Ethical Behavior In Gradly Operant Conditioning

The values-learned perspective states that police officers learn their ethical or unethical behavior through indoctrination into the law enforcement organization they are a part of. The indoctrination into the subculture molds and shapes the behavior of new officers and as they learn to behave like their colleagues, what is expected of them in order to be included becomes their moral standard. One example of this from the audio recording is the officers who worked with Adrian Schoolcraft. These officers knew the things they were asked to do were unethical and illegal, however, they did as they were told anyway. Writing the required number of summons and citations was what was expected of them as part of this precinct of police officers.
Gradually
normalizing unethical behavior by learning to justify the behaviors or explain them away is one theory on how police condone unethical conduct. This theory allows someone to carry out deviant behavior, without believing they exhibit unethical practises. They can maintain deviant behavior while keeping their non-deviant identity. This can be achieved through denial of responsibility, denial of any apparent injury, denying the victim is a victim at all, condemning the condemners, and appealing to a higher(or more important) loyalty. The audio story about the police officer being reluctant to report an ex-con’s stolen car showed the officer’s denial of a victim. It is not the officer's job to pass judgement on someone who has already served their time, and being a former criminal does not exclude you from being a victim.
Operant Conditioning, or rewards and punishment is an ethical theory closely related to hedonistic calculus.
This theory holds that people learn ethical or unethical behaviors by grasping the rewards or punishment associated with these behaviors. The rewards, or lack thereof, encourage or condition a response from those receiving them. This was exemplified in the report by the compliance of Schoolcraft’s fellow officers with their supervisors demands for meeting the required number of citations. They were conditioned to follow orders, regardless of the unethicalness, because otherwise the officers would be given undesirable posts. They were also threatened with job loss, another more extreme
punishment.
The Pre Dispositional Perspective theory is the idea that the morals, attitude, and character we exhibit in life is determined by our development as children. As a result, the socialization or subculture that is part of our adult life has little to nothing to do with our ethical choices. Adrian Schoolcraft, the whistle blower from the story illustrates this ethical theory. He rises above the police officer subculture, and does not stay silent and go along with the precinct’s administration. He bases his choices on a predetermined set of principles and does not let socialization as a police officer keep him from making independent ethical decisions.
Noble-cause corruption is the epitome of “the ends justify the means.” It is corruption caused by trying too hard to do good and losing sight of what is ethical while trying to stop some crime or problem. The way the crime statistics were misused and the system abused in the New York City’s Police Department’s precinct typifies the noble cause corruption problem. The use of criminal reports to generate statistics by locale is meant to be a tool for the police to improve crime rates and make cities and towns safer. However, in an effort to continually reduce their percentages, police administration are committing crimes and injustices themselves.

The murder cases against Michael Morton and Cameron Willingham are both examples of how prosecutorial misconduct can affect the ability of defendants to receive a fair trial. Both of these court cases ruined what were probably completely innocent men’s lives, though in vastly differing capacities. Morton has spent a majority of his life in prison for killing his wife, while Willingham was executed for the death of his children in a house fire. Morton has since been exonerated by DNA evidence previously unused at trial and lawyers from The Innocence Project are trying to achieve a posthumously overturned conviction for Willingham.
The district attorneys in charge of prosecuting these trials were both definitely guilty of misconduct and violating the ethical standard that all prosecutors are charged with: ensuring the defendants in criminal cases receive fair trials.
In the Morton trial, the district attorney also violated the constitutional issue of disclosing exculpatory evidence ruled on in Brady v. Maryland and later in United States v. Bagley. In the arson case that resulted in Willingham’s execution the methods used by the prosecutor were also unethical, but not necessarily exculpatory. The testimony of the inmate that claimed Willingham confessed to him, was immorally obtained, but not the only damning evidence used against Willingham at the time of his trial. The only way to redeem the wrongdoing in these cases would be to reverse the convictions or allow the defendants appeals. For Willingham especially, it is too late to rectify this
injustice.
Prosecutors are not liable for their legal work, but in both situations the defendant--or their surviving family--could sue the state or local government that was responsible for the unfairness of the trials. Perhaps the punishment of the scrutiny and appeals other cases tried by these prosecutors would go through is enough. In the murder of Mrs Morton, the DNA evidence that exonerated Morton implicated a criminal who was also connected to the murder of another young woman, after Mrs. Morton’s death. This other woman’s death may have been prevented if Morton had been acquitted or the charges dropped and the real killer apprehended. There should be some kind of recompense for this tragedy, but it is difficult to determine who should be held responsible.