Policeman's Ethics

[wolveraptor]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

Suppose a policeman comes across an underground brothel (in a state where it's illegal). For the sake of the argument, he knows that all of the prostitutes are checked for STD's by the owners, and don't pose any risks to their clients. In essence, its existence causes no actual harm.

Is the policeman obligated to bust the operation, thereby serving to further over-crowd the jails and ruin all those involved? How far does this line of reasoning go? Should a policeman be responsible to enforce any law he's told to, even if breaking it causes no real harm?

Another example might be a private marijuana farm. A man grows hemp for himself, does not illegally sell it or inadvertently support South American druglords. Should a policeman still arrest him?

My initial position was that being obedient to authority to such a degree that one would violate what one knows to be proper ethical standards is unacceptable. However, I later realized that if every officer decided to enforce only his personal morality, the law's effectiveness would fall apart.
If you agree with my initial position, should officers be held morally accountable for following orders that are clearly wrong? What about soldiers and mercenaries?

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is something I've been thinking about for a while.

Suppose a policeman comes across an underground brothel (in a state where it's illegal). For the sake of the argument, he knows that all of the prostitutes are checked for STD's by the owners, and don't pose any risks to their clients. In essence, its existence causes no actual harm.

That depends on what limits are imposed on officer discretion. If an underground brothel is a misdemeanor, and officers have discretion when misdemeanors are involved then it would be that officers choice whether to bust it or not.

Is the policeman obligated to bust the operation, thereby serving to further over-crowd the jails and ruin all those involved? How far does this line of reasoning go? Should a policeman be responsible to enforce any law he's told to, even if breaking it causes no real harm?

Depending on how the law is written yes. I mean if they value their job.

Another example might be a private marijuana farm. A man grows hemp for himself, does not illegally sell it or inadvertently support South American druglords. Should a policeman still arrest him?

Since that's most likely a felony, and I don't know of felonies that that officer can exercise discretion on the answer is again yes, and the reason is that's what they are paid to do.

My initial position was that being obedient to authority to such a degree that one would violate what one knows to be proper ethical standards is unacceptable. However, I later realized that if every officer decided to enforce only his personal morality, the law's effectiveness would fall apart.
If you agree with my initial position, should officers be held morally accountable for following orders that are clearly wrong? What about soldiers and mercenaries?

Depends on the orders, and morality is defined differently. I don't know it would be right to hold them accountable for the situations like what you described. It's not like those people don't have a choice in doing what they're doing illegally. It's one thing arresting someone for the color of their skin versus arresting someone for doing something which is in their control, and doesn't present harm to them if they don't do it.

The brothel workers could simply do something else for employment, and the man does not have to grow hemp plants.

[haard]

Is the policeman obligated to bust the operation, thereby serving to further over-crowd the jails and ruin all those involved? How far does this line of reasoning go? Should a policeman be responsible to enforce any law he's told to, even if breaking it causes no real harm?

If the policeman has not explicitly been given the right to decide in this situation, yes, he should enforce the law.

Another example might be a private marijuana farm. A man grows hemp for himself, does not illegally sell it or inadvertently support South American druglords. Should a policeman still arrest him?

See above

My initial position was that being obedient to authority to such a degree that one would violate what one knows to be proper ethical standards is unacceptable. However, I later realized that if every officer decided to enforce only his personal morality, the law's effectiveness would fall apart.

The policeman has chosen to uphold the law, and if he does not, he's just another viligante, enforcing his own standards on others. If he does not agree with the law to the point where he will disregard it, he is in the wrong line of work.

If you agree with my initial position, should officers be held morally accountable for following orders that are clearly wrong? What about soldiers and mercenaries?

Yes, yes, and yes. Just as a policeman should. (You did not show that it was morally wrong for the policeman in your examples to uphold the law.)

[InnerBrat]

A person is morally obliged to do the job they are paid for. It is the policeman's responsibility to uphold the spirit and the letter of the law. He has been given power by the state, and the state decides how it shoudl be exorcised.

...wow, that sounded communist. Your second reaction is right. It is not his job to decide which laws to uphold and which not to.

Compare your policeman to a doctor. Doctors don't have the right to decide which life to save and which not to: they are morally and legally obliged to do their best to save the life of everyone who comes to them, regardless of whether or not this person has committed murder, exploited workers, or had strange and ungodly liasons with persons of the same sex.

The laws are created by people given the responsibility to create laws by a body of people who (ideally) trust those people to create laws. Not by someone who's been emplyed privately.

[PrinceofLowLight]

Cops are given special priveleges with the understanding that they'll use them to enforce the law.

On the other hand, you have limited resources with which to enforce that law. If there are real criminals afoot, I don't think it would be such a terrible breach to prioritize your resources going after the people who are actually violating the peace. If you know breaking up that brothel might involve sending in an undercover to gather more evidence, an undercover cop who could be dealing with serious gangsters, then you may be within your rights to decide one is a more pressing use of your resources.

[salm]

In case of soldiers the old " I vas only folloving orders" doesn´t fly.

The way i see it though is that cops are different because they can quit their job at any given time whereas soldiers can not.

So if a cop doesn´t want to execute an order based on moral grounds he should simply quit because he´s obviously not qualified for the job.

[wolveraptor]

Thanks for all of your input, especially the bit about misdemeanors. I guess I didn't fully appreciate the significance of Canada setting marijuana posession down to a misdemeanor.

[Gil Hamilton]

A question. What is a policeman's actual duty to? The law as it is written or to society he's pledged to protect?

[wolveraptor]

Well the law as it is written is supposed to be subservient to the interests of society as a whole, so indirectly the policeman serves the public, but his primary obligation is to the law. Serving society through one's own sense of ethics would be vigilantism. If he doesn't agree with the law, he should quit, as other have said.
Of course, the first assumption only applies in democratic societies anyways.

[Gil Hamilton]

Well the law as it is written is supposed to be subservient to the interests of society as a whole, so indirectly the policeman serves the public, but his primary obligation is to the law. Serving society through one's own sense of ethics would be vigilantism. If he doesn't agree with the law, he should quit, as other have said.
Of course, the first assumption only applies in democratic societies anyways.

Aha, that's the rub, isn't it? You are putting in the assumption that the law is written so that is is subservient to the interests of society. What happens when the requirements of the law and the interest of society are opposed?

For example, the guy in the OP with the pot plants in his basement. Objectively, those pot plants have zilch effect on society, for good or bad. They are harmless and letting him go would cost society nothing.

However, those pot plants almost certainly add up, in pounds, to a hefty possession charge. In fact, regardless of the fact that he never made a single sale, he'd automatically get the "Intent to Sell" charge because that is determined by the weight of marijuana possessed. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, his sentence cannot be judically trivialized and he will go to prison for years as a felon (with all the effects that has on a persons life). For society, tax dollars will go to trying him and will pay for his incarceration. Objectively, this has a negative effect on society and doesn't have an upside to it. But it is the law.

Therefore, arresting the guy over the pot plants is not in the interest of society and has a non-negligable negative effect on it (per individual, it might seem small, but when you add all the individuals up it comes to a hefty sum). That's why it is important to distinguish whether the policeman's duty is to either the written law or to society itself. If it is the latter, then logically the policeman cannot enforce a law that harms society, because the wellbeing of society trumps the letter of the law.

[haard]

I'd still say that it is not up to the policeman to decide if he will uphold the law (with the exception of choosing one over another). If the law is bad (and US law, to a swede, is... ), it should be changed. If an officer is not perpared to uphold the law, he should probably quit.

[wolveraptor]

As haard said, the correct modus operandi to do what is best for society in such a situation would be to quit your job as a policeman and push for the legalization of pot. If such an option weren't open to you, then I would have to agree that not enforcing the law would be a valid choice.