Reasons for Unethical Behavior, Research Paper Example

Rampart scandals refer to the acts of impunity that that a person commits while on duty or off duty. The Los Angeles Police Department of Rampart Division has registered more than eighty cases in the United States police officers involved in rampart scandals. The officers were reported to have taken part in various gross misconducts, in their line of duty, and when off duty.

These offences range from covering up of evidence from suspects upon sharing of the benefits of the committed crimes. The officers were also involved in selling of illegal drugs to the citizens. They offered security to drug barons and covered any traces or evidence that could lead to the arrest of such barons. The officers took part in unconstitutional torture and murder of individuals who either intentionally or accidentally interfered with their criminal acts. Robbery of banks with the use of polices outfits and ammunitions took place with the police accompanying the robbers or protecting the robbers from arrests or mass justices. Upon the commitment of crimes, the officers framed innocent civilians and perjured themselves as a witness against the innocent (Los Angeles Times, 2001).

All these acts are against the code of conduct set for the Law enforcement officials. The code directs the officers to serve the community and ensure it protects its occupants from illegal acts with a high degree of integrity and responsibility.

The police ought to serve humankind with an observation of human rights and dignity to achieve these standards. They have to obey all the rights present in the international law. The use of force is limited to either prevention of crime or on their attempt to arrest law offenders. No law enforcers should inflict any unnecessary pain or torture in the form of beating. This is only exceptional in times of state of war or threat of war. Law officials should not commit any forms of corruption in the society. Contrary, they should prevent and curb any forms of corruption and impunity. The law enforcement officers are not only a subject to this code of conduct but also respect the law that governs the society (LA Times, 2002).

The ethical responsibility of police officers roots in their ethical oath, which sworn in the presence of the police commissioner, trainers, relatives, and the public. Therefore, a binding oath needs adherence. Any intolerance to the ethical oath is a criminal offence. In the oath, the officer swears to act to their best while befitting the character of an officer. They assure the citizens that they will preserve everyone’s dignity and rights as they discharge their duties with integrity. The officers too promise to do everything in relation to the law with honesty, courtesy, and impartiality in a bid to establish understanding and reconciliation in times of conflicts within the society. It is worth noting that the officers make the oath upon an acknowledgement of their conscience (Grant, 2007).

Officers who go against their codes of conduct, their sworn, in allegiance and the common law need to take the full course of law to ensure that the victims get the justice they deserve. I recommend that it should be mandatory that such officers should immediately face suspension upon the approval that such claims have some substantial evidence to prove that the officer took part in the alleged acts. This will prevent any acts of crime coverage. Upon suspension, the officers should face trial, upon which a normal court case should ensue. Guilty officers should face a sack followed by the subsequent measures as stipulated in the law (Estate of Christopher G.L. Wallace v. City of Los Ang, 2008).

Reference

LA Times. (2002, November 26). 82 Rampart Cases Rejected for Lack of Evidence. Rampart cases , p.2.

Estate of Christopher G.L. Wallace v. City of Los Angeles, 2:07-cv-02956-JHN-RZ (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2008).

Grant, J. (2007). Picturing Justice, the On-Line Journal of Law and Popular Culture. The Shield,30.

Los Angeles Times. (2001, June 23). D.A. Asks Court to Reinstate Jury’s Convictions of Three LAPD Officers,. Los Angeles Times , p.1.