The correctional subculture has various ethical queries pertaining to a correction police officer and his responsibilities. According to Thomson and Wadsworth (2005), when an expert makes the decision to reprimand or create a disciplinary report, he is playing a role inside the Criminal Proper rights System (p. 316). A disciplinary panel also has a dilemma because he, or she must make a decision on what abuse should collect towards the offender. This may be a brief loss of privileges, or he might have his sentence improved (p.
316, para. 2). A correctional officer in uniform is experienced figure, which in turn implies reasonable and realistic control over the incarcerated. In addition, he provides the full range of coercive control over inmates; extreme force, loss of liberty, fantastic power may be defiant; educated through his subculture (other correctional officers’).
According to Thomson and Wadsworth (2005), many correctional officers possess (deontological) excellent knowledge and practice professionalism and reliability. While others are likely to use (teleological) coercive, control against offenders gain benefit (pp. 317-318). A correctional officer must engage in honest behavior.
He must take action professional; display respect intended for the incarcerated; be regular; maintain integrity and honesty; and take action impartial (p. 318).
The subculture of any correctional expert has comparable aspects of law enforcement subculture. Nevertheless , cover-ups and wrongdoing can be apparent in both. In accordance to Thomson and Wadsworth (2005), a correctional official will go administer help for another expert. Again, while police officers, correctional officers will never cooperate within an investigation if this pertains to a fellow official (blue code). One would not really embarrass another in front of an offender because may jeopardize an officer’s effectiveness. A fellow official does not enjoy a white hat. This pertains to demonstrating emotions to an inmate or his family. A main similarity among correctional and police officers is the fact both engage in solidarity, against all outdoors groups (pp. 320-321).
In summary, few officials endorse and publicize subcultural values, while the majorities, who are silent, privately believe in several values. Actually his honnête tend to make decision on their own. This is based onhis religion; precisely what is good or bad based upon what is morally wrong, utilitarianism; a bad action turning into a great deed (a selfless act), natural legislation; universally satisfactory and ethical formalism; the intent of good will. Relating to Thomson and Wadsworth (2005), correctional officers happen to be faced with these kinds of dilemmas each and every day.
Moreover, the difference between values and rights comes not really from the difference between actions and consequences (as between morality and influence ethics) but from your difference between motives and actions (pp. 325-327). Therefore , when a C. O. will not practice honnête and does not the actual ethical code; he may wander into relativistic egoism. He might believe he should receive benefits for his trouble, and he would not think of the latter consequences to his actions.
Axia College of University of Phoenix. (2005). Chapter eleven: Ethics in Crime and Justice, Integrity for Correctional Professions. Gathered October 6, 2008, fromAxia College, Week Eight browsing AXcess, ADJ 235- Ethics and the Operations of Proper rights