations from the Bench

On May 6, 2009, the Tuscaloosa News ran an article regarding a Hale
County circuit court judge who had been accused by the state’s Judicial
116 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Inquiry Commission of ethics violations. The violations related to his

handling of a voter fraud investigation, which involved several of his rela-
tives as defendants (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090506/
news/905059952?p=all&tc=pgall (accessed July 14, 2010)).

Review Questions
1. The legal system of the United States is based upon      and
       .
2. For a judge or magistrate to be effective within his or her posi-
tion, it is necessary for him/her to be      and for his/
her        to be without question.
3. True or False: Those within the field of law have an obligation to
report conduct that is unethical or inappropriate.
4. An        is someone who is called upon to answer ques-
tions within a court of law in order to provide specialized informa-
tion relevant to the case being tried.
5. Expert witnesses must not deliberately        relevant facts
or encourage        conclusions.
6. How are credentials as an expert established as pertains to expert
testimony within a court of law?
7. Telling a lie within a court of law by somebody who has taken an
oath to tell the truth is known as        .
8. Judges often times (are, are not) the deciding factor in preventing
unethical circumstances in court proceedings.

References
Fish, J. T., L. S. Miller, and M. C. Braswell. 2007. Crime scene investigation. Newark,
NJ: LexisNexis Group.
www.expertpages.com (accessed August 20, 2010).
Ethics in Public Office
10
A country should be defended not by arms, but by ethical behavior.
Vinoba Bhave
Indian advocate of nonviolence and human rights
Key Terms: Effectiveness model, legal institutional model, personal responsi-
bility model, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
Learning Objectives:
1. Explain what should be the primary obligation of the legislators.
2. Define the role of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
3. Become familiar with Executive Order 12674 and identify the two core
concepts underlying the 14 principles listed within.
4. Define and differentiate between the three models that have been offered
as framework to resolve the conflicts between the exercise of public dis-
cretion and political life.

Ethics in Governance

Often, when ethics is discussed as it relates to the criminal justice system, the
emphasis is typically placed on law enforcement, the judicial system, correc-
tions, and parole. However, law is the starting point for each of these and as
such legislators are the ones responsible for the formation of the law. “The field
of legislation includes legislators—senators and representatives—primarily;
legislative staff secondarily, but not insignificantly; and lobbyists, political
action committees, and journalists somewhat less directly” (Dreisbach, 2009,
p. 221).
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “No State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States.” Put another way, U.S. federal law should
trump individual state laws if ever there is a conflict between them. As such,
in terms of ethics, there is sufficient similarity between federal, state, and
local legislatures, therefore, this chapter will concentrate the ethical discus-
sion focus on the federal legislator.
The primary obligation of the legislator is representation of the persons
or community that collectively appointed the official. Legislative representa-
tion is a two-part task, where the individual is tasked with both representing

117
118 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

and legislating. Each of which have relevant issues associated with eth-
ics. Throughout each task, representation and legislation, a legislator must
communicate with his or her constituents so that legislators can represent
the community’s best interests. Proper communication with constituents
includes informing them and educating them as to the constitutional scope
and limits of legislative rights and responsibilities. Proper communication
also means informing them and educating them with regard to pending leg-
islation, for instance, how a pending law will be worded and what impact if
any it may have on the community. Lastly, it is incumbent upon the legislator
to provide constituents and community members access to the legislator’s
time so that they may express their concerns and access information that
they require to be properly informed.

United States Office of Government Ethics

Background and Mission

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) (Figure 10.1), a small agency within
the executive branch, was established by the Ethics in Government Act of
1978. Originally part of the Office of Personnel Management, OGE became
a separate agency on October 1, 1989, as part of the Office of Government
Ethics Reauthorization Act of 1988. The Office of Government Ethics exer-
cises leadership in the executive branch to prevent conflicts of interest on the
part of government employees, and to resolve those conflicts of interest that
do occur. In partnership with executive branch agencies and departments,
OGE fosters high ethical standards for employees and strengthens the pub-
lic’s confidence that the government’s business is conducted with impartial-
ity and integrity (http://www.usoge.gov/).

Agency Program Services

Office of Agency Programs
The Office of Agency Programs (OAP) has three divisions that monitor and
provide services to federal agency ethics programs. These are the Program
Services Division, Program Review Division, and the Education Division.
The three divisions coordinate their services to assist agencies in carrying
out their programs. They work closely with agencies to identify and resolve
problem areas, provide educational materials and training, stay abreast of
budgetary concerns and identify emerging issues to be addressed by OGE.
OAP also hosts the annual Government Ethics Conference and maintains
the Ethics News and Information List E-mail service.
Ethics in Public Office 119

Figure 10.1 Office of Government Ethics poster. (From: www.usoge.gov)

Ethics News and Information E-mail List Service The Ethics News and
Information E-mail List Service is OGE’s primary medium for communicat-
ing with the ethics community. OGE uses the list to provide timely infor-
mation to ethics officials concerning changes in ethics regulations, statutes,
interpretations, guidance, etc., as well as upcoming events, such as confer-
ences and ethics training.
Annual Government Ethics Conference OGE hosts an annual Government
Ethics Conference to update executive branch ethics officials on the most recent
developments in the government ethics area and to provide opportunities to
120 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

enhance their understanding of the ethics statutes, regulations, and policies.

Officials attend and participate in a mix of general sessions and smaller concur-
rent sessions. These sessions provide ethics officials an opportunity to meet and
discuss common issues and problems and to share resolutions and solutions.

Program Services Division

The Program Services Division (PSD) provides dedicated liaison and pro-
gram support services to each executive branch department and agency eth-
ics office through the Desk Officer Program. Each department and agency is
assigned an OGE desk officer who is responsible for providing assistance in
maintaining effective ethics programs and providing advice and guidance on
the Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch.
In addition, PSD manages the annual and termination public financial
disclosure reporting system for approximately 1,000 presidential appointees
confirmed by the Senate (PAS positions) and 125 designated agency ethics
officials (DAEOs). PSD collects, tracks, and reviews these reports to ensure
that they are complete and do not raise any unaddressed questions of poten-
tial conflicts of interest. These reports are made available upon request to the
general public and the news media. The staff also reviews public financial
disclosure reports filed by PAS at the time of their nomination and tracks
and ensures compliance with ethics agreements made by these presidential
appointees during their confirmation process.
Public Financial Disclosure Reporting System Under Title I of the Ethics
in Government Act of 1978, as amended, senior officials in all three branches
of government are required to file public reports of their finances. Officials
must report information on their income and assets, financial transactions,
gifts and travel reimbursements, liabilities, employment agreements, posi-
tions held outside the U.S. government, and sources of compensation greater
than $5,000. The agencies review and certify that the reports are complete
and that any potential or actual financial conflicts under the statutes or regu-
lations are identified and resolved.
OGE oversees the executive branch reporting system. The statute and
OGE regulations, contained in 5 C.F.R. part 2634, specify which officials
are required to file a Standard Form 278 (SF 278). The approximately 1,000
PAS and approximately 125 DAEOs are required to file reports each year
with their agency on May 15, and also when they leave federal employment.
After agency review of these reports, they are forwarded to OGE for final
review and certification. An additional 19,000 other high-level officials are
required to file an SF 278 with their agencies for certification at the agency
only. Within OGE, PSD has primary responsibility for tracking, collecting,
reviewing, and certifying these public reports.
Ethics in Public Office 121

Public Document Service for Public Financial Disclosure Reports The

SF 278s are available to the public under the Ethics in Government Act of
1978, as amended. Within 30 days after receiving a report, agencies, includ-
ing OGE, must permit its inspection and furnish a copy to any individual
who presents a proper written request. Agencies must make reports publicly
available for six years after receipt. An individual’s written request for inspec-
tion or copying must include:

• His/her name, occupation, and address.

• The name and address of any other person or organization on whose
behalf the inspection or copy is requested.
• That he/she is aware of the prohibitions on obtaining or using the
report, which basically preclude use for any unlawful or commercial
purposes.

OGE has developed a standardized application form, OGE Form 201, for
this purpose. Individuals requesting an SF 278 should specify each requested
report by the filer’s name and the filing year of the report.
PSD oversees the public inspection process and provides copies of the
reports OGE collects and reviews, which are primarily the reports to the pres-
ident, vice president, and PAS. Currently, OGE charges a nominal copying
fee only if the total number of report pages copied exceeds 333. Individuals
may phone OGE to request a copy of OGE Form 201 at 202-482-9300.
Ethics Agreement Compliance PSD also tracks each presidential appoin-
tee’s compliance with any ethics agreements the appointee made during the
Senate confirmation process. These agreements concerning the financial
interests of the appointees, their spouses, and their dependent children are
made to bring filers into compliance with applicable ethics laws and regu-
lations and to avoid conflicts of interest with their government positions.
Appointees are to certify, with documentation to OGE, that such agreements
have been satisfied within 90 days of their Senate confirmation.

Program Review Division

The Program Review Division (PRD) conducts onsite ethics program reviews
of headquarters and regional offices to determine whether an agency has an
effective ethics program tailored to its mission. The reviews are accomplished
in accordance with detailed review guidelines and are scheduled in advance
as part of an annual program plan. The guidelines provide a step-by-step
approach to examining each of the ethics program elements at an agency.
Tips on preparing for an annual ethics program review and for administer-
ing a well-run ethics program have been developed by the PRD. The annual
program plan sets forth which agency reviews will be conducted during the
122 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

year. The plan lists headquarters offices in Washington, D.C. and various
offices and military facilities throughout the United States. After establishing
the commencement date of an ethics program review with the agency’s eth-
ics official, a confirmation letter will be prepared and sent to the designated
agency ethics official along with a checklist of ethics materials.
Program Reviews Program reviews entail a thorough analysis of the agen-
cy’s implementation of all basic requirements of an ethics program as well as
more unique elements of a program that may arise because of the actual mis-
sion of the agency. Individual ethics program elements that the PRD examines
include ethics program structure and staffing, public financial disclosure, con-
fidential financial disclosure, ethics education and training, ethics counseling
and advice outside employment and activities, and post employment.
Following the review, a report is sent to the DAEO. That report may
contain recommendations to improve the ethics program if deficiencies are
found. Agencies are required to respond to OGE within 60 days concerning
the actions they are taking pursuant to OGE’s recommendations. To confirm
that the agency has acted on OGE’s recommendations, the PRD conducts a
follow-up review six months from the date of the report.

Education Division
The Education Division (ED) develops and provides ethics training courses
and materials for executive branch departments and agencies. The ED deliv-
ers training to both new and experienced agency ethics officials through
workshops and seminars designed to improve their skills in performing eth-
ics-related duties and maintaining effective ethics programs. In addition, the
ED develops and makes available ethics training courses and materials for
agency ethics officials to use in conducting ethics training for their employ-
ees. These courses and materials are available in a variety of formats, such as
instructor led, Web-based, and video, and cover a variety of ethics topics to
enable agency ethics officials to best meet their training needs.
Ethics Training Workshops OGE offers a variety of ethics training work-
shops for agency ethics officials that focus on applying the standards of ethical
conduct, criminal conflict of interest statutes, and the financial disclosure regu-
lations in their day-to-day work. These workshops offer attendees the opportu-
nity to work through case studies and problems that enhance their knowledge of
the ethics rules. Many ethics officials use the knowledge and materials obtained
through these workshops to train employees. These workshops are conducted in
Washington, D.C., and other federal regions around the country.
Ethics Training Materials OGE develops a wide variety of ethics training
materials for use by all executive branch departments and agencies in meet-
ing the mandatory ethics training requirements. These materials include
Ethics in Public Office 123

computer and Web-based training, videotapes, pamphlets, booklets, and ref-

erence manuals. All of the printed materials are available either from the Web
site (http://www.usoge.gov/) or can be purchased from vendors. See ordering
information on the site for OGE publications, videos and software.

Agency Ethics Program Administration

At its heart, the purpose of the “ethics in government” program is to ensure
that executive branch decisions are neither tainted by nor appear to be tainted
by any question of conflicts of interest on the part of the employees involved
in the decisions. Because the integrity of decision making is fundamental to
every government program, the head of each agency has primary responsibil-
ity for the day-to-day administration of the “ethics in government” program.
Each agency head selects an individual employee of that agency to serve
as the agency’s DAEO. It is these individuals and the additional staff of each
agency tasked with supporting an agency’s ethics program (collectively
known as the executive branch “ethics community”) with whom OGE pri-
marily deals and to whom we communicate policy and regulatory changes.
Further information about agency-specific ethics programs can be obtained
through contact with the DAEOs of the agencies.

Frequently Asked Questions of the Office of Government Ethics

1. Does OGE have jurisdiction over the ethics programs of the legislative
and judicial branches?
No, OGE is the supervising ethics office for the executive branch.
Each branch of the federal government is responsible for its own eth-
ics program and in the case of the legislative branch, each house has
its own committee.

Legislative Branch
Senate Select Committee on Ethics
202-224-2981
http://ethics.senate.gov/ethics2.html
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
202-225-7103
www.house.gov/ethics

Judicial Branch
Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct
Office of the General Counsel
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
202-502-1100
www.uscourts.gov
124 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

2. Where do I get information about the rules relating to federal employ-

ees’ involvement in political activities?
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel has jurisdiction on all matters
involving the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from
engaging in certain political activities.

U.S. Office of Special Counsel

800-854-2824
www.osc.gov

3. I work in my office’s government procurement division. Are there spe-

cial conduct or postemployment rules for officials involved in procure-
ments that I should know about?
Yes. There are several additional prohibitions, restrictions, and
requirements that apply to certain agency officials involved in pro-
curements or in the administration of contracts or who had access
to certain sensitive procurement information. In some cases, these
prohibitions apply to officials who have left government service. For
more information about the procurement integrity rules, contact
your agency’s ethics official or your immediate supervisor.

4. Who is responsible for prosecuting alleged violations of the criminal

conflict of interest statutes?

U.S. Department of Justice–Public Integrity Section, Criminal

Division
202-514-1412
www.usdoj.gov

or the

Appropriate U.S. Attorney’s Office (generally in the jurisdiction

where the alleged misconduct took place)
United States Attorneys
www.justice.gov/usao/offices/

5. Who is responsible for investigating the alleged misconduct of Federal

employees?
The Inspector General of the department or agency involved and, when
necessary, the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of
Justice. The 64 Inspectors General (IG) in the executive branch of the
U.S. government conduct the majority of investigations into govern-
ment wrong-doing. In addition, they also coordinate investigations
Ethics in Public Office 125

with their regular financial and management audits of federal agen-

cies and programs. The coordinating body for the Inspectors General
is the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) of which
the Office of Government Ethics is a member.

President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency

http://www.ignet.gov (contains the URLs for individual inspector
general’s offices)
Federal Bureau of Investigation
www.fbi.gov

6. Where are lobbyists registered and how do I find out how much money
they have spent “lobbying” the federal government?
Two sources of information are:

House Legislative Resource Center

202-225-1300
Senate Office of Public Records
202-224-0758

7. I have a question about how much money a candidate for public office
is allowed to spend in any calendar year. Who should I call?
For all questions relating to federal campaign financing and reports,
you should call the Federal Election Commission. If the candidate is
not running for a federal office, but a state or local office, you might
check to see if that state has an elections agency.

Federal Election Commission

Press Office
202-219-4155
www.fec.gov

8. Do state and local governments also have codes of conduct for their
employees?
Most state and many local governments have codes of conduct, as
well as other components to their ethics programs, that govern the
conduct of their employees. One source of information about who to
contact about ethics matters in your state or city is the Council on
Governmental Ethics Law (COGEL).

Council on Governmental Ethics Law

310-470-6590
www.cogel.org
126 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

9. Are there other government offices that have ethics-related duties?

Yes. For more information on other U.S. government entities with
ethics/conduct-related authority, see the List of U.S. Government
Entities with Ethics/Conduct-Related Authority provided on the
OGE Web site.

10. If a federal employee feels he/she has been discriminated against in

the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, or
national origin, what should he/she do?
The first step is to contact your agency’s Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) counselor. The agency responsible for enforcing
laws that prohibit this type of workplace discrimination is the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

202-663-4900
www.eeoc.gov

Complaint Forwarding: Where can I send complaints against …

1(a). Department of Justice attorneys accused of engaging in misconduct

in connection with their duties to investigate, litigate, or provide
legal advice?
The Office of Professional Responsibility has jurisdiction to inves-
tigate these allegations, as well as related allegations of misconduct
by law enforcement personnel. (The Department of Justice Inspector
General (IG) also has jurisdiction to investigate certain allegations of
employee misconduct. The Department of Justice IG hotline is: 1-800-
869-4499).

Office of Professional Responsibility

www.usdoj.gov/opr

1(b). Assistant U.S. attorneys and U.S. attorneys accused of other offenses?
Legal Counsel’s Office
Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)
Bicentennial Bldg., Room 2200
600 E. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/
Ethics in Public Office 127

2. Court-appointed attorneys?
The Bar Association for the state in which the attorney is licensed
to practice. For more information, refer to the American Bar
Association’s Directory of Lawyer Disciplinary Agencies, orga-
nized by state:

American Bar Association

Directory of Lawyer Disciplinary Agencies
www.abanet.org/cpr/regulation/directory.pdf

3(a). U.S. District judges?

Complaints should be referred to the clerk of the United States Court
of Appeals in the circuit in which that judge presides. For more infor-
mation, contact:

Administrative Office for U.S. Courts

www.uscourts.gov

3(b). State judges?

To a judicial conduct organization for the state in which the judge
presides. For list of judicial conduct organizations by state, refer to:

Judicial Conduct Organizations

www.ajs.org/ethics/eth_conduct-orgs.asp

4. Federal prison wardens or other Bureau of Prisons employees?

Office of Internal Affairs
Bureau of Prisons
320 First Street, NW, Room 600
Washington, D.C. 20534
www.bop.gov/

(The above information was retrieved from: http://www.usoge.gov/.)

Common Ethics Issues

General Principles
Executive branch employees hold their positions as a public trust and the
American people have a right to expect that all employees will place loyalty
to the Constitution, laws, regulations, and ethical principles above private
128 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

gain. Employees fulfill that trust by adhering to general principles of ethical

conduct, as well as specific ethical standards.
Executive Order 12674, issued by President H. W. Bush in 1989 and
modified in 1990 by Executive Order 12731, states 14 general principles that
broadly define the obligations of public service. Underlying these 14 prin-
ciples are two core concepts:

• Employees shall not use public office for private gain.

• Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment
to any private organization or individual.

In addition, employees must strive to avoid any action that would create
the appearance that they are violating the law or ethical standards.
By observing these general principles, and specific ethics standards,
employees help to ensure that citizens have confidence in the integrity of
government operations and programs.
Please note that an officer or employee who is appointed to perform
temporary duties for 130 or fewer days is a Special Government Employee
(SGE). Many of the provisions summarized below apply differently to
SGEs. For a summary of these differences, see OGE Informal Opinion
00x1 (Feb. 15, 2000). Reference: Executive Order (E.O.) 11222; E.O. 12674,
as modified by E.O. 12731; 3 C.F.R. 306-311 (1990); 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101; 18
U.S.C. § 202.

Gifts from Outside Sources

Executive branch employees are subject to restrictions on the gifts that they
may accept from sources outside the government. Generally they may not
accept gifts that are given because of their official positions or that come from
certain interested sources (“prohibited sources”). Prohibited sources include
persons (or an organization made up of such persons) who:

• Are seeking official action by, are doing business or seeking to do

business with, or are regulated by the employee’s agency.
• Have interests that may be substantially affected by performance or
nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.

In addition, an employee can never solicit or coerce the offering of a gift,

or accept a gift in return for being influenced in the performance of an official
act. Nor can an employee accept gifts so frequently that a reasonable person
might think that the employee was using public office for private gain.
There are a number of exceptions to the ban on gifts from outside sources.
These allow an employee to accept:
Ethics in Public Office 129

• A gift valued at $20 or less, provided that the total value of gifts from
the same person is not more than $50 in a calendar year.
• A gift motivated solely by a family relationship or personal
friendship.
• A gift based on an employee’s or his spouse’s outside business or
employment relationships, including a gift customarily provided by a
prospective employer as part of bona fide employment discussions.
• A gift provided in connection with certain political activities.
• Gifts of free attendance at certain widely attended gatherings, pro-
vided that the agency has determined that attendance is in the inter-
est of the agency.
• Modest refreshments (such as coffee and donuts), greeting cards,
plaques and other items of little intrinsic value,
• Discounts available to the public or to all government employees,
rewards and prizes connected to competitions open to the general
public.

There are other exceptions, including exceptions for awards and honor-
ary degrees, certain discounts and other benefits, attendance at certain social
events, and meals, refreshments and entertainment in foreign countries.
These exceptions are subject to some limitations on their use. For exam-
ple, an employee can never solicit or coerce the offering of a gift. Nor can
an employee use exceptions to accept gifts on such a frequent basis that a
reasonable person would believe that the employee was using public office
for private gain.
If an employee has received a gift that cannot be accepted, the employee
may return the gift or pay its market value. If the gift is perishable (e.g., a fruit
basket or flowers) and it is not practical to return it, the gift may, with approval,
be given to charity or shared in the office. Reference: 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.201-205.

Impartiality in Performing Official Duties

Executive branch employees are required to consider whether their impar-
tiality may be questioned whenever their involvement in a particular matter
involving specific parties might affect certain personal and business rela-
tionships. A pending case, contract, grant, permit, license, or loan are some
examples of particular matters involving specific parties. A general rulemak-
ing, on the other hand, is not.
If a particular matter involving specific parties would have an effect on
the financial interest of a member of the employee’s household, or if a person
with whom the employee has a “covered relationship” is or represents a party
to such a matter, then the employee must consider whether a reasonable per-
son would question his impartiality in the matter. If the employee concludes
130 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

that there would be an appearance problem, then the employee should not
participate in the matter unless authorized by the agency.
An employee has a “covered relationship” with the following persons:

• A person with whom the employee has or seeks a business, contrac-

tual, or other financial relationship.
• A person who is a member of the employee’s household or is a relative
with whom the employee has a close personal relationship.
• A person for whom the employee’s spouse, parent, or dependent child
serves or seeks to serve as an officer, director, trustee, general partner,
agent, attorney, consultant, contractor. or employee.
• Any person for whom the employee has within the last year served as
officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant,
contractor, or employee.
• Any organization (other than a political party) in which the employee
is an active participant.

An employee may have a concern that circumstances other than those

expressly described in the regulation may raise a question regarding the
employee’s impartiality. In such a situation, the employee should follow cer-
tain procedures to determine whether or not participation in the particular
matter would be appropriate.
If someone who is entering government service has received a special
severance payment or other benefit in excess of $10,000, which his former
employer does not make to other departing employees not entering into fed-
eral service, and if certain other factors are present, then the employee must be
disqualified for two years from participating in any particular matter in which
the former employer is a party or represents a party. The agency may waive or
shorten the disqualification period. Reference: 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.501-503.

Conflicting Financial Interests

An executive branch employee is prohibited by a federal criminal statute from
participating personally and substantially in a particular government matter
that will affect his own financial interests as well as the financial interests of:

• His spouse or minor child.

• His general partner.
• An organization in which he serves as an officer, director, trustee,
general partner or employee.
• A person with whom he is negotiating for or has an arrangement
concerning prospective employment.
Ethics in Public Office 131

Several kinds of financial interests are exempt from this prohibition.

These include direct or imputed financial interests in securities that are
worth $15,000 or less and financial interests in diversified mutual funds and
unit investment trusts, regardless of their value.
Agencies may, by supplemental regulation, prohibit or restrict the
holding of certain financial interests by all or a group of agency employ-
ees. A few agencies extend such restrictions to the employee’s spouse and
minor children. Reference: 18 U.S.C. § 208; 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.401-403; 5
C.F.R. Part 2640.
Executive branch employees must not use their public office for their
own or another’s private gain. Employees are not to use their position, title,
or any authority associated with their office to coerce or induce a benefit for
themselves or others.
Employees also are not to use or allow the improper use of nonpublic
information to further a private interest, either their own or another’s.
Employees may use government property only for authorized purposes.
Government property includes office supplies, telephones, computers, copi-
ers, and any other property purchased with government funds.
Employees may not misuse official time. This includes the employee’s own
time as well as the time of a subordinate. Reference: 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.701-705.
Executive branch employees may be subject to some limitations on the
outside activities in which they may be involved. An employee may not have
outside employment or be involved in an outside activity that conflicts with
the official duties of the employee’s position. An activity conflicts with offi-
cial duties:

• If it is prohibited by statute or by the regulations of the employee’s

agency.
• If the activity would require the employee to be disqualified from
matters so central to the performance of the employee’s official
duties as to materially impair the employee’s ability to carry out
those duties.

Employees of some agencies may be required by their agency’s own sup-

plemental conduct regulations to obtain prior approval before engaging in
certain outside employment or activities.
The Supreme Court has held that prohibitions on the acceptance of
honoraria contained in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 violated the First
Amendment. Thus, an employee generally may accept honoraria, but he may
not be paid for outside teaching, speaking, and writing if the activity relates
to his official duties. However, an exception permits him to be paid for teach-
ing a course at an accredited educational institution, even where the subject
does relate to his official duties. Employees may not use their official title or
132 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

position (except as part of a biography or for identification as the author of an

article with an appropriate disclaimer) to promote a book, seminar, course,
program, or similar undertaking.
Presidential appointees to full-time, noncareer positions generally are
prohibited from receiving outside earned income. Also, certain other nonca-
reer employees are subject to monetary limitations on the amount of outside
income that they may earn.
Employees may engage in fundraising in a personal capacity subject to
several restrictions. An employee cannot solicit funds from subordinates.
And an employee cannot solicit funds from persons who have interests that
may be affected by the employee’s agency, such as those who are regulated
by, seeking official action from, or doing business with the agency. Also an
employee cannot use or permit the use of the employee’s official title, posi-
tion, or authority to promote the fundraising effort. Reference: 5 C.F.R. §§
2635.801-809; United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 115 S. Ct.
1003 (1995); OGE DAEOgram DO-95-011 (March 3, 1995).

ETHICS UNDER THE CURRENT

PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION
President Obama has consistently made clear that he will strive to lead
the most open, transparent, and accountable government in history.
Whether it is reigning in the influence of lobbyists in Washington,
bringing unprecedented accountability to federal spending, opening
doors to engagement with the American public, or shutting down the
“revolving door” that carries special interest influence in and out of the
government, the highest standards will be sought in everything the fed-
eral government does.
In accordance with all of these principles, the president signed two
Executive Orders and three Presidential Memoranda the day after his
inauguration. These five documents represent a bold first step and
a guide to every action carried out in the service of the American
people.
The Presidential Memorandum Regarding Pay Freeze states that the
president will freeze his White House senior staff pay at current levels
to the full extent allowed by law, ensuring that the budget will go as far
as possible, and signalizing that service in this administration should
not be motivated by personal gain.
The Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open
Government mandates an Open Government Directive within 120
days directing specific actions to achieve transparency, openness, and
engagement.
Ethics in Public Office 133

The Presidential Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act

instructs the Attorney General to issue new guidelines to the govern-
ment implementing those same principles of openness and transparency
in the processing of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.
The Executive Order on Presidential Records brings those principles
to presidential records by giving the American people greater access to
these historic documents, severely curtailing the ability to use execu-
tive privilege to shield those documents.
And finally, the Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by
Executive Branch Personnel laid out tough rules in a comprehensive
guide on how executive branch employees are to conduct themselves.
Read the full executive order in Appendix E. (http://www.whitehouse.
gov/issues/ethics (accessed July 10, 2010)).

Private Life and Public Office

Watch the news literally any day of the week, or pick up a newspaper, and
there is most likely a news story related to a political scandal involving a
public official’s private life. However, when a person takes a position in public
office, do they maintain a private life? Some would argue that taking public
office makes one’s entire life public. “Private life” scandals have destroyed
the careers of a great many public officials throughout history. “Attacks
upon the private lives of public figures are as old as politics” (Dobel, 1999).
Today, many public officials find themselves almost completely devoid of a
private life, a characteristic likely to remain for the foreseeable future. When
Vincent Foster, former President Bill Clinton’s White House lawyer, com-
mitted suicide, he left behind a personal note that underscores this feeling.
Foster stated that within American politics “ruining people is considered
sport” (Apple, 1993). In recent years, what would typically be considered as
private matters (financial records, friendships, romantic and sexual relation-
ships, family issues, and religious beliefs) have increasingly found themselves
as topics brought up within campaigns, nomination hearings, and public
smear campaigns.
A strong private life, with a proper network of support and privacy, is a
necessary component of a public official’s life if he is to maintain his integ-
rity while in office. An individual’s private life should provide for the social
and emotional support he needs to ensure his moral commitments as well as
provide for a place where he is able to reflect upon the challenges faced within
public life. Unfortunately for most, the line of demarcation that notes where
one’s public life ends and private life begins is often blurred. Many point
to indiscretions within one’s private life as proof of unethical behavior or
134 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

tendencies within public life and, thus, justify the intrusions and prying into
the private lives of public officials. Hillary Rodham Clinton was once quoted
as saying, “I have really been pulled kicking and screaming to the conclusion
that if you choose to run for public office you give up any zone of privacy at
all.” She could most definitely speak to the veracity of this statement based
on historical events.
There has been a steady erosion of privacy within the public sector and
those who are considering employment within public service must accept
this as a foregone conclusion and component of a position within the public
trust. One’s private life may not be that … private.

Integrity in Office

Every elected, appointed, and career individual in public office must use good
judgment and discretion while carrying out the duties and obligations of his/
her office. Society is dependent upon public officials to make conscientious
decisions and to use good skill in an effort to provide for the foundations of
public order. A proper foundation in ethics can assist in guiding public offi-
cials in exercising proper judgment and discretion.
Patrick Dobel, in his book Public Integrity, discusses the topic of public
discretion. He mentions that the concept of public discretion is “an iterative
process in which public officials move within a triangle of judgment” (Dobel,
1999) (Figure 10.2). In this model, public officials move between the three
domains, attempting to hold them in balance when making decisions.
Pe
rso
e

na
ffic

lC
fO

ap
so

aci
on

ty
ati

Decision
&
lig

Area
Co
Ob

mm
itm
en
ts

Prudence & Effectiveness

Figure 10.2 Decision triangle. (Graphic courtesy of Ellie Bruchez, University of

Wisconsin-Platteville.)
Ethics in Public Office 135

“No matter how strictly written the mandates or how clearly prescribed the
hierarchy, at some point commitments will come into conflict” (Dobel, 1999).
As a public official, it is difficult to accomplish what is “right” when faced with
limited power of checks and balances, limited information, and oppositional
governance. Add to this, conflicting loyalties and temptations associated with
power and it is a recipe for unethical behavior. It is with this in mind that there
are three models that have been offered as framework to resolve the conflicts
between the exercise of public discretion and political life.

Legal Institutional Model

The legal institutional model limits discretion in public office. All decisions
that are made by public officials should be capable of being traced back to
either clear lines of authority or clearly defined mandates. Government insti-
tutions utilizing this model would be designed in a manner that would mini-
mize discretion and maximize oversight. Laws and regulations are to be clear
and unambiguous. Such design limits abuse of discretion and ethical viola-
tions co-existing with them.

Personal Responsibility Model

The personal responsibility model is founded on the premise that an individ-
ual’s commitments, abilities, and character, which he or she possesses prior to
taking public office, are what form the heart of his/her integrity. These com-
mitments and abilities are amplified when placed in a public service role. As
a result, personal responsibility and discretion increases and personal judg-
ment becomes paramount. This model has its core foundation in that if an
individual maintains his personal integrity and responsibility when in public
office, then that individual is unable to deny responsibility for any actions or
decisions that were made in the course of his duties. All commitments and
decisions are personal commitments, which then removes the possibility of
blame from the institution or from others. In this model, officials are subject
to praise and blame, shame and satisfaction alike.

Effectiveness Model
The effectiveness model incorporates the concept of prudence into its design.
As seen within Figure 10.2, prudence and effectiveness balance out personal
capacity and commitments and the obligations of office. Prudence is a neces-
sary component as the world of politics is not without its share of friction and
dynamic partnerships. Practicing prudent decisions is often deemed wise
within the confines of political office. Any decision that is made to either
initiate or oppose should incorporate evaluation of the decision’s importance
136 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

relating to the individual’s obligations of office. However, the same individ-

ual also must question whether or not they have enough authority to enable a
successful outcome based on the decision to be made. Further considerations
include proper timing to make the decision so as to maximize success.

Conclusion

A foundation in ethical principles and ethical decision making in public

office is as important as within other areas of public service. One of the
primary differences, however, is that public official’s decisions and actions
are observed with more scrutiny. This exacerbates situations where poor
decision making has occurred or where a lack of ethical foundation exists.
Also, whereas a police officer, firefighter, or correctional officer may have
their personal lives involved minimally with relation to the performance
of their duties, public official’s private lives are rarely seen as being entirely
private, and the line separating their public and private lives is often indis-
tinguishable. Possessing a healthy and supportive private life is of para-
mount importance with regards to holding public office. To ensure the
integrity of public office, legislative and administrative actions are often
undertaken. This can be seen through the establishment of the Office of
Government Ethics and through the issuance of Executive Orders from
the President of the United States, just to name a few. These measures are
undertaken to ensure that the individuals charged with performing within
an office of public trust do so with the best of intentions and while making
“good” ethical decisions.

Ripped from the Headlines

“Lost” Bush Administration E-mails Recovered

On December 15, 2009, CNN ran a story that computer experts had managed
to recover approximately 22 million e-mails that the Bush administration
had previously said were missing. The e-mails were from 2003 to 2005, and
several groups had sued the administration for having lost the documents.
The Bush administration had explained that they had been “mislabeled and
effectively lost,” according to sources at the National Security Archive. The
controversy surrounding the missing e-mails dates back to 2006 when top
federal prosecutors in nine cities were terminated. When a congressional
committee insisted that the administration provide documents supporting
the firings, the administration claimed that “millions of e-mails might have
been lost from its servers.” This prompted Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Public Office 137

Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the National Security Archive to sue the
administration, alleging that the administration had violated federal laws
that require that presidential records be preserved. Court documents showed
that the administration was aware of the e-mail glitch and “loss” as far back
as 2005 and they made no effort to restore the lost information. However,
although the information was retrieved, the National Archives was left to
sort through which documents were covered by the Freedom of Information
Act, and which fell under the privacy of the Presidential Records Act. Such
sorting out and withholding of information could hold up the release of
records for 5 to 10 more years (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/
white.house.emails/index.html (accessed June 12, 2010)).

Ethics in Public Office: Personal versus Private Life

On February 26, 2008, Fox News ran a story stemming from the Associated
Press, which involved a mayor in Oregon being recalled due to her posing for
photos in her underwear on a town fire truck. The ousted mayor explained
that the photos had been taken for a fitness contest and were not intended
to be provocative nor made public. She said that a relative had posted them
on a social networking site (MySpace) “in hopes it would improve the social
life of the single mother.” The photos were taken prior to her being elected as
mayor, so she saw no reason to remove them from the Web site. Those vot-
ing for the recall believed “it wasn’t fitting for the mayor to be so depicted”
(http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332870,00.html (accessed March, 2010)).

Ethics in Public Office: Corruption

On November 17, 2009, CNN aired a news story that announced that a
Louisiana ex-congressman had received a sentence of 13 years in federal
prison for a corruption conviction. “A jury found the congressman guilty of
four bribery counts, three counts of money laundering, three counts of wire
fraud, and one count of racketeering.” Former U.S. Representative William
Jefferson was also ordered to forfeit over $470,000, after it was determined
he had used his public office to solicit bribes. During the investigation,
agents found and seized over $90,000 in cash from a freezer in his resi-
dence. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman stated,
“In a stunning betrayal of the public’s trust, former Congressman Jefferson
repeatedly used his public office for private gain. The lengthy prison sentence
imposed on Mr. Jefferson today is a stark reminder to all public officials that
the consequences of accepting bribes can and will be severe” (http://www.
cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/13/jefferson.sentencing/index.html (accessed
August 30, 2010)).
138 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Ethics in Public Office: Avoiding Legislation

On June 11, 2010, the Dubuque Telegraph Herald reported on an Associated
Press story, written by Michael Tarm and Mike Robinson, regarding former
Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich. The report stated that Alonzo Monk, a
former top aide to the former governor, had testified during the trial of the
ex-governor, that Blagojevich had made “a deal to appoint a state legislator
to Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat in exchange for letting a veto of ethics
legislation stand.” The aide testified that the ex-governor had been worried
that the pending legislation relating to campaign contributions would hurt
his reelection campaign. The proposed legislation, which was vetoed by the
ex-governor, banned individuals with state contracts of more than $50,000
from donating to campaigns. In wiretap recordings played before the court,
the ex-governor was overheard speaking about the need to pull in contri-
butions before the ethics law kicked in (http://www.thonline.com/article.
cfm?id=285693 (accessed June 11, 2010)).

Review Questions
1. What is the primary obligation of the legislature?
2. The Office of Agency Programs has three divisions. What are they
and what do they do?
3. The        conducts onsite ethics program reviews of head-
quarters and regional offices to determine whether an agency has an
effective ethics program tailored to its mission.
4. Which program develops and makes available ethics training courses
and materials for agency ethics officials to use in conducting ethics
training for their employees?
5. Executive branch employees fulfill trust by adhering to general prin-
ciples of         as well as specific ethical standards.
6. What are the two core concepts underlying the 14 principles of
Executive Order 12674?
7. True or False: Executive branch employees have no restrictions on the
gifts that they may accept from sources outside of the government.
8.        employees must not use their public office for their
own or another’s private gain.
9. True or False: Employees may use government property only for
authorized purposes.
10. Employees may not misuse        time.
11. True or False: There are no limitations on the outside activities
Executive branch members may be involved in.
Ethics in Public Office 139

12. A strong        life, with a proper network of support and

privacy, is a necessary component of a public official’s life if he/she is
to maintain his/her integrity while in office.
13. The        model limits discretion in public office.
14. Practicing prudent decisions (is, is not) often deemed wise within the
confines of political office.

References
Apple, R.W. Jr. 1993. Note left by White House aide: Accusation, despair and anger.
New York Times, August 11.
Dobel, J. P. 1999. Public integrity. Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Dreisbach, C. 2009. Ethics in criminal justice. New York: McGraw Hill.
 Ethics in Other Areas
of Public Service
11
We have entered what some have dubbed “The Golden Age of Exoneration.”
Saul Bellow
Learning Objectives:
1. Gain an understanding for ethical concerns as relates to military
professions.
2. Be familiar with the primary obligation of the social work profession.
3. Recognize specific areas of ethical concern for emergency medical ser-
vices personnel.
4. Explain how ethics is important within the realm of government
contracts.

Introduction

Each chapter within this text could have its own textbook on the topic. It is a
virtual impossibility to assemble a text that is all encompassing with regards
to subject matter, position description, and application to each instance
within the field of public service. While the most popular topics of criminal
justice and law have been covered up to this point, it is equally as impor-
tant to recognize that there are many other areas of public service that an
individual may choose to be involved in, and which the topic of ethics is of
equal importance to a strong foundation. This chapter attempts to assemble
a number of those which are typically left out from other texts on the topic
of ethics and, although not covered in as great of depth as those previous to
this chapter, the reader will hopefully gain insight into other areas of public
service to which the topic of ethics is of importance, and, thus, serve as an
impetus to seek out other careers of applicability and apply the concepts dis-
cussed within the confines of this text to those fields.

Military Ethics

A search of recent headlines will undoubtedly bring up examples of situa-

tions where members of the nation’s military have been involved in unethi-
cal decisions or confronted with ethical dilemmas. As with other areas of
public service, when one chooses to join the military, they give up a bit of
141
142 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

his personal life in order to serve the greater good of society. This sacrifice is
made public when an individual commits an ethics violation or is involved in
situations of questionable ethics. Few, if any, texts include military service as
a segment of public service ethics, but it is of paramount concern because the
members of our nation’s military are ambassadors to foreign countries and
protectors of our way of life. In both, possessing a strong ethical foundation
is of great importance.

ETHICS IN THE MILITARY

The necessity for military personnel to make ethical decisions has far-
reaching consequences. Unethical decisions have consequences on the
battlefield and beyond. Two examples will illustrate these points. For
the baby boomer generation, the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam
War would be the poster child as an example of a military operation
that went wrong. Elements of the 23rd Infantry Division (the American
Division) were involved in an operation to seek out and destroy the 48th
Battalion of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam
involved in recent attacks during the Tet Offensive, January of 1968.
A number of hamlets designated My Lai 1, 2, 3, and 4 were thought
to harbor elements of the Viet Cong (VC) 48th Battalion. Operations
started on March 16, 1968. At the end of the day, between 300 and 500
unarmed Vietnamese civilians, mostly women, children, and old men,
had been killed (Hersh, 1970). Initially reported that many Viet Cong
were killed in a fierce fire fight, it was not until later that the truth came
out. Attempts by senior army leaders to cover up the actions at My Lai
and claims of “just following orders” by those involved in the massacre
reveal a lack of integrity and leadership by the ones involved. As a result
of army investigations, 26 soldiers were charged with criminal offenses.
Only one, however, was convicted. Second Lieutenant William Calley,
a platoon leader, was given a life sentence for his actions on March 16.
He would serve three years.
What went wrong? Why would a small number of American soldiers
indiscriminately kill hundreds of noncombatants? Frustration by sol-
diers for not being able to engage in a visible enemy. The division had
taken numerous causalities from mines and booby traps. There were
no front lines in this war. There was no clearly visible enemy. Not like
World War II or Korea where the enemy wore identifiable uniforms and
engaged in conventional operations. This was a war of limited contacts
with small groups of soldiers, with an enemy who would disappear after
brief contacts, who for the most part dressed like local inhabitants. It
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 143

was hard to tell combatants from noncombatants. Other explanations

would include the limited one-year tour for U.S. military personnel.
It was difficult to establish unit cohesion with new people constantly
rotating in and experienced personnel rotating out. As the war contin-
ued on (major U.S. operations 1965–1973), the number of career and
experienced soldiers decreased significantly. Increased reliance was put
on draftees to fill out the ranks; individuals who did not necessarily
want to be there. As the war continued, the popularity and support on
the home front decreased. It became a very unpopular war.
What changed? The army became all voluntary. Whole units rotated
in and out of operations. There was an increased emphasis on lead-
ership, a refocus on values. The seven army values became the guid-
ing moral compass for all soldiers. These values include: loyalty, duty,
respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. Two of
these values are directly related to ethics and ethical actions and deci-
sions. First, respect: How we consider others, as in the Golden Rule—
treat others as you would like to be treated. Second is integrity: That is,
doing what is both legally and morally right, whether it is following the
rules of engagement, the treatment of detainees or prisoners of war, or
the treatment of noncombatants; actions on the part of American ser-
vice personnel that are legally and morally right.
The second example of ethical issues relating to the military is the
Abu Ghraib prison detainee abuse incident. In this case, the actions of a
few soldiers in their mistreatment of detainees had an impact far beyond
what happened at that prison. Actions by a few soldiers from the 800th
Military Police Brigade and the 205th Military Intelligence (MI) Brigade
and the photographs of their actions not only shocked the U.S. military,
but condemnation by nations from around the world had a major impact
on America ’s image. Between July 2003 and February 2004, the miscon-
duct (ranging from inhumane to sadistic) by a small group of morally
corrupt soldiers and civilians, a lack of discipline on the part of the lead-
ers and soldiers, and a failure or lack of leadership by multiple echelons
within the command structure accounted for this ethical breakdown.
The U.S. Army is an organization governed by rules and regulations.
There are regulations or field manuals for every aspect of the army. For
example Army Regulation (AR) 190-8 deals with enemy prisoners of
war, retained personnel, civilian internees, and other detainees. Army
regulations are similar to laws, violate one and you can be punished
under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). A field manual
describes how something should be done. FM 3-19 40, Military Police
(MP) Internment/Resettlement Operations, explains how an MP unit
144 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

establishes, operations, and manages an internment center or describes

how to run a prison facility. For an MP, there are at least five differ-
ent sources that explain appropriate behavior toward detainees. First
is the Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of prisoners of
war, refugees, and the protection of civilians in time of war. Second are
Department of Defense (DoD) directives that are from the Secretary of
Defense. DoD Directive 5100 69 covers DoD program for prisoners of
war and other detainees. Third is STANAGs NATO Standardization
Agreements that establishes processes and procedures between mem-
ber countries. STANAG 2033 covers the interrogation of PWs. Fourth
are Army Regulations (ARs) AR 190-8, which cover enemy prison-
ers of war, retained personnel, civilian internees, and other detainees.
Lastly, the fifth are field manuals (FMs). FM 3-18 40 covers military
police internment/resettlement operations. It is the responsibility of the
chain of command to ensure all soldiers are familiar with and have
access to all relevant materials. For the MPs of the 800th MP Brigade,
they should have had all relevant documents pertaining to the care and
treatment of detainees. This was not the case. For the MI soldiers, their
activities were governed by similar rules and regulations. Army regula-
tions 190-13 (Army physical security programs), AR 380-67 (personnel
security program), and AR 380-5 (Army Information Security) govern
the action of military intelligence personnel. Field manual (FM 34-52)
intelligence interrogations specifically lays out how interrogators are
to conduct interrogations. Nothing in the ARs or FMs sanctioned the
abuse of detainees by some of the military intelligence personnel of the
205th MI Brigade (Taguba, 2004).
Soldiers of the 800th Military Police Brigade were responsible for the
security and operations of the Abu Ghraib prison facility. Members of
the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade and civilian contractors were
responsible for the interrogation of detainees thought to possess valu-
able intelligence; information that would have an impact on military
operations (locations of weapons caches, IED (improvised explosive
device) manufacturing, insurgent groups, and their plans of attack);
information that is perishable. Information once obtained would be
rapidly sent to affected units. The purpose is to save lives.
A main issue that developed during this time frame was the status of
detainees. Where they considered prisoners of war or enemy combat-
ants or civilian noncombatants or common criminals? Which part of
the Geneva Convention applied or did it? Did interrogation techniques
approved for use in Afghanistan or Guantanamo also apply for detain-
ees in Iraq?
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 145

The army’s investigation of the actions of members of the 205th MI

Brigade “found that from 25 July 2003 to 6 February 2004, 27 personnel
from the 205th MI Brigade allegedly requested, encouraged, condoned,
or solicited military police (MP) personnel to abuse detainees and/or
participated in detainee abuse and/or violated established interrogation
procedures and applicable laws and regulations during interrogation
operations at Abu Ghraib” (Jones and Fay, 2004, p. 109).
Within the 800th MP Brigade, numerous officers and enlisted soldiers
were reprimanded or disciplined for misconduct. Some were relieved of
command and given letters of reprimand, and seven enlisted MP per-
sonnel were charged with brutalizing detainees (Higham and Stephens,
2004). Actions by Private Lynndie England and Sergeant Charles Graner
were at the center of court martial proceedings against military police
personnel. Photographs of the abuse surfaced. “In one photo, England
is depicted with a cigarette dangling from her mouth giving the thumbs
up sign, presumably to the photographer, and grinning at a naked Iraqi
man as he masturbates” (Tucker and Triantafyllos, 2008, p. 84). Just as
shocking in another photograph, “England stands looking at a naked
Iraqi man while holding a leash attached to his neck” (p. 84). In the
course of its investigation, the army investigators “discovered serious
misconduct and a loss of moral values” (Kern, Jones, and Fay, 2004).
Another example of a small group of soldiers whose behaviors were
outside the parameters of acceptable; behaviors that “were not the result
of any doctrine, training, or policy failures, but violations of the law
and misconduct” (Kern, Jones, and Fay, 2004).
Just like the soldiers at My Lai 4, soldiers at Abu Ghraib knew their
actions were wrong and their supervisor/leader also knew these actions
were wrong. They failed to take action to stop it. This brings us back to
the two army values mentioned at the beginning of this piece: respect
and integrity—treat others the way you want to be treated and do what
is morally and legally right.
It is the responsibility of every supervisor and the responsibility of
every soldier to do what is morally, legally, and ethically right. It is the
responsibility of every soldier regardless of rank to prevent, to stop, and
to report behavior that is wrong.
Tom Caywood, Ph.D.
U.S. Army Reserve (CW2, retired)
Professor of Criminal Justice
University of Wisconsin–Platteville
146 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Ethics in Social Services

According to the National Association of Social Workers, the primary obliga-

tion of the social work profession is to “enhance human well-being and help
meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the
needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and liv-
ing in poverty” (www.naswdc.org). Those involved with social work attempt
to promote social change and justice through change on behalf of “clients.”
This term is an inclusive term, used to refer to individuals, groups, families,
organizations, and communities.
As with many of the professions dedicated to public service, social work
has a mission that is rooted in a set of core values. These include, among oth-
ers, a specific listing of “integrity.” The reader is directed to the Web site for
the National Association of Social Workers (www.naswdc.org) to review a
code of ethics specific to the profession, and ethical principles and standards
that are expected of those who are certified within the field of social work.
Many professions have adopted journals as a forum to educate and train
those within the respective field with regards to ethics pertinent to the job.
Social work is no different. The Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics
“examines the ethical and values issues that impact and are interwoven with
social work practice, research, and theory development” (www.socialworker.
com/jswve/). The reader is directed to this Web site to peruse how historical
perspectives associated with social work ethics have changed and to expose
themselves to the full range of social problems and issues that social workers
typically encounter within the confines of their employment.

ETHICS IN SOCIAL WORK

Ethical social work is not simply adhering to agency policies and serv-
ing the community. Rather, acquiring ethical practice in social work is
a process that begins with a strong set of morals accompanied by educa-
tion and optimized by observation in the field. Unfortunately, there are
several opportunities to violate professional boundaries in social work
(Davidson, 2005). The following personal observations reiterate that
even though the National Association of Social Workers (2010) outlines
best practice, a few licensed social workers may find themselves walk-
ing a thin ethical line.

Observation (1): Accepting favors and gifts from clients is

discouraged.
Social worker Ray discovered that client, Arnie, worked for a
brick and block company. Ray conveniently mentioned that
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 147

he was in need of stone for a landscaping project. Arnie

indicated that he would be happy to get Ray a good deal
and proceeded to give Ray his weekend work schedule. As
Ray left Arnie’s residence, he said, “Thanks Arnie! I’ll see
you Saturday!”
Question for consideration: What kind of message did Ray send
to Arnie?

Observation (2): Case management for friends, neighbors, and/or

acquaintances is a conflict of interest.
Social worker Rita opted to refrain from informing her super-
visor that her new client lived a few houses up the street.
Rita, also failed to disclose that her new client had not only
frequented Rita’s home for dinner, but shared alcoholic
beverages on Rita’s deck. Rita believed that she could work
with her new client and also enforce the court-ordered “no
drink” restriction. After all, Rita intended to check on the
client regularly in the evening and during weekend hours.
Question for consideration: How would Rita likely respond if
she discovers that her client/neighbor is violating the absolute
sobriety condition?

Observation (3): Be aware of the danger that accompanies bend-

ing rules for clients (e.g., “Under normal circumstances, I would
respond to the concerning situation/incident, but because I
really enjoy working with the client, I think I will overlook the
situation this time”).
Social worker Lola felt a connection with her client, Courtney.
As a result, Lola minimized and justified Courtney’s drug
use despite strict orders from the judge for Courtney to
remain drug free.
Question for consideration: What are the possible ramifications
for Lola?

Observation (4): Be cognizant of how clients will interpret words

and phrases.
Social worker Rich commonly greeted new and ongoing clients
with: “What’s up, Man?” or “Hey man, how are you?” Rich
also responded to concerning client situations (e.g., domes-
tic violence by the client) with: “Don’t worry, man, we will
figure this out.”
148 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Question for consideration: What is the impact of greeting clients

with “man” and minimizing conflict/troublesome incidents?

Observation (5): Provide the same level of service and passion

regardless of the hour of the day.
On call social worker Cheyenne paced the floor as her co-
worker, Mary, finished typing up a new child abuse alle-
gation report that had been phoned in by a school social
worker late in the day. Cheyenne continually checked her
watch, swore under her breath, and even stomped her foot
after realizing that her day should officially end in three
minutes. Even though Cheyenne was cognizant that on-
call days often resulted in emergency case assignments,
Cheyenne was extremely frustrated by the thought of miss-
ing her evening plans. Subsequently, Cheyenne attempted
to persuade Mary to mark the case as a Level 2 response
time versus a Level 1 (same day) response time.
Question for consideration: What are the possible ramifications of
assigning an emergency/Level 1 physical abuse case as a Level
2 case?

Whether working with clients in jail diversion programs, assisting a

maltreated child, or providing services in another realm of social work,
there are several opportunities to cross ethical boundaries. As implied
in the “questions for consideration,” repercussions extend beyond sim-
ply losing social work licensure or a job. Social workers must be cog-
nizant of the effects of their behavior on clients and communities they
serve.

Amy Nemmetz, Ph.D.

State of Wisconsin social worker

Ethics in Emergency Medical Services

While many of our nation’s emergency medical services are made up of pri-
vate industry, some are employed as components of our nation’s public fire
services or emergency management services, and, therefore, it is important
to discuss services within the confines of this text. So, why discuss ethics
in emergency medical services (EMS)? Imagine you are a paramedic who
arrives at the scene of a multiple motor vehicle accident. The driver is assessed
as being of emergent concern and requires medical transport. Although in
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 149

urgent need of medical attention, she is unconcerned about herself and con-
tinuously inquires as to the status of her passenger, who is dead. How do you
respond to her? The response may hinge on your actual job position. If you
are a physician then the answer must be with complete honesty, based on the
American Medical Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics. “A physician
shall be honest in all professional interactions” (www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/
physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics.shtml). However, if
you are a paramedic or emergency medical technician (EMT), then there is
no code that dictates that honesty must be the response. Therefore, if you were
to tell the driver that her passenger was being attended to and was receiving
the best medical care possible, but that your emphasis had to be placed on her
for the moment, telling the truth would be avoided through deflection and
information short of complete divulgence. These are the instances that one
may be presented with within the confines of emergency medical services
response, which would necessitate that an individual have a foundation in
ethics and could make sound ethical decisions.
Specific areas of ethical concern for those in emergency medical ser-
vices include:
• Confidentiality
• Consent
• Disclosure
• Limits to medical treatment
• Off-duty response
For a sample code of ethics associated with emergency medical services,
the reader is directed to the code of ethics for the National Association of
Emergency Medical Technicians: www.publicsafety.net/emtcode.htm

Ethics in Firefighting

Ethics with regards to firefighting is a sadly underexplored and undocu-

mented field. Some believe that ethics associated with firefighting is compa-
rable to medical ethics and, thus, does not necessitate unique identification
or attention. However, firefighting is significantly less professional in some
regions, sometimes made up almost entirely of volunteers and subsidized fire
equipment. Also, a firefighter’s role does not primarily involve care-giving,
and instead is central on other aspects than life and limb. Firefighters also
face much greater risks than most medical personnel and must make deci-
sions and operate in conditions that are much more hazardous and some-
times more stressful. All of the aforementioned speak to reasons why the area
of firefighting should be another area of public service, which should have its
own identified concern for and answer to ethical issues. The International
150 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Association of Fire Fighters’ Manual of Common Procedure and Related

Subjects contains a code of ethics that is assembled to assist firefighters with
remembering their career and mission goals (www.affi-iaff.org).

Ethics in Government Contracts

“The Government relies on many contractors to provide products to the gov-

ernment and perform services for or on behalf of the government. Contractor
personnel generally are not subject to the same general principles of ethical
conduct and specific ethical standards as are executive branch employees.
However, federal contractors and their employees are subject to other restric-
tions, many of which involve standards of conduct and ethical concerns,
which are imposed by law or regulation, by contract, and often by the con-
tractors, themselves” (http://www.usoge.gov/).
In December 2007, Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) were enacted
that now require a written code of business ethics be a component of many
government contracts. Because government utilizes public funding, it is nec-
essary that there be strict ethical standards in place. However, many contrac-
tors are not aware of the complexities and areas where ethical concerns may
lurk. It is important that contracting officials properly inform contractors
as to the basics of such things as gift giving/acceptance, and soliciting for
and awarding of contracts. The end result of proper adherence to ethics with
regards to contractual relationships in public service can be a good contract,
which can lead to productive future relationships between the contractor and
the involved government agency.

Bribery in Contracting

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Twenty-Two Executives and Employees of Military

and Law Enforcement Products Companies
Charged in Foreign Bribery Scheme
Defendants Arrested in Las Vegas and Miami; 21 Search
Warrants Executed in United States and United Kingdom
Twenty-two executives and employees of companies in the military and
law enforcement products industry have been indicted for engaging in
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 151

schemes to bribe foreign government officials to obtain and retain busi-

ness, announced Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the
Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips for the District of
Columbia; and Assistant Director Kevin Perkins of the FBI’s Criminal
Investigative Division. Twenty-one defendants were arrested in Las Vegas
yesterday. One defendant was arrested in Miami. The indictments stem
from an FBI undercover operation that focused on allegations of foreign
bribery in the military and law enforcement products industry.
The 16 indictments unsealed today represent the largest single inves-
tigation and prosecution against individuals in the history of DOJ’s
enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law that pro-
hibits U.S. persons and companies, and foreign persons and companies
acting in the United States, from bribing foreign government officials for
the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. The indictments unsealed
today were returned on Dec. 11, 2009, by a grand jury in Washington,
D.C.
In connection with these indictments, approximately 150 FBI agents
executed fourteen search warrants in locations across the country,
including Bull Shoals, Arkansas; San Francisco; Miami; Ponte Vedra
Beach, Florida; Sarasota, Florida; St. Petersburg, Florida; Sunrise,
Florida; University Park, Florida; Decatur, Georgia; Stearns, Kentucky;
Upper Darby, Pennsylvania; and Woodbridge, Virginia. Additionally, the
United Kingdom’s City of London Police executed seven search warrants
in connection with their own investigations into companies involved in
the foreign bribery conduct that formed the basis for the indictments.
“This ongoing investigation is the first large-scale use of undercover
law enforcement techniques to uncover FCPA violations and the largest
action ever undertaken by the Justice Department against individuals for
FCPA violations,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer. “The
fight to erase foreign bribery from the corporate playbook will not be won
overnight, but these actions are a turning point. From now on, would-be
FCPA violators should stop and ponder whether the person they are try-
ing to bribe might really be a federal agent.”
“Corrupt payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business
erode public confidence in our free market system and threaten to
undermine foreign governments,” said U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips.
“These indictments set forth serious allegations and reflect the depart-
ment’s commitment to aggressively investigate and prosecute those who
try to advance their businesses through foreign bribery.”
“Investigating corruption at all levels is the number one priority of the
FBI’s Criminal Division,” said Assistant Director Kevin Perkins of the FBI’s
Criminal Investigative Division. “In this era of global commerce, the FBI is
committed to curbing corruption at home or overseas. Companies should
152 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

prosper through honest business practices, not the practice of backroom

deals and bribery.”
The indictments allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to
pay bribes to the minister of defense for a country in Africa. In fact, the
scheme was part of the undercover operation, with no actual involvement
from any minister of defense. As part of the undercover operation, the
defendants allegedly agreed to pay a 20 percent “commission” to a sales
agent who the defendants believed represented the minister of defense
for a country in Africa in order to win a portion of a $15 million deal to
outfit the country’s presidential guard. In reality, the “sales agent” was an
undercover FBI agent. The defendants were told that half of that “com-
mission” would be paid directly to the minister of defense. The defen-
dants allegedly agreed to create two price quotations in connection with
the deals, with one quote representing the true cost of the goods and the
second quote representing the true cost, plus the 20 percent “commis-
sion.” The defendants also allegedly agreed to engage in a small “test”
deal to show the minister of defense that he would personally receive the
10 percent bribe.
The indictments charge the following executives and employees of
the various companies in the military and law enforcement product
industries:

• Daniel Alvirez, 32, and Lee Allen Tolleson, 25, the president and
director of acquisitions and logistics at a company in Bull Shoals,
Arkansas, that manufactures and sells law enforcement and mili-
tary equipment.
• Helmie Ashiblie, 44, the vice president and founder of a company
in Woodbridge, Virginia, that supplies tactical bags and other
security-related articles for law enforcement agencies and gov-
ernments worldwide.
• Andrew Bigelow, 40, the managing partner and director of gov-
ernment programs for a Sarasota, Florida, company that sells
machine guns, grenade launchers, and other small arms and
accessories.
• R. Patrick Caldwell, 61, and Stephen Gerard Giordanella, 50, the
current and former chief executive officers of a Sunrise, Florida,
company that designs and manufactures concealable and tactical
body armor.
• Yochanan R. Cohen, aka Yochi Cohen, 47, the chief executive
officer of a San Francisco company that manufactures security
equipment, including body armor and ballistic plates.
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 153

• Haim Geri, 50, the president of a North Miami Beach, Florida,

company that serves as a sales agent for companies in the law
enforcement and military products industries.
• Amaro Goncalves, 49, the vice president of sales for a Springfield,
Massachusetts, company that designs and manufactures fire-
arms, firearm safety/security products, rifles, firearms systems,
and accessories.
• John Gregory Godsey, aka Greg Godsey, 37, and Mark Frederick
Morales, 37, the owner and agent of a Decatur, Georgia, company
that sells ammunition and other law enforcement and military
equipment.
• Saul Mishkin, 38, the owner and chief executive officer of an
Aventura, Florida, company that sells law enforcement and mili-
tary equipment.
• John M. Mushriqui, 28, and Jeana Mushriqui, 30, the director of
international development and general counsel/U.S. manager of
an Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, company that manufactures and
exports bulletproof vests and other law enforcement and military
equipment.
• David R. Painter, 56, and Lee M. Wares, 43, the chairman and
director of a United Kingdom company that markets armored
vehicles.
• Pankesh Patel, 43, the managing director of a United Kingdom
company that acts as sales agent for companies in the law enforce-
ment and military products industries.
• Ofer Paz, 50, the president and chief executive officer of an Israeli
company that acts as sales agent for companies in the law enforce-
ment and military products industries.
• Jonathan M. Spiller, 58, the owner and president of a Ponte Vedra
Beach, Florida, company that markets and sells law enforcement
and military equipment.
• Israel Weisler, aka Wayne Weisler, 63, and Michael Sacks, 66,
owners and co-chief executive officers of a Stearns, Kentucky.,
company that designs, manufactures, and sells armor products,
including body armor.
• John Benson Wier III, 46, the president of a St. Petersburg,
Florida, company that sells tactical and ballistic equipment.

All of the defendants except Giordanella were arrested yesterday by

FBI agents in Las Vegas. Giordanella was arrested in Miami, also by FBI
agents.
Each of the indictments allege that the defendants conspired to vio-
late the FCPA, conspired to engage in money laundering, and engaged in
154 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

substantive violations of the FCPA. The indictments also seek criminal

forfeiture of the defendants’ ill gotten gains.
The maximum prison sentence for the conspiracy count and for each
FCPA count is five years. The maximum sentence for the money launder-
ing conspiracy charge is 20 years in prison.
These cases are being prosecuted by Assistant Chief Hank Bond
Walther and Trial Attorney Laura N. Perkins of the Criminal Division’s
Fraud Section, and Matthew C. Solomon of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
the District of Columbia. The cases were investigated by the FBI Washington
Field Office squad that specializes in investigations into FCPA violations
(http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/January/10-crm-048.html).

Legislation Regarding Ethics in Public Service

As government contracts become potentially more lucrative, there is an

increased probability for corruptness and ethical violations associated with
such matters. Recent historical events have resulted in legislation to com-
bat this potential, and, in some cases, this reality. Following the Hurricane
Katrina tragedy, which struck the United State’s southern coast, there was
wide-spread abuse of federal resources that had been earmarked for disaster
assistance to the stricken regions. Fraudulent companies, contractors, and
individuals came out of the woodwork to “assist” with disaster relief efforts,
but who ultimately made off with millions of dollars in federal aid dollars.
The result was a country shocked and an industry mistrusted. This was the
impetus for the 2007 Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty
Enhancement Act.

H.R.846—Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty

Enhancement Act of 2007 (Introduced in House – IH) HR 846 IH
110th Congress
1st Session
H. R. 846
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraud in connec-
tion with major disaster or emergency funds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 6, 2007
Mr. CHABOT (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr.
COBLE, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, and Mr. PENCE) introduced the fol-
lowing bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 155

A Bill
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraud in connec-
tion with major disaster or emergency funds.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud
Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007.”

Sec. 2. Fraud in Connection With Major

Disaster Or Emergency Benefits.
(a) In General—Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

Sec. 1039. Fraud in connection with major

disaster or emergency benefits
(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b) of this
section, knowingly
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device
any material fact; or
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
or representation, or makes or uses any false writing or docu-
ment knowing the same to contain any materially false, ficti-
tious, or fraudulent statement or representation, in any matter
involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted,
transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with a major
disaster declaration under section 401 of the Disaster Relief
Act of 1974, or an emergency declaration under section 501
of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, or in connection with any
procurement of property or services related to any emergency
or disaster declaration as a prime contractor with the United
States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which
there is a prime contract with the United States, shall be fined
under this title, imprisoned for not more than 30 years, or
both.
(b) The circumstance to which subsection (a) of this section refers is
that—
(1) the authorization, transportation, transmission, transfer, dis-
bursement, or payment of the benefit is in or affects interstate
or foreign commerce;
156 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

(2) the benefit is transported in the mail at any point in the

authorization, transportation, transmission, transfer, dis-
bursement, or payment of that benefit; or
(3) the benefit is a record, voucher, payment, money, or thing of
value of the United States, or of any department or agency
thereof.
(c) In this section, the term `benefit’ means any record, voucher,
payment, money or thing of value, good, service, right, or privi-
lege provided by the United States, State or local government, or
other entity.’
(b) Clerical Amendment: The table of sections for chapter 47 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the
following new item:
1039. Fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits.’

Sec. 3. Increased Criminal Penalties For Engaging In Wire,

Radio, And Television Fraud During And Relation To A
Presidentially Declared Major Disaster Or Emergency.
Section 1343 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting:
‘occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported,
transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presi-
dentially declared major disaster or emergency, or’ after ‘If the violation.’

Sec. 4. Increased Criminal Penalties For Engaging In

Mail Fraud During And Relation To A Presidentially
Declared Major Disaster Or Emergency.
Section 1341 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting:
‘occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported,
transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presi-
dentially declared major disaster or emergency, or’ after ‘If the violation.’

Sec. 5. Directive To Sentencing Commission.

(a) In General: Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title
28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the
United States Sentencing Commission forthwith shall—
(1) promulgate sentencing guidelines or amend existing sen-
tencing guidelines to provide for increased penalties for per-
sons convicted of fraud or theft offenses in connection with
a major disaster declaration under section 5170 of title 42,
United States Code, or an emergency declaration under sec-
tion 5191 of title 42, United States Code; and
(2) submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the United
States Congress an explanation of actions taken by the
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 157

Commission pursuant to paragraph (1) and any additional

policy recommendations the Commission may have for com-
bating offenses described in that paragraph.
(b) Requirements: In carrying out this section, the Sentencing
Commission shall—
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy statements
reflect the serious nature of the offenses described in sub-
section (a) and the need for aggressive and appropriate law
enforcement action to prevent such offenses;
(2) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives
and with other guidelines;
(3) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that might justify exceptions, including circumstances for
which the sentencing guidelines currently provide sentenc-
ing enhancements;
(4) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing
guidelines; and
(5) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of
sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United
States Code.
(c) Emergency Authority and Deadline for Commission Action:
The Commission shall promulgate the guidelines or amend-
ments provided for under this section as soon as practica-
ble, and in any event not later than the 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, in accordance with the proce-
dures set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Reform Act of
1987, as though the authority under that Act had not expired
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.846:).

Conclusion

Regardless of the area of public service where one finds oneself employed, a
foundation in ethical decision making is of paramount importance. As has
been shown repeatedly throughout this text, there are numerous obstacles
along the way and difficult circumstances in which one may be confronted.
Perception can oftentimes be the reality that we live and work by, and so it
is necessary that one stops to consider the perception, as well as the impact
of the decisions that he or she makes through the course of his/her work in
public service.
158 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Ripped from the Headlines

Public Perception of Public Service Ethics

A November 2009 Gallup News Poll reported that, in spite of many news
stories reporting to the contrary, honesty and integrity of police officers
is still high. While, for the eighth year in a row, nurses were the ones to
top the Gallup’s annual “Honesty and Ethics of Professions” survey, police
officers finished fourth out of the 21 categories, with 89 percent of those
polled believing officers to have above average or high ethical standards.
Other than nurses, only pharmacists and medical doctors finished ahead
of police officers.
Unfortunately, not all areas of public service were seen as being as ethi-
cal. Members of Congress finished 18th, seen as ethical by only 9 percent
of those polled. State governors also were low on the list, most likely due
to recent media events, posting a 15 percent above average ethical score.
Finishing slightly behind the governors was the category of lawyers, with a 13
percent average. Car salespeople brought up the rear, with a 6 percent ethical
average (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/Honesty-Ethics-Professions.aspx
(accessed August 29, 2010)).

Military Mentors Cashing In (USA Today, November 18, 2009)

An increasing number of retired senior military personnel are finding “retire-
ment” to be a lucrative venture. There are at least 158 retired generals and
admirals that the Pentagon has hired to act as senior mentors. These mentors
are paid hundreds of dollars an hour to offer advice to former colleagues,
to help run war games, and to offer advice on tactical, technological, and
strategic plans. This arrangement is in addition to their military pensions,
typically ranging between $100,000 and $200,000. This is not a new phenom-
enon. Retired military executives have been taking positions with defense
contractors for decades, following retirement from the military. However,
recently, there has been a very large increase in the numbers of individuals
doing so and it is creating significant controversy since these individuals are
being compensated both by taxpayers and by industry, with very little if any
oversight to prevent their private industry employers from making use of
acquired knowledge to secure government contracts. This is not, however,
illegal. There is nothing that prohibits retired personnel from engaging in
such events.
According to the USA Today article, based on interviews and public
records:
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 159

• 80 percent of the 158 retired generals and admirals had ties to defense
contractors, including earning salaries, stock options, and/or serv-
ing as employees or board members.
• The individuals were hired as independent contractors and, thus, are
not subject to government ethics regulations that would otherwise
apply if they were serving in the capacity of a federal employee.
• Mentors are compensated at between $200 and $340 an hour for
their time.

The concern is not with the amount of money that these individuals are
making, but rather with the information that they are exposed to and how
they and their private employers may profit from access to such information.
For instance, if a retired marine general is hired as a private contractor to
oversee war games and offer advice on deployment strategies and technol-
ogy to employ, then he or she will undoubtedly have access to the latest in
military strategies and hardware. This contractor can then go back to his
or her company and divulge such information, which could benefit the pri-
vate company with regard to future government contracts. A retired senior
air force official was quoted as saying, “I am sure that I am getting current
information and updates that could make me ‘useful’ to some aerospace con-
tractor.” The question isn’t so much if senior mentors have access to such
information, but rather what they choose to do with it?
Marine General James Mattis, commander of Norfolk-based Joint Forces
Command, was quoted as saying, “if your concern is that we’re exposing them
to things that would allow them to have an advantage for their company, I
doubt if that can be refuted… The only way to not have that would be to
have either amateurs on their boards of directors, or amateurs in our thing.”
Therein lies the problem. Neither industry nor the military benefits from hav-
ing amateurs in either position. And yet, with knowledgeable professionals,
there appears to be the potential for ethically muddy waters. Representative
Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, released a statement pertaining to the situation, say-
ing that “government ethics laws are in place for a reason. These laws require
that any potential conflicts of interest be disclosed, evaluated, and managed.
I would expect the Pentagon to fully comply with both the letter and spirit
of these requirements. The invaluable expertise of retired military officers
should be utilized without sacrificing transparency and accountability.”
Private defense companies have long sought retired military personnel
to act as advisors, as has the government sought retirees to offer insight. The
ethical matter of concern isn’t the paycheck (or paychecks, in some cases)
associated with such insight, but rather the perception (or actuality) of
insider knowledge being used to secure future government contracts. Access
and insider knowledge continue to be prized, and as a result, there will need
160 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

to be continued concern and oversight with regards to the ethics and legality
of this practice.

Emergency Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement

Act of 2007 Statute Being Used to Charge Defendants
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
“More Than 900 Defendants Charged with Disaster-Related Fraud by
Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force during Three Years in Operation”
WASHINGTON—The Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force has brought
federal charges against 907 individuals in 43 federal judicial districts across
the country since Hurricane Katrina made landfall in southern Louisiana in
August 2005, Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich of the
Criminal Division announced today. The Task Force, chaired by Friedrich,
reported the charges as part of its accomplishments during its third year of
operation in 2007–2008.
In September 2005, in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,
the Department of Justice established the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task
Force. The Task Force is charged with deterring, detecting, and prosecuting
individuals who try to take advantage of the disasters related to Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike as well as other natural disasters. The
Task Force tracks referrals of potential cases and complaints, coordinates
with law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations and works with the
appropriate U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to ensure timely and effective prosecu-
tion of disaster-related fraud cases. By using the investigative assets of fed-
eral law enforcement agencies, federal inspectors general and state and local
law enforcement, together with the prosecutorial resources of the 93 U.S.
Attorneys’ Offices, the Task Force can act quickly and aggressively to bring to
justice those who would further harm the victims of these natural disasters.
“Whenever a natural disaster strikes, there will always be unscrupulous
people willing to take advantage of victim assistance and rebuilding efforts,”
said Matthew Friedrich, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal
Division and chair of the Task Force. “Those who would try to profit from the
misfortunes of disaster victims should know that the Department of Justice,
federal investigative agencies, and inspectors general will continue their
aggressive pursuit of disaster fraud.”
Notable accomplishments for the Task Force in the past year include
the following:

• Joint Command Center. To date, the Command Center has received

and screened more than 26,000 complaints relating to disaster fraud
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 161

and referred more than 17,000 of those complaints to law enforce-

ment for investigation. In addition, in 2008, the Command Center
disaster fraud hotline was made available to receive complaints
about possible fraud relating to the California wildfires, the Iowa
floods, and most recently Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.
• Prosecutions. Throughout the past year, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
across the country have prosecuted numerous hurricane-related cases
that involved a wide range of crimes including emergency-benefit
fraud, identity theft, procurement fraud, and public corruption. The
ability to prosecute disaster-related fraud cases was enhanced when
the Emergency Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act
of 2007 was enacted into law in January 2008. Examples of fraud
cases include:
• Contract Fraud/Corruption. On May 15, 2008, a federal grand
jury in the Eastern District of Louisiana indicted a former con-
tract employee for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a dirt,
sand, and gravel subcontractor in connection with a $16 million
hurricane protection project for the reconstruction of the Lake
Cataouatche levee, located south of New Orleans. Both defen-
dants were charged with one count of conspiring to commit
bribery, one defendant was charged with two counts of offering
a bribe to a public official, and the other defendant was charged
with one count of demanding and agreeing to accept a bribe as a
public official.
• Investment Fraud. On Feb. 8, 2008, a federal grand jury in the
Southern District of Texas indicted a man on two counts of wire
fraud relating to his alleged operation of a fraudulent investment
scheme. Beginning in 2006, the defendant allegedly falsely told
investors he was using their money to purchase and refurbish
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trailers, but
failed to ever purchase the trailers and failed to return the inves-
tors’ money.
• Charity Fraud. On Nov. 28, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas sentenced two brothers to 111 months
and 105 months in prison, respectively, for their roles in fraud-
ulently operating a Web site that purported to raise money on
behalf of the Salvation Army for Hurricane Katrina victims. The
defendants registered http://www.salvationarmyonline.org on
Sept. 3, 2005, less than a week after Hurricane Katrina struck
New Orleans. The Web site stated that it was “The Salvation
Army International Home Page” and falsely purported to solicit
charitable donations for Hurricane Katrina, and later Hurricane
Rita, relief. A link on the Web site directed contributors to donate
162 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

via PayPal, a service that allows for online money transfers. The
defendants created numerous accounts with the service and reg-
istered those accounts using the names and identification infor-
mation, including Social Security numbers, of other individuals
not involved in the fraudulent scheme. The accounts, however,
were linked by the brothers to bank accounts belonging to one
or both of them. The fraudulent Web site collected more than
$48,000 before all the accounts were frozen.
• Charity Fraud. On Sept. 24, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana sentenced a defendant to 17 months
in prison for mail fraud in connection with Katrina disaster-
relief funds granted to the Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church,
the church where he ministered. The congregation’s building was
devastated by flood water from Hurricane Katrina, but the church
did not have flood insurance, so the congregation applied for a
Small Business Administration (SBA) loan and a grant from the
Bush–Clinton Katrina Fund to offset the cost of rebuilding. The
church was awarded a $252,000 disaster loan from the SBA and a
$35,000 grant from the Bush–Clinton Katrina Fund. According
to court documents, the defendant created a scheme to defraud
the church of the $35,000 Bush–Clinton grant for his own per-
sonal benefit by having the fund’s check mailed to his house and
then deposited into a bank account that he established and con-
trolled. The defendant created a similar scheme to defraud the
church of the SBA loan money by having the SBA wire the ini-
tial $10,000 disbursement of the disaster loan into the same bank
account. He spent at least $10,000 of the relief money on a new
Dodge Durango for himself.
• Embezzlement. On June 6, 2008, a federal grand jury in the
Middle District of Alabama indicted a former FEMA manager
for embezzlement of a trailer intended for victims of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, embezzlement of a government vehicle and
obstruction of justice. The indictment alleges that the defendant,
while the manager of the FEMA emergency housing unit in
Selma, Alabama, which FEMA used for the storage, transporta-
tion, and delivery of travel trailers in the aftermath of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita, embezzled a 39-foot Cherokee Travel Trailer
and his government vehicle, to which he had access by virtue
of his management position with FEMA. It also charged him
with attempting to corruptly influence the ongoing investigation
against him in the Middle District of Alabama.
• Individual Assistance Fraud. On Sept. 30, 2008, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas unsealed an indictment
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 163

charging a defendant with mail fraud, aggravated identity theft,

and disaster assistance fraud for her role in submitting multi-
ple false applications for emergency benefits to FEMA. The new
statute under which the defendant is charged was enacted in
January 2008 as part of the Emergency Disaster Assistance Fraud
Penalty Enhancement Act of 2007. According to the indictment,
the defendant submitted multiple false claims to FEMA for
assistance relating to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and
Hurricane Ike in 2008. It also alleges that the defendant not only
used slight variations of her name and Social Security numbers
belonging to others, but assisted her husband and two relatives in
filing multiple false FEMA claims using Social Security numbers
belonging to others.
• Individual Assistance Fraud. On June 9, 2008, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas sentenced eight defen-
dants for their roles in a FEMA fraud conspiracy involving more
than 70 applications for Katrina and Rita benefits on behalf of res-
idents in area apartment complexes who were not victims of the
hurricanes. The leader of the group was sentenced to 33 months
in prison and ordered to pay $92,958 in restitution and forfeit the
Lincoln Navigator she purchased with the fraudulent funds.
• Individual Assistance Fraud. On Jan.10, 2008, the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama sentenced a defendant
to 43 years in prison-the longest sentence to date handed down in
a Katrina- or Rita-related fraud case. At trial, the jury found the
defendant guilty of 22 counts involving the filing of false claims
for Hurricane Katrina disaster assistance, theft of funds intended
for victims of Hurricane Katrina, threatening a witness from
another Hurricane Katrina case, conspiracy, drug distribution,
weapons charges, and making false statements to federal author-
ities. The defendant’s sentence comprised 34 years of statutory
mandatory minimum sentences for the threatening of a witness,
for the drug and gun charges, and for the aggravated identity
theft. The additional nine years related to the defendant’s theft,
conspiracy to defraud FEMA, and drug distribution charges.
As related to the Katrina fraud, the sentencing judge addition-
ally found that while the defendant was successful in stealing
$80,000 from FEMA, her intent was to steal more than $500,000
in FEMA funds.

The Task Force includes the Criminal, Civil and Antitrust Divisions
of the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the FBI, the Postal
Inspection Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Trade Commission,
164 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal inspectors general, and

various representatives of state and local law enforcement.
The Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force continues to combat fraud relat-
ing to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Gustav, and Ike as well as their after-
math. To date, the Command Center has received nearly 667 calls regarding
potential Hurricane Gustav–related fraud and nearly 466 calls regarding
potential Hurricane Ike–related fraud. Members of the public can report
fraud, waste, abuse, or allegations of mismanagement involving disaster relief
operations through the Disaster Fraud Hotline at 866-720-5721, the Disaster
Fraud Fax at 225-334-4707, or the Disaster Fraud e-mail at [email protected].
Individuals can also report criminal activity to the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI
or www.fbi.gov.

Review Questions
1. True or False: When looking at ethics in the military, unethical deci-
sions have no consequences on the battlefield.
2. The seven army values include      ,      ,      ,
     ,      ,      , and      .
3. What is integrity?
4. There are      or field      for every aspect of the army.
5. It is the responsibility of every supervisor and every soldier to do what
is      ,      , and      right.
6. What is the primary obligation of the social work profession?
7. The specific areas of ethical concern for emergency medical services
include      ,      ,      ,      , and      .
8. Federal Acquisition Regulations were enacted that now require
a      code of business ethics be a component of many govern-
ment contracts.

References
Davidson, J. C. 2005. Professional relationship boundaries: A social work teaching mod-
ule. Social Work Education 25 (5): 511–533. doi: 10.1080/02615470500132715.
Hersh, S. E. 1970. My Lai 4: A report on the massacre and its aftermath. New York:
Random House.
Higham, S. and J. Stephens. 2004. New details of prison abuse emerge. The Washington
Post, May 21, p. A01, www.washingtonpost.com.
Jones, A. R., and G. R. Fay. 2004. AR 15-6 investigation of the Abu Ghraib Prison and
205th Military Intelligence Brigade. Department of Defense Report, August 23,
Washington, D. C.
Ethics in Other Areas of Public Service 165

Kern, P., A. R. Jones, and G. R. Fay. 2004. Defense Department Briefing on Results of
Investigation of Military Intelligence Activities at Abu Ghraib Prison Facility,
Wednesday August 25, Washington, D,C.
National Association of Social Workers. 2010. Practice. From www.naswdc.org/prac-
tice/default.asp (accessed August 2, 2010).
Taguba, A. M. 2004. AR 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade.
Department of Defense Report, June 4, Washington, D.C.
Tucker, B. and S. Triantafyllos. 2008. Lynndie England , Abu Ghraib, and the new
Imperialism. Canadian Journal of American Studies 38: 83-100.
USA Today. 2009. Military mentors cashing in. November 18.
Ethics Training
and Education
RANDY TAYLOR, D. M.
Chief of Police, Ellis, Kansas, Police Department
12
To educate a man in mind but not in morals is to create a menace to society.
Theodore Roosevelt
Terms: Culturalization, socialization.
Learning Objectives:
1. Define and explain the concept of culturalization.
2. Define and explain the concept of socialization.
3. Be able to explain the impact of failing to monitor and regulate ethics
within a department.
4. Define and differentiate between the ethical systems that are a compo-
nent of ethics-based training.
5. Define the components of successful leadership training.

Introduction

There are two primary methods of education that are used within the major-
ity of criminal justice agencies within the United States. These educational
methods can be categorized as being either socializational (learned) or cul-
turalizational (adopted) in nature (Bowen, 2010).
Education by socialization is a practice whereby individuals acquire ethi-
cal knowledge and principles through training and experiential education.
This method is oftentimes utilized within the medical and legal fields with
regards to ethical education. Typical coursework is made up of a blend of
philosophy and logic, and centers around discussions relating to specific
ethical challenges that are relevant to the field of employment. Adhering to a
more formalized method of education often results in added credibility and
an increase in public trust. The training is typically led by experts within
the appropriate field or veteran employees of the agency or organization.
Employees also are provided with instruction relating to reasonable expecta-
tions of their field of employment. It bears mentioning that although there
has been an increase in ethics-based training during recent years, the topic is
still not typically a requirement of most agencies or organization’s required

167
168 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

training programs, which results in the topic being introduced informally, if

it is addressed at all.
Culturalization refers to the informal method of education whereby new
employees learn values and ethics-based decision-making skills based on
personal experiences, typically from instructors or mentors who were also
taught ethics-based skills informally. As this pattern of informal training
advances, individual interpretation of the agency, organization, or overall
professions’ ethical principles can become confused or muddied. Instructor
or mentor bias also strongly influences this method of education. If a mentor
has negative values that conflict with organizational, societal, or even legal
values, the student receives improper information and, thus, the educational
process has done them a tremendous disservice. Some areas of public service
allow for the employee to exercise discretion within his decision-making pro-
cesses. Although this may be a common attribute of the profession, this in of
itself has the potential to create great ethical problems, as has been previously
discussed. There is no way to ensure that an agency’s or organization’s poli-
cies and procedures are detailed enough to regulate every situation that an
individual may encounter during the course of his/her employment. These
unregulated or uninstructed “gray areas” are where an individual is required
to make a discretionary decision. As has been previously discussed, it is an
individual’s training and experience with regards to ethical decision making
that will result in the “best” outcome with regards to discretionary decisions.
In situations that necessitate the individual to make a discretionary decision,
the must “rely on her inherent, learned, and adopted values that may present
the opportunities for unethical behavior” (Bowen, 2010).

Ethics-Based Training
Ethics is law enforcement’s greatest training and leadership need for several
crucial reasons. Most law enforcement agencies neglect to conduct annual
internal ethics training and many never provide this type of instruction
even though nothing is more devastating to the agencies and profession than
police misbehavior (Prevost and Trautman, n.d.). The fallout from this dev-
astation includes:

1. Large-scale civil suits with substantial settlements or judgments.

2. Misconduct is fully publicized and sometimes exaggerated by the
media.
3. Community relations and respect from the public is damaged.
4. Supervisors may be fired or demoted, others are more fortunate, but
may never be promoted again.
5. Individual officers and their families face overwhelming public
humiliation.
Ethics Training and Education 169

6. Each year, two to three times the number of officers who die in the
line of duty commit suicide. Some of them do so as the result of their
misconduct, believing they have lost both their career and cannot
face their loved ones (p. 1).

In recent years, ethics training has become a prominent component of

police academies. Generally, the topic of these courses consist of one philo-
sophical framework and then discussion of hypothetical or researched ethi-
cal dilemmas that are evaluated using that one philosophy.
Students are educated on a variety of ethical issues and asked to construc-
tively determine their ethical fiber based on issues, such as gratuities, corrup-
tion, bribery, whistle-blowing, loyalty, undercover tactics, use of deception,
discretion, sex on duty, using deadly force, and brutality. Many of these issues
involve officer deviance and are easy for students to determine their responses
while sitting in a classroom. In some situations, however, any decision that an
officer makes is not clearly wrong (Pollock and Becker, 1996).
Williamson et. al. (2007) discuss partial dilemmas that face officers out-
side of the classroom that depend on police discretion and boarder or cross the
line of officer misconduct. Police officers function as the constituted authority
charged with enforcing laws that society deems immoral. An example of this
dilemma would be the street officer that knows that a woman is a prostitute,
but does not actively pursue an investigation against her because he knows
prostitution is the only method she has to support her family.
Ethics-based training consists of the development of ethical systems to help
officers identify and apply procedural framework (Pollock and Becker, 1996):

1. Religious ethics: What is good conforms to a deity’s will. Religious

ethics borrows moral concepts from religious teachings and draws
on the participants’ various religious beliefs. Discussions lead stu-
dents to recognize that religious philosophies are ethical systems
based on absolute concepts of good, evil, right, and wrong.
2. Natural law: What is good is what conforms to nature. If what is nat-
ural is good, then students easily can appreciate the constraints of a
natural law ethical system within the artificial constructs of modern
society. It becomes clear that natural law theory offers only limited
assistance when students compare peoples’ most basic, natural incli-
nation with their motivations in resolving complex dilemmas.
3. Ethical formalism: What is good is what is pure in motive. When
discussing ethical formalism, students are asked to resolve a spe-
cific dilemma by selecting a resolution that is pure and unblemished
in motive, regardless of the consequences. Discussions within this
framework present almost absolute answers to ethical dilemmas and
show that some actions have little or no ethical support.
170 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

4. Utilitarianism: What is good is what results in the greatest number.

Students who find the consequences of resolving a dilemma more
ethically significant than the motive behind the decision-making
process will resolve a dilemma with what they perceive to be an
acceptable consequence. Yet, in most instances, predicting the con-
sequences is virtually impossible. This results in discussions that
become simply a means to project the most likely effects of choices.
5. Ethics of care: What is good is that which meet the needs of those
involved and does not hurt relationships. Police agency mottoes often
reflect a philosophy based on the ethics of care, such as “to protect and
serve.” The ethics of care is founded in the natural human response
to provide for the needs of children, the sick, and the injured. Many
police officers operate under the ethics of care when they attempt to
solve problems rather than rigidly enforce the law (p. 7).

Successfully completing a course in ethics-based training does not nec-

essarily provide students an advantage in decision making. It helps stimulate
an understanding of the rationale used for making ethical decisions. Such
training can increase understanding of the potential antecedents to ethical
decision making in general, and the interplay between religion, spirituality,
self-control, and moral identity (Vitell et. al., 2008).
Law enforcement agencies promote ethical behavior based on their cul-
ture and paramilitary structure. Police administrators attempt to regulate
their personnel’s behavior through written policies and procedures. Detailed
and numerous policies fail to provide a workable guide for action through
their cumbersome guidelines, while general and vague policies are function-
ally useless.
In addition to the academy training for law enforcement, two other areas
are important for training personnel; they are the field training officer (FTO)
programs and leadership training. FTO programs should be an extension of
an agency’s culture. Generally, institutionalized scandals are related in some
way to ineffective FTO programs. FTOs need to play a vital role in the train-
ing of rookie to senior officers in the perspectives of ethical issues and ethics-
based training.
Top police agency leaders have the best opportunity to influence the cul-
ture of their agencies. They need to include themselves in opportunities to
increase their knowledge in ethics training. Decision makers often fail to
take advantage of learning about issues and solutions. When chiefs and sher-
iffs choose not to attend ethics training, they send a message that the training
is not important. Most corruption prevention solutions fail because decision
makers have little knowledge about them (Prevost and Trautman, n.d.).
Administrators must address ethical problems before ethics-based train-
ing is administered. When personnel are ordered to ethics-based training
Ethics Training and Education 171

and a glaring unethical situation within an agency is not addressed, admin-

istrators are viewed as hypocrites. Nearly every significant case of employee
misconduct has had warning sign that leaders either ignored or failed to rec-
ognize. Lack of training does not reduce leader’s responsibility. Leadership
training should consist of the following areas (Prevost and Trautman, p. 2):

1. Quality FTO Program: Placing an emphasis on an FTO program

and rewarding quality officers to conduct training increases the
likelihood of maintaining a positive organizational culture. FTOs
should be taught how to teach ethics/career survival to new and vet-
eran officers.
2. Fight Political Interference: Political interference is a detriment to law
enforcement. Typically it attacks five aspects of an agency by lower-
ing hiring standards, interfering with promotions, interfering with
transfers, failing to provide needed resources, and interfering with
discipline. The best solution is usually to educate local officials about
the consequences of their actions.
3. Ensuring Consistent, Fair Accountability: The lack of account-
ability is extremely destructive to the culture of an organization.
Accountability must start at the top and run solidly through an
organization. Administrators must set an example by holding them-
selves accountable toward integrity issues.
4. Officers’ Anger and Frustration: Bad morale is a particularly signifi-
cant contributor to misconduct. Unhappy officers rationalize their
misconduct, feeling they have been mistreated by their department.
5. Employee Intervention Process: Intervention programs are valuable
when implemented with the objective of assisting officers to survive
in their career. Programs can track statistical data related to behav-
iors and training can help build a culture that has an understanding
that when misconduct is first exhibited, fellow officers are the first
to have an opportunity to intervene and prevent the personnel from
destroying their career.
6. Make Character the Highest Consideration for Promotion: First-line
supervisors are the best defense against wrongdoing because they
have the option and are in a position to either condone or ignore
minor transgressions. Failing to address minor issues promotes a
culture that is accepting of major misconduct. Drug agents, evidence
custodians, school resource officers, SWAT team members, and
those assigned to work in high crime areas usually face additional
temptations and dilemmas.
7. Demand Positive Leadership Role Models: Role modeling is the single
greatest source for developing traits, such as sincerity, loyalty, hon-
esty, respect, and dedication. It is impossible for an agency to have a
172 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

culture of integrity if line supervisors are unethical, for role model-

ing also can be used to instill corrupt behavior.

An officer’s integrity is possibly the single most important asset they

have as a keeper of the peace. They deal with the worst society has to offer
and temptations are continuous. Corruption destroys public confidence and
devastate the fiber of the profession. Ethics-based training is not given the
priority it deserves by most departments. This results in misbehavior per-
petuating itself.

Conclusion

Ethics-based training is currently provided to most of the agencies in the

United States. However, most of those agencies only provide the basic train-
ing necessary to stay in compliance with essential rules and regulations. This
includes profile stops, sexual harassment, and biased-based policing. Little
more is provided by police administrators to curtail police misbehavior. This
needs to be addressed. Ethics-based training should not be centered around
accreditation or compliance with rules and regulations; it should be centered
around the foundation of proper values and operational strategies of an agency
or organization, and the ethical decision making of its employees. This cannot
be addressed simply in a one or two hour annual in-service training. This must
be a commitment to longevity. A commitment to institutional ethics will result
in better public perception and confidence as well as better internal operation
and a reduction of detrimental incidents. Hiring cannot solve all ethical chal-
lenges, and although a person without proper moral or ethical grounding can-
not be trained to be “good,” continued training in ethics and ethical decision
making can assist those with a firm foundation in making the “best” choices,
and in ensuring the integrity of themselves and their agency.

Ripped from the Headlines

Ethical Decision Making

On January 5, 2009, CBS 4 out of Miami, Florida, reported a story on how
Miami police officers were given a lecture on ethical decision making. The
officers spent several hours of in-service training studying the topic of ethics
and being quizzed on what constituted ethical and unethical behavior. While
the training was a necessary component to retain departmental accredita-
tion, the timing was in large part due to recent occurrences at the agency.
Several months prior, the chief was found guilty of violating ethics laws by
Ethics Training and Education 173

accepting a free sport utility vehicle, and then after lying about whether or
not he had in fact accepted a gift, he was found guilty criminally for being
untruthful. This administrative example of unethical gift acceptance, and
lying needed to be pointed to and have departmental personnel learn that
such behavior is not only unacceptable, but illegal. As a result, senior Miami
police administrators issued a memo instructing all personnel to take part
in the ethics lecture and tutorial, and which stated, “the department will
maintain the highest professional ethics and integrity,” a goal that had been
compromised at the highest level and which the department was hoping to
avoid in the future (http://www.ethicsinpolicing.com/article.asp?id=5081
(accessed February 2, 2010)).

Review Questions
1.        is a practice whereby individuals acquire ethical knowl-
edge and principles through training and experiential education.
2. The informal method by which new employees learn values and
ethics-based decision-making skills based on personal experiences
is known as        .
3. True or False: There is no way to ensure that an agency’s or orga-
nization’s policies and procedures are detailed enough to regulate
every situation that an individual may encounter during the course
of his employment.
4.        is law enforcement’s greatest training and leadership
need.
5. Of what does ethics-based training consist?
6. Ethics-based training helps stimulate an understanding of the ratio-
nale used for making        decisions.
7. How do police administrators attempt to regulate their person-
nel’s behavior?
8. True or False: Administrators must address ethical problems before
ethics-based training is administered.

References
Bowen, R. T. 2010. Ethics and the practice of forensic science. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor
and Francis Group.
Pollock, J. and Becker, R. 1996. Ethics training. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 65(11),
20. Retrieved from Master FILE Premier database.
Prevost, A. and Trautman, N. n.d. Police ethics training’s state-of-the-art now more
effective and comprehensive (accessed July 28, 2010 from www.ethicsinstitute.
com).
174 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

Taylor, R. S. 2011. A qualitative phenomenological examination of ethics-based training

in law enforcement. Dissertation research conducted as requirement for doctor-
ate in management for the University of Phoenix.
Vitell, S., Bing, M., Davison, H., Ammeter, A., Garner, B., and Novicevic, M. 2009.
Religiosity and moral identity: The mediating role of self-control. Journal of
Business Ethics 88(4), 601–613.
Williamson, C., Baker, L., Jenkins, M., and Cluse-Tolor, T. 2007. Police-prostitute inter-
actions: Sometimes discretion, sometimes misconduct. Journal of Progressive
Human Resources 18(2), 15-37. Doi: 10.1300/JO59v18n0203.
The Future of Public
Service Ethics
13
We drive into the future using only our rear view mirror.
(Herbert) Marshall McLuhan
Canadian educator and media philosopher (1911–1980)

Learning Objectives:
1. Identify areas of future research need with regards to ethics.
2. Explain how technology will impact the future of public service ethics.

Introduction

The past two decades have seen profound changes in management style,
recruiting methods, and the delivery of public services throughout the world.
These changes have had an impact upon public service ethics and will con-
tinue to do so. We live and work in a dynamic world. As such, our ethical
foundation and ethics-based decision making must continue to evolve to
adapt and stay current with the world around us. This does not imply that
ethics should be compromised in an effort to evolve or become modern. In
fact, quite the opposite is the case. One must constantly assess his/her chang-
ing environment and stay current with his/her ability to perceive the changes
and implement sound, ethics-based decisions.

Future Research Needs

Training
In the future, it will become necessary to place more emphasis on the rela-
tionship between unethical behavior and the individuals and organizations
involved in unethical behavior. There is a necessity for further research on
the topic of public service and organizational ethics. Specifically, there needs
to be research dedicated to the voids in public safety training. There has not
been any considerable, unbiased, scholarly research, which has been con-
ducted that attempts to identify the training that is currently offered within
the various categories of public service, and the relationship of this training
(or lack of) to the ethical violations found within each category. The questions

175
176 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

that require answering if there is to be a significant shift in how training is

given, and what the content of ethics-based training consists of, are, at mini-
mum, the following.

Questions Regarding Ethics Training

• What training is currently offered to the agency/organization/
employees relating to ethics?
• Is the above training lecture-based? Computer-based? Decision/sce-
nario-based? Q & A?
• How often is training conducted? How many hours per quarter/
year?
• Is the training given as some sort of mandatory requirement for
accreditation?

Questions Regarding Ethics Violations

• Are ethics violations tracked within the agency/organization?
• Who/what department is responsible for tracking these violations?
• How many incidents of ethical violations have there been during the
past quarter/year?
• What was the most common violation?
• How many persons were responsible for the violations noted?
• What was the most common reason listed as the reason/justification
for why the violation was committed?
• Did the size of the agency/organization impact the number of
violations?

Relationship between Training and Violations

• Does there appear to be a relationship between the types of ethics
violations and the type of training given?
• Did individuals/agencies/organizations with certain training have
less/more ethics violations?
• Was there a type of training that appeared to work better for certain
sections of public service, but not as well in other sections?
• Did individuals/agencies/organizations receiving training have less/
more violations than those not receiving training?

With in-depth research related to the above, it would be possible to iden-

tify voids in training within sectors of public service and, once identified,
train to fill these voids and, thus, reduce the number of incidents of unethical
behavior. It will never be possible to completely avoid instances of unethical
behavior; however, it is possible to reduce the occurrences.
The Future of Public Service Ethics 177

Recruiting
There also is further need to explore the relationship between recruiting efforts
and ethics violations within departments, agencies, and organizations.

• How are new recruits/employees tested to ensure a proper founda-

tion in ethics-based decision making?
• If testing is conducted, is it oral in nature? Computer-based?
Written?
• Does there appear to be a relationship between the age of recruits/
new employees and ethics violations?
• What was the size of the agency/organization?
• Are new recruits/employees assigned a mentor? If yes, did these
employees display any incident of less/more ethics-based violations?

Overall, there continues to be a void between ascertaining the relation-

ship between what training and education is being given and where the great-
est number of violations is occurring. Any research that has been conducted
(and referred to within this text) has largely been conducted on an inappro-
priate sample size (too small), was not conducted within areas across the wide
range of public service professions, did not include scholarly or appropriate
survey instruments or questionnaires, or were incomplete. However, if such
research is eventually and consistently conducted, it could have a profound
impact on the future of public service ethics.

Organizational Ethics
Just as it is wise to look at the impact of the individual and his or her ethical
foundation on the organization, it is wise to research further how the orga-
nization structure, hierarchy, policies, etc. impact the individual and his/her
ethics-based decisions. This text has only briefly covered this topic, and it is
one that has a profound impact on all areas of public service ethics. Further
research relating to this relationship would do wonders for public service
management structure and for future design of ethics-based training.

The Impact of Technology on Ethics Training

After nearly three decades of using technology to provide realistic scenario-

based training for use of force, the industry is finally realizing that such tech-
nology can be applied to other areas. In the future, there will be increased
use of distance learning and Web-based simulation training relating to
ethics-based decisions. This will allow organizational leadership to provide
178 Ethics for the Public Service Professional

exceptional training and instruction to employees at tremendous cost sav-

ings and in an extraordinarily efficient manner. Currently, there are already
courses via distance education from the Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (FLETC) that cater to such needs. The continued development of such
applications will undoubtedly save the lives of public service professionals
and those who they are obligated with serving.

Conclusion

As has been addressed throughout the confines of this text, the topic of
ethics is one that is best addressed through a continual dialog and with
continued emphasis. No text or individual can provide an organization
with all of the tools necessary to ensure a complete understanding or
foundation in ethics. The field of ethics is incredibly detailed and expan-
sive. What is necessary is that an organization recognize that instilling
sound ethics-based decision making within its employees is of paramount
concern, and then find a way to effectively do it. This has been the case
for hundreds of years and will continue to be the case for hundreds more,
within the area of public service. A utopian society is an impossibility
and, thus, public service professions continue to be areas with great job
security and areas that will continue to be impacted by violations of poor
ethics-based decision making. No measure of research or training will
eliminate all ethics violations; however, a reduction in incidents remains
a constant possibility.

Review Questions
1. In the future, it will become necessary to place more emphasis on the
between      behavior and the individuals and organizations
involved in      behavior.
2. There needs to be research dedicated to the voids of    training.
3. True or False: It will be possible to completely avoid instances of
unethical behavior with more effective training.
4. There is need to explore the relationship between      efforts
and ethics      within departments/agencies/organizations.
5. What are the benefits of utilizing technology, such as distance learn-
ing and Web-based simulation training relating to ethic-based
decisions?
Appendix A

U.S. Government Entities with Ethics/

Conduct-Related Authority

This chart provides an informal reference for agency ethics officials to the
subject matter areas most frequently addressed to the Office of Government
Ethics (OGE). The Department of Justice (DOJ) (including U.S. Attorneys’
Offices), and agency Inspectors General also handle enforcement matters in a
number of these areas, even where not specifically listed. Of course, individ-
ual executive branch agencies have responsibility in many of these areas as
well, including their own statutory authority and supplemental regulations.

Topic Federal Entity Concerned

Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the OGE
Executive Branch (5 C.F.R. part 2635) (Standards
of Ethical Conduct)
Executive branch-wide regulations on public and
confidential financial disclosure, outside
employment limitations, ethics training, certain
financial interests, and postgovernment
employment (5 C.F.R. parts 2634, 2636, 2637, 2638,
2640, and 2641)
Conflict of Interest statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 202, 203, OGE
205, 207, 208, and 209)—interpretations DOJ, Office of Legal Counsel
Hatch Act provisions (5 U.S.C. § 7321 et seq.) Office of Special Counsel Office of
Whistleblower Protection Act Personnel Management (OPM)
Complaints of prohibited personnel practices (certain Hatch Act regulations)
Criminal political contribution/activity restrictions (18 DOJ
U.S.C. §§ 602, 603, 606, 607, and 610) Individual U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
Appropriations law and contract protests Comptroller General (General
“Frequent flyer miles” Accounting Office (GAO)) GSA
(regulations on frequent flyer
benefits)
Ethics audit reports GAO
OGE
Prosecution of violations of criminal conflict of DOJ, incl. Public Integrity Section
interest statutes (information about a violation of Individual U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
the statutes must be referred to DOJ (28 U.S.C. §
535))

179
180 Appendix A

Topic Federal Entity Concerned

Restrictions against gambling on government OPM
property, conduct “prejudicial to the government” General Services Administration
(i.e., criminal, infamous, or notoriously disgraceful (GSA) (restrictions on gambling on
conduct) and special preparation of persons for Federal property)
civil and foreign service examinations (5 C.F.R.
part 735)
General personnel/federal employment matters OPM
Government Employees Training Act (see 5 U.S.C. § OPM
4111 in particular) OGE (ethics aspects)
Use of government-owned property and equipment, GSA
e.g., phones, photocopying equipment (41 C.F.R.) OGE (ethics aspects and agency §
Official travel 1353 reports)
Use of government vehicles (31 U.S.C. § 1344)
Gifts of travel from nonfederal sources (31 U.S.C. §
1353)
Procurement integrity restrictions (41 U.S.C. § 423) Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) Federal
Acquisition Regulatory (FAR)
Council (DoD, GSA, NASA, and
OFPP)
OGE (ethics-related provisions)
Lobbying restrictions on recipients of federal OMB
contracts, grants, loans, etc. (Byrd Amendment) Clerk of the House of Representatives
Secretary of the Senate
Lobbyist registration, reporting lobbying activities Clerk of the House of Representatives
(Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995—P.L. 104-65) Secretary of the Senate
Restrictions against lobbying with appropriated DOJ, Public Integrity Section
funds (18 U.S.C. § 1913)
Appeals from disciplinary actions for violations of Merit Systems Protection Board
the Standards of Ethical Conduct
Fraud, waste, mismanagement, and abuse in Agency Inspectors General
individual agencies
Prosecutions of violations of the restrictions on DOJ, Civil Division
outside earned income and outside employment Individual U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
for certain noncareer employees (5 U.S.C. app. §§
501-502)
Prosecutions of failure to file or false filings of DOJ, Civil and Criminal Divisions
public financial disclosure reports Individual U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. § 611 et DOJ, Internal Security Section
seq.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 219)
Nepotism (5 U.S.C. § 3110) OPM
Gifts and decorations from foreign governments Department of State, Office of
Protocol
GSA (regulations on disposal/
minimal value)
Appendix A 181

Topic Federal Entity Concerned

Coordination of governmental efforts to promote President’s Council on Integrity and
integrity and efficiency and to prevent fraud, waste, Efficiency (PCIE)
and abuse in federal programs (Executive Order Executive Council on Integrity and
12805) Efficiency (ECIE)
Federal advisory committees (5 U.S.C. app.) GSA, Committee Management
Secretariat
President Clinton’s Ethics Pledges for top executive- White House Counsel’s Office DOJ
branch officials (Executive Order 12834) (enforcement, statement of covered
activities/foreign agents)
OGE (forms)
Appendix B

U.S. Office of Government Ethics: General Things You

Should Know about Ethics Employee Crossword Puzzle

183
184 Appendix B
Appendix C

U.S. Office of Government Ethics: Misuse of

Position Employee Crossword Puzzle

185
186 Appendix C
Appendix D

U. S. Office of Government Ethics: Outside

Activities Employee Crossword Puzzle

187
188 Appendix D
Appendix E

Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel

Executive Order
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws
of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States
Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed
on or after January 20, 2009, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractu-
ally committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:
“As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United
States Government in a position invested with the public trust, I commit
myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me
and are enforceable under law:

1. Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lob-
bying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.
2. Revolving Door Ban—All Appointees Entering Government. I will
not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment par-
ticipate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is
directly and substantially related to my former employer or former
clients, including regulations and contracts.
3. Revolving Door Ban—Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a
registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appoint-
ment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will
not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:
(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within
the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that particular mat-
ter falls; or
(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lob-
bied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.
4. Revolving Door Ban—Appointees Leaving Government. If, upon my
departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employ-
ment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former
189
190 Appendix E

executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States
Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions for a period of 2
years following the end of my appointment.
5. Revolving Door Ban—Appointees Leaving Government to Lobby. In
addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 4, I also agree,
upon leaving Government service, not to lobby any covered execu-
tive branch official or noncareer Senior Executive Service appointee
for the remainder of the Administration.
6. Employment Qualification Commitment. I agree that any hiring or
other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate’s
qualifications, competence, and experience.
7. Assent to Enforcement. I acknowledge that the Executive Order enti-
tled “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel,” issued
by the President on January 21, 2009, which I have read before sign-
ing this document, defines certain of the terms applicable to the fore-
going obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I
expressly accept the provisions of that Executive Order as a part of
this agreement and as binding on me. I understand that the terms of
this pledge are in addition to any statutory or other legal restrictions
applicable to me by virtue of Federal Government service.

Section 2. Definitions. As used herein and in the pledge set forth in section
1 of this order:

(a) “Executive agency” shall include each “executive agency” as defined

by section 105 of title 5, United States Code, and shall include the
Executive Office of the President; provided, however, that for pur-
poses of this order “executive agency” shall include the United States
Postal Service and Postal Regulatory Commission, but shall exclude
the Government Accountability Office.
(b) “Appointee” shall include every full-time, noncareer Presidential
or Vice-Presidential appointee, noncareer appointee in the Senior
Executive Service (or other SES-type system), and appointee to a
position that has been excepted from the competitive service by rea-
son of being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C
and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an execu-
tive agency. It does not include any person appointed as a member of
the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service commis-
sioned officer.
(c) “Gift”
(1) shall have the definition set forth in section 2635.203(b) of title 5,
Code of Federal Regulations;
Appendix E 191

(2) shall include gifts that are solicited or accepted indirectly

as defined at section 2635.203(f) of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations; and
(3) shall exclude those items excluded by sections 2635.204(b), (c), (e)
(1) & (3) and (j)(l) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
(d) “Covered executive branch official” and “lobbyist” shall have the
definitions set forth in section 1602 of title 2, United States Code.
(e) “Registered lobbyist or lobbying organization” shall mean a lobbyist
or an organization filing a registration pursuant to section 1603(a)
of title 2, United States Code, and in the case of an organization fil-
ing such a registration, “registered lobbyist” shall include each of the
lobbyists identified therein.
(f) “Lobby” and “lobbied” shall mean to act or have acted as a regis-
tered lobbyist.
(g) “Particular matter” shall have the same meaning as set forth in sec-
tion 207 of title 18, United States Code, and section 2635.402(b)(3) of
title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
(h) “Particular matter involving specific parties” shall have the same
meaning as set forth in section 2641.201(h) of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, except that it shall also include any meeting or other
communication relating to the performance of one’s official duties
with a former employer or former client, unless the communication
applies to a particular matter of general applicability and participa-
tion in the meeting or other event is open to all interested parties.
(i) “Former employer” is any person for whom the appointee has within
the 2 years prior to the date of his or her appointment served as an
employee, officer, director, trustee, or general partner, except that
“former employer” does not include any executive agency or other
entity of the Federal Government, State or local government, the
District of Columbia, Native American tribe, or any United States
territory or possession.
(j) “Former client” is any person for whom the appointee served person-
ally as agent, attorney, or consultant within the 2 years prior to the
date of his or her appointment, but excluding instances where the
service provided was limited to a speech or similar appearance. It
does not include clients of the appointee’s former employer to whom
the appointee did not personally provide services.
(k) “Directly and substantially related to my former employer or former
clients” shall mean matters in which the appointee’s former employer
or a former client is a party or represents a party.
(l) “Participate” means to participate personally and substantially.
192 Appendix E

(m) “Post-employment restrictions” shall include the provisions and

exceptions in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, and the
implementing regulations.
(n) “Government official” means any employee of the executive branch.
(o) “Administration” means all terms of office of the incumbent President
serving at the time of the appointment of an appointee covered by
this order.
(p) “Pledge” means the ethics pledge set forth in section 1 of this order.
(q) All references to provisions of law and regulations shall refer to such
provisions as in effect on January 20, 2009.

Section 3. Waiver.

(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or

her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or
his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a
written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by
such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing
(i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with
the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest
to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification
is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or
his or her designee.
(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent cir-
cumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De mini-
mis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of
the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.

Section 4. Administration.

(a) The head of every executive agency shall, in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Government Ethics, establish such rules or
procedures (conforming as nearly as practicable to the agency’s gen-
eral ethics rules and procedures, including those relating to desig-
nated agency ethics officers) as are necessary or appropriate to ensure
that every appointee in the agency signs the pledge upon assuming
the appointed office or otherwise becoming an appointee; to ensure
that compliance with paragraph 3 of the pledge is addressed in a
written ethics agreement with each appointee to whom it applies,
which agreement shall also be approved by the Counsel to the
President or his or her designee prior to the appointee commencing
work; to ensure that spousal employment issues and other conflicts
Appendix E 193

not expressly addressed by the pledge are addressed in ethics agree-

ments with appointees or, where no such agreements are required,
through ethics counseling; and generally to ensure compliance with
this order within the agency.
(b) With respect to the Executive Office of the President, the duties set
forth in section 4(a) shall be the responsibility of the Counsel to the
President or his or her designee.
(c) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall:
(1) ensure that the pledge and a copy of this order are made available for
use by agencies in fulfilling their duties under section 4(a) above;
(2) in consultation with the Attorney General or the Counsel to the
President or their designees, when appropriate, assist designated
agency ethics officers in providing advice to current or former
appointees regarding the application of the pledge; and
(3) in consultation with the Attorney General and the Counsel to
the President or their designees, adopt such rules or procedures
as are necessary or appropriate:
(i) to carry out the foregoing responsibilities;
(ii) to apply the lobbyist gift ban set forth in paragraph 1 of the
pledge to all executive branch employees;
(iii )to authorize limited exceptions to the lobbyist gift ban for
circumstances that do not implicate the purposes of the ban;
(iv) to make clear that no person shall have violated the lobbyist
gift ban if the person properly disposes of a gift as provided
by section 2635.205 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations;
(v) to ensure that existing rules and procedures for Government
employees engaged in negotiations for future employment
with private businesses that are affected by their official
actions do not affect the integrity of the Government’s pro-
grams and operations;
(vi) to ensure, in consultation with the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, that the requirement set forth in
paragraph 6 of the pledge is honored by every employee of
the executive branch;
(4) in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, report to the President on whether full compliance
is being achieved with existing laws and regulations governing
executive branch procurement lobbying disclosure and on steps
the executive branch can take to expand to the fullest extent
practicable disclosure of such executive branch procurement lob-
bying and of lobbying for presidential pardons, and to include in
the report both immediate action the executive branch can take
and, if necessary, recommendations for legislation; and
194 Appendix E

(5) provide an annual public report on the administration of the

pledge and this order.
(d) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall, in consulta-
tion with the Attorney General, the Counsel to the President, and
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, or their desig-
nees, report to the President on steps the executive branch can take
to expand to the fullest extent practicable the revolving door ban set
forth in paragraph 5 of the pledge to all executive branch employees
who are involved in the procurement process such that they may not
for 2 years after leaving Government service lobby any Government
official regarding a Government contract that was under their offi-
cial responsibility in the last 2 years of their Government service;
and to include in the report both immediate action the executive
branch can take and, if necessary, recommendations for legislation.
(e) All pledges signed by appointees, and all waiver certifications with
respect thereto, shall be filed with the head of the appointee’s agency
for permanent retention in the appointee’s official personnel folder
or equivalent folder.

Section 5. Enforcement.

(a) The contractual, fiduciary, and ethical commitments in the pledge

provided for herein are solely enforceable by the United States pursu-
ant to this section by any legally available means, including debar-
ment proceedings within any affected executive agency or judicial
civil proceedings for declaratory, injunctive, or monetary relief.
(b) Any former appointee who is determined, after notice and hearing, by
the duly designated authority within any agency, to have violated his
or her pledge may be barred from lobbying any officer or employee of
that agency for up to 5 years in addition to the time period covered by
the pledge. The head of every executive agency shall, in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, establish pro-
cedures to implement this subsection, which procedures shall include
(but not be limited to) providing for fact-finding and investigation
of possible violations of this order and for referrals to the Attorney
General for his or her consideration pursuant to subsection (c).
(c) The Attorney General or his or her designee is authorized:
(1) upon receiving information regarding the possible breach of
any commitment in a signed pledge, to request any appropriate
Federal investigative authority to conduct such investigations as
may be appropriate; and
(2) upon determining that there is a reasonable basis to believe that a
breach of a commitment has occurred or will occur or continue,
Appendix E 195

if not enjoined, to commence a civil action against the former

employee in any United States District Court with jurisdiction to
consider the matter.
(d) In any such civil action, the Attorney General or his or her designee
is authorized to request any and all relief authorized by law, includ-
ing but not limited to:
(1) such temporary restraining orders and preliminary and perma-
nent injunctions as may be appropriate to restrain future, recur-
ring, or continuing conduct by the former employee in breach of
the commitments in the pledge he or she signed; and
(2) establishment of a constructive trust for the benefit of the United
States, requiring an accounting and payment to the United States
Treasury of all money and other things of value received by, or
payable to, the former employee arising out of any breach or
attempted breach of the pledge signed by the former employee.

Section 6. General Provisions.

(a) No prior Executive Orders are repealed by this order. To the extent
that this order is inconsistent with any provision of any prior
Executive Order, this order shall control.
(b) If any provision of this order or the application of such provision is
held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and other dissimilar
applications of such provision shall not be affected.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(1) authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head
thereof; or
(2) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(d) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of appropriations.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or ben-
efit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any
party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities,
its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(f) The definitions set forth in this order are solely applicable to the
terms of this order, and are not otherwise intended to impair or
affect existing law.

BARACK OBAMA
The White House
January 21, 2009
Appendix F

Useful Links Pertaining to Public Service Ethics

Ethics in Government
United States Office of Government Ethics: http://www.usoge.gov/
home.html
Center for Ethics in Government: http://www.ncsl.org/Ethics/
Center for Campaign Leadership: http://campaigns.berkeley.edu/
House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: http://www.house.
gov/ethics
City Ethics: http://www.cityethics.org/
Center for Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org
Council on Governmental Ethics Laws: http://www.cogel.org/
Senate Select Committee on Ethics: http://ethics.senate.gov

Ethics in Law
American Bar Association: http://www.abanet.org
State Ethics Links (legal): http://www.hricik.com/StateEthics.html
Code of Conduct for United States Judges: http://www.uscourts.gov/
guide/vol2/ch1.html
Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees: http://www.uscourts.gov/
guide/vol2/ch2.html

Ethics Research and Education

Josephson Institute for Business Ethics:
http://josephsoninstitute.org/business/resources/links.html
Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions: http://www.iit.edu/
departments/csep/
International Institute for Public Ethics: http://www.iipe.org/
Harvard University Center for Ethics and the Professions: http://ethics.
harvard.edu/
Institute for Global Ethics: http://www.globalethics.org
Association for Practical and Professional Ethics: http://www.indiana.
edu/~appe/

197
198 Appendix F

Center for Applied Ethics: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/

Ethics Resource Center: http://www.ethics.org/

Ethics in Law Enforcement

International Association of Chiefs of Police: http://www.theiacp.org/
Ethics in Policing: http://www.ethicsinpolicing.com/

Ethics in Forensic Science

American Academy of Forensic Sciences: http://www.aafs.org
American Board of Criminalists: www.abc.org
International Association of Identification: http://theiai.org
FORENSICS & CRIMINAL JUSTICE

ETHICS
FOR THE
PUBLIC SERVICE
PROFESSIONAL

K11183

6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW

Suite 300, Boca Raton, FL 33487
270 Madison Avenue
an informa business New York, NY 10016
2 Park Square, Milton Park
w w w. c r c p r e s s . c o m
Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN, UK www.crcpress.com