Ethics

"Police in a bombing investigation alerted their prime suspect that he was under suspicion, which apparently had the effect of deterring further bombings. If they had not done so, he may have committed further bombings, thereby providing the evidence needed for successful prosecution."

The purpose of this essay is to discuss ethical issues that police officers would have to confront in making the decision whether to alert the suspect or not that he was under suspicion for bombing. Arguments will be put forward to justify the course of action the officers took and some against. A discussion will also be provided on the approach the author would have used in a similar situation and which argument is most convincing. This will be made using academic references to support the author's views as well as professional examples.

Some of New South Wales' legislations, New South Wales' Police Procedures and relevant issues police are to rely upon when making a decision as in this scenario include, but are not limited to:

Ð'* New South Wales Police Act/Regulations

Ð'* New South Wales Crimes Act

Ð'* New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) Act

Ð'* Peers/Chain of Command

Ð'* Community View/Opinion

Ð'* Justification/Accountability

Ð'* Discretion

Ð'* Personal Beliefs/Ethics

The police officers involved in this scenario could justify their reason for alerting the bomber in a number of ways.

Firstly, police officers are bound by a number of legislations which govern their actions. The New South Wales Police Act 1990 is one such act. The Act states that the mission and function of the New South Wales Police is to provide police services for New South Wales. Police Services include:

Ð'* Services by way of prevention and detection of crime, and

Ð'* The protection of persons from injury or death, and property from damage, whether arising from criminal acts or in any other way.

One justification for their actions is if the officers believed that the prevention of crime was more important than the detection of crime. A further justification is in believing that the ultimate goal of the New South Wales Police is to protect persons from injury or death.

The officers could justify themselves using the New South Wales Police Act to alert the suspect if the officers believed that this would in turn prevent crime and save persons from injury or death. Therefore, in this scenario it is apparent that the officers held this view and alerted the suspect in an attempt to prevent further crimes, which may have resulted in injury or death.

Furthermore, under Section 13 of the New South Wales Police Act, all police officers are required to take an oath or affirmation of office. This oath/affirmation is located in Section 8 of the New South Wales Police Regulations and states,

"I, Ð'..., do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a police officer without favour or affection, malice or ill-will until I am legally discharged, that I will cause her Majesty's peace to be kept and preserved, and that I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the peace, and that while I continue to be a police officer I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties according to lawÐ'..."

The officers involved in this scenario could justify the course of action taken by using their Oath as a reference. To alert the suspect could preserve her Majesty's peace and prevent offences against the peace in the short and long term.

The OH&S Act requires that police officers protect the health and safety of persons at their place of work. Section 20(1) of the OH&S Act states that employees:

"Must take reasonable care for the health and safety of people who are at the employee's place of work and who may be affected by the employees acts or omissions at work."

In this scenario the officers' place of work includes the entire state of New South Wales. The officers could justify alerting the suspect, as they were caring for the safety of persons at their place of work.

Another way the officers could justify the course of action taken is their accountability towards the community. The officers involved would have been concerned of their standard of performance and the way the community would judge the course of action.

As Lewis (1999, p. 9) states, "Power is checked and controlled through accountability processes." The community is one such group that the police officers are accountable to. The community wants, requires and expects the best from police officers and would expect them to alert the suspect and not risk its safety. The police officers may well have considered that had the suspect not been alerted, and had successfully conducted another bombing the community would criticise police for not taking action earlier and therefore preventing the loss of life and possible damage to property.

New South Wales being a democratic society, the community would expect a more conservative approach to this scenario by police. The community expects police to exercise their powers wisely to prevent further offences. In this case, to alert the suspect would be seen as wise.

On the other hand, other officers could have justified not alerting the suspect using some of the aforementioned New South Wales legislations.

If officers placed more weight on the importance of detecting crime, the officers could have justified themselves in not alerting the suspect using the New South Wales Police Act. For example, the making of a bomb or planning to injure persons by bombing is a crime. By notifying the person that he is under suspicion the Police may not have obtained sufficient evidence required in a Court of Law to successfully prosecute the suspect of any offences. Furthermore the suspect may well decide to flee the country now that he is aware he is under surveillance. This may result in the suspect resuming his bombing campaign at a later date. According to the scenario, if the suspect had not been alerted he may have committed further bombings, which may have led to Police