Should Police Officers who Lie be Terminated?
POLICE OFFICERS WHO LIE 6
Police officers are charged with great responsibilities and duty totheir nation and citizens who live there. They are required toprotect every citizen to ensure that their rights are not infringedby anyone. Safety and the right to live tops the list of entitlementsthat an individual should be accorded, to guarantee that everyone hasa chance of at least enjoying the other rights. Further, a policeofficer has a duty to his colleagues, and they should help otherofficers of the law in performing their duties in every way possible.Having mentioned that, truthfulness becomes the central aspect ofpolice work, and every officer of the law should always seek to behonest to the best of his knowledge. Lying on purpose should be thelast thing that a law enforcement officer should consider doing astheir job require a high level of moral authority. Indeed, policeofficers who lie should be terminated immediately to uphold theintegrity of the criminal justice system and set an example to rest,as well
Given the duties, expected moral authority and the sensitivity ofpolice officers, as well as the entire profession, justice can onlybe served if the involved officers remain honest and truthful at alltimes. Possibly, an officer might think that lying or withholdingvital information would be best to save a situation. As pastencounters have proved, at times people lie to avoid shaming orimplicating individuals who hold high positions in the society (Lisa,2015). Although that might work for some people, the converse is alsotrue as such situations lead to punishment of innocent people. It isapparent that, lots of people have had their rights infringe by thevery people who are supposed to protect them. In the case Brady V.Maryland, the prosecution failed to disclose a confession of one ofthe accused, which indicated that the part had committed the actualmurder. Though not innocent, Brady could have been a fair trial hadthe prosecution provided the evidence during trial.
In the second case, one party was manipulated to confess for thegovernment against the defendant under the promise of not beingprosecuted. None of the promises were honored and despite confessingagainst his friend, he was tried and sentenced (Lisa, 2015). Theevidence came later revealing that indeed the promise of non-trialand prosecution was given to the party. In both cases, sentences werepassed to people who could have been granted court leniency.
The two cases demonstrate the magnitude of lying by officer of thelaw to the public. The paper holds that such officer should be firedwithout delay. Losing a badge over lying for an officer of the law isvery simple and justified, as well (Lisa, 2015). Given theirauthority on matters concerning law enforcement, police officers area source of information to the general public on the same. Thesecircumstances makes lying unacceptable as an individual can seekadvice from a police officer with regard to a sensitive matter, andend up getting incriminating information. Lying might sound like aminor offense to cost an officer his job, and from this vantage pointit might seem unfair to terminate such officers. However, everyofficer should is aware and should be aware of the consequences ofgiving misleading information on purpose. Given that police officerscomprehend the consequences, then it would unfair not to terminatethem, in the event that they commit the felony.
There are honest police officers who dedicate their life, talents andresource to serve the public, and his nation. The officers earn theirreputation by being honest and truthful in their careers thus makingit easy for their seniors, juniors and the public have faith in them.When it comes to matters of honest and telling the truth, every eventis significant and it should be treated independently. It should notbe a matter of legacy, in that truthful officers can lie on someoccasions and get away with it because of their clean record.Therefore, it is possible to lose an important officer over a singlemistake, but that would be a good sacrifice for the greater good.
It is quite apparent that police officers are the breadwinners fortheir families, and to many of them the job is the only source oflivelihood. Terminating such police officers from their job andduties might result to detrimental effects on their families, and thesituation might be made worse in the event that there are the solebreadwinners. From this vantage point, it might seem inconsiderate toterminate such police officers for a mistake of lying (Lisa, 2015).However, it would be equally paramount for the officers involved toknow the stakes and repercussions of telling a lie that might destroythe life of another individual. It should be assumed that, by makingthe mistake of lying, the officer is ready to deal with a terminationrather than tell the truth.
From a Christian view, it would be morally right to forgive a lyingpolice officer, and probably forge their mistakes. However, cases ofmistakes with public servants, and mostly officers of the law serveas hot cake news to the media (Lisa, 2015). Such news spread fast,and in the event that the officers are not punished, the credibilityof the agency will definitely lose its credibility. For an agencythat wants to win the confidence of the public or other entities, itshould show no leniency to felons as doing so will contradict themoral values of the organization.
Conclusively, the position of the paper holds that lying policeofficers should be sacked, without being shown any leniency. Theexpected moral authority with officers of the law is extremely highand nobody should be given a chance to compromise that by tellinglies. Truth is the way to go and it must followed by all at alltimes.
The recommended policy would be probably be development of structuresthat would foster truthfulness among police officer. Further, thepolicy should hold that any police officer who is found guilty oflying be suspended for some period as a form of remedial punishment.Should the officer repeat the same felony, they should be fired andfollowed by paying a fine to compensate the victim of the officer’slie. With such clear guidelines in play, any reasonable policeofficer would refrain from telling lies to uphold the reputation oftheir agency, as well as the credibility of the officers to performtheir duties to the fullest. Notably, officers of the law who hadbeen found guilty of giving false information on purpose may not beallowed to confess in a court of law, or his testimony may probablybe second guessed.
Lisa, A. (2015). Disclosing officer untruthfulness to the Defense: Isa Liars Squad Coming to your Town. Retrieved fromhttp://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=744&issue_id=112005