Free Use of Deception by Peace Officers Essay Sample
Public safety officers play an important role in the maintenance of law and order in the society on a daily basis. Whereas their work entail providing security for the civilian in the society, there are a lot of issues that are involved that act as puzzles that need to be solved thus requiring different approaches in order to come up with accurate answers or rather solutions. In consistent with this, one of the approaches that is employed by public safety officers on a daily basis is the use of deception in the work. In this regard, the peace officers take advantages of the victims' misplaced trust in order to obtain important information that enables these officers to unravel the mystery behind certain incidences that have been found to violate the law.
There are many situations that have forced police officers to use deception as a means of accomplishing their mandated duties (Marx, 1989, p.96). These situations vary one from the other and as a result, the level of deception that is used also varies. However, whereas the law cannot in any way condemn them for using deception, there are different cases whereby it has been difficult to determine how far these officers need go with deception in accomplishing their jobs. With this in mind, it is important to look at different examples where it became difficult to determine how far one should go in doing their job.
300 words per page instead of 280
Free Revisions (on demand)
Free plagiarims report (on demand)
To begin with, it has been difficult to determine how far one should go with deception while on job as a public safety officer with regard to giving out important information in regard to security issues that concerns the public. For instance, in cases of criminal activities that involve dangerous criminals, public safety officers often use deception especially towards the general public by providing contradicting information in order to avoid raising restlessness and fear among the general public. Most such cases concerns criminal activities that have remained as a menace to the public for a long time. In other cases where public safety officers have failed to understand or rather determine how far they should go with deceiving the public or suspects in criminal concerns areas where they may have failed as safety officers (Pollock, 2008, p.273). For example, when a suspects escapes from custody, in most cases public safety officers would employ deceptive tactics in order to either deviate the public from such cases or assure them that everything is under control while it is not.
On the other hand, when getting information from crime suspects, public safety officers have in some cases failed to understand how far they need to be involved with their deceptive tactics. In line with this, some of these officers have gone as far as assisting criminals to commit felony. For instance, in illegal drug related cases, peace officers who are involved have been found to go as far as devising ways of transporting such drugs and how to avoid being caught by the law enforcement officers. Some of them have gone as far as reaping the benefits that emanates from selling of these drugs. In such cases, there is a dilemma on whether these officers should also appear in court and answer to criminal charges since they also took part fully (Pollock, 2008).
In addition to failing to understand how far one should go with deception as a public safety officer, there have been reported of cases whereby the officers involved in using deception as a way of gathering important information from crime victims get involved in these crimes and event end up becoming criminals themselves (Marx, 1989, p.106). This is one of the pitfalls that the public safety officers have found themselves in while on work. In addition to this, it is important for one to understand that the public safety officers who finally end up on the wrong side of the law would often use state property to accomplish their hideous missions. In this regard, most of them continue working while at the same time running their own cartels of criminals.
Similarly, it is important for one to understand that there are a lot of dilemma situations that public safety officers use as they use deception as a tactic on their job. One of these dilemma situations is the fact that most of these officers use public property to accomplish their work which is full of deception. Importantly, the issue of deception among public safety officers and ethics has raised a lot of contentious issue especially in the legal sector. With this in mind, it is important to understand that a section of the legal department have more than often argued against the principles of deception among these officers (Pollock, 2008). In this regard, there has been a dilemma whether to ban deception as a means of getting information and as a means of assuring the public that they are safe.
Another dilemma emanates from the fact that other suspects lie during interrogations and interviews. These suspects fail to come to terms with the fact that they are the ones who have committed a particular crime. In this regard, whether these suspects are caught red handed on the scene of crime or not, sometimes it has proved to be challenge on how they can be charged in accordance with the crime they have committed. More so, some of them would confess their crime. However, contrary to what is expected of them, they might as well confess to a totally different crime that they may have committed along time ago such that they cannot in any way be charged (Pollock, 2008).
In such cases therefore, it is difficult to deal with these suspects and the public safety officers have to device news interrogation tactics in order to get their required information. With this mind, there is need to define a new the law how far public officers can go with deception. For instance, the law needs to state how far they can go in terms of receiving information from the suspects, especially in cases where the suspects are overwhelmed and begin giving their personal or rather private information that does not in any way contribute in any way towards bringing them to book (Pollock, 2008).
Public safety officers have also been found to use decoy in their work to get their victims. In this regard, these officers would plan their arrests in such a way that they are able to distract suspects in order to get either the information they need regarding a particular case or to arrest them without their knowledge. Following this point, the victims are literally lured into the trap that has been set by the public safety officers and then arrested for their crime. One of the most common decoy works is entrapment whereby a person who is suspected as a criminal is induced to commit crime. On the other hand, such a suspect is provided with a favorable opportunity by the public safety officers or their agents to commit this crime. Whereas this has always provided an excellent opportunity for public safety officers to bring culprits to book, the way it has been accomplished in the society it has raised mixed reactions from other law enforcement officers (Marx, 1989).
Custom essay writing service bestwritingservice.com
100% satisfaction guaranteeOrder now
Entrapment can be termed as an important factor of deception among the public safety officers in the United States and across the globe. In this case, people are perceived as criminals are deceived into committing crime where traps have been set in order to gather enough evidence that allow for conviction as criminals. However, it is important for one to understand that the way entrapment have been done has in most cases an outcry from juries who have agued that it is not fair to bring accusations against people who have committed crime through such ways (Marx, 1989).
Notably, most suspects who commit crime as a result of entrapment have always found a loophole to launch their defense against the defendant. Understandably, the law of the United States forbids conviction of such people especially in cases where the victims have been induced to commit crime against their wish (Marx, 1989, p.103). On the other hand, in cases where the suspect gladly breaks the law, he or she is liable to being convicted. However, it is worthy to note that when suspects realize that they have been entrapped, the employ this as their defense and thus juries have no legal basis to convict despite these suspects having committed the crime. Therefore, to juries this means letting criminals go free since thus endangering the society that has employed them to maintain law and order.
In summation, one can argue that the use of deception is an important factor that has been employed for a long period of time by public safety officers to establish the truth about crime and criminal incidences in the society. However, there are cases where it was difficult to determine how far one could go with deception in seeking for important information about a particular crime. It is therefore important for these officers to be taught on the limits of deception as tactic in gathering intelligence information. Similarly, when using deception tactics such as entrapment, these officers need to understand the loopholes that exist in the legal circles rather than arresting the suspects only for them to be released again to the public as a result of provisions of the law in regard to entrapment.