The conceptual meaning of the term ethics relates to what is right and wrong. In most instances, ethics and morality have been used interchangeably to refer to the same thing. The difference between ethics and morality is almost non-existent, although it cannot be said that it does not exist. Ethics can also be referred to as moral philosophy, as it is a branch of philosophy that specifically studies the questions of right and wrong. It is, therefore, a moral judgment of what is right or wrong, assigned to the actions and conducts of individuals. As a discipline, ethics can be broken down into three branches – meta ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta ethics refers to the methods, language, logical structure and the reasoning used in interpreting ethical terms, such as what amounts to a wrong. Normative ethics then refer to the ways of behaving and standards of conduct of individuals. It, therefore, studies the conducts and behaviors of individuals, relying on meta ethics in developing a clear understanding of these behaviors and conducts. Finally, applied ethics are concerned with solving practical moral problems, as they arise. This is the branch of ethics used in professions, such as medicine and law, and helps in resolving ethical issues, as they arise. Ethics can, therefore, be simply defined as the principles of what is right or wrong.
In the criminal justice system, ethics refers to the standards that govern the conduct of all actors in the justice system. The criminal justice is a system in the public sector, governed by ethical principles of public service, objectivity in judgment, accountability, democratic leadership and respectability. Consequently, the ethics of public service requires all actors in the criminal justice system to treat the office as a public trust, objectivity in judgment demands openness and transparency in decision making, democratic leadership requires observance of the letter and spirit of the law, while respectability refers to the avoidance of appearance of impropriety.
Ethics in Law versus Ethics in Real Life
One might be tempted to argue that since the basic meaning of ethics is the moral judgment of what is right or wrong, then there is no distinction between ethics in law and ethics in real life. This argument is very far from truth; this is because, firstly, law is defined as a profession because it incorporates a set of ethical requirements as part of its meaning and thus professionalism among all actors at all levels of the law depends upon their ability to administer policy effectively in a morally and ethically responsible manner. Secondly, the legal profession is generally a public service profession and thus the ethical demands placed upon actors in the legal profession is far more higher than in real life. Actors in the justice system are required to practice real ethics, that is, doing the right thing when no one is watching and no one will find out whether you acted badly or with integrity, fairness and morality. Ethics in law require a balanced perception and integrity, where integrity involves wholeness in public and private life, consisting of habits of justice, temperament, courage, compassion, honesty, fortitude and disdain for self-pity (Dressler, 2012). On the other hand, ethics in real life does not demand the same level of commitment and consistency, as the one required in the legal profession. In real life, there is no overlying duty on an individual to follow a certain code of conduct which is deemed ethical. The meaning of what is wrong or right is a subjective matter which is left to the individual to decide, based on his or her beliefs. The moral quality of an individual’s actions or conducts are not predetermined by any written law but are rather dependent on the practices and beliefs of the society that individual comes from. In real life, therefore, people practice prudent ethics, where they follow rules, act properly, morally, and ethically where someone is looking or is likely to find out. In real life, ethics does not involve acting contrary to self-interest or abjuring self-serving expediency of taking the high-road. It mostly seeks the approbation of others.
The Need for Equal Treatment of All People in the Criminal Justice System
Ethics in the criminal justice system basically demands the equal treatment of all people in the provision of services. The world in which we live is littered with incidences of inequalities in many facets. It is a society in which people do not simply bear different characteristics, such as colour and shape, but the treatment of such people is also varied. These inequalities stem from different patterns of opportunity, resources, constraints and obstacles that people face. The criminal justice system acts as a balancing point, where everyone is equal. It is principally concerned with whether a given defendant has a broken a given law. The rules that the criminal courts rely on to come to a just conclusion are meant to apply to all individuals, regardless of their racial origin. There is, therefore, a need for the criminal justice system to ensure that the law applies to all equally without any discrimination (Kadish, Schulhofer, Steiker & Barkow, 2012). One of the ethical dilemmas that have always bedeviled the US criminal justice system is the treatment of African American individuals, suspected of having committed a crime. Studies show that criminal court judges are more likely to sentence black suspects than white, as it is believed that they are most likely to commit crime. The criminal justice system needs to treat all people equally, so as to fulfill its mandate fully and at the same time acquire respectability and transparency.
The Major Safeguards Provided By the Criminal Procedure
The criminal justice procedure has a number of measures in place that are meant to safeguard against unequal treatment of individuals in the process of seeking justice. Firstly, the criminal procedure is founded on the basis of the Constitution and is required to enforce and safeguard every constitutional provision. One of the safeguards in the criminal justice system against unequal treatment is the right to due process. This is a constitutional guarantee that every legal proceeding will be conducted in a manner that is fair and impartial. This provision is enshrined in the US Constitution under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment and forbids all government levels, from unlawfully depriving individuals of the basic constitutional rights to liberty, life and property. The right to due process is closely linked to the right to a fair trial in civil and criminal matters. This is a fundamental human right provision that is also part of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. This right is also a safeguard against unequal treatment in criminal procedure, as it provides that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing in a reasonable time frame; the hearing has to be conducted by an impartial, independent tribunal recognized by law. It entails the requirement that everyone accused of a criminal offence is considered innocent, until proven otherwise according to the law. Under this safeguard, everyone charged with a criminal offence has certain minimum rights that cannot be taken away from him. For instance, the accused has the right to be informed promptly and in a language that he or she understands the nature of the accusation against him/ her. Secondly, the accused is required to be given sufficient time for the preparation of his/ her defense. This also includes the right to have adequate representation in form of defense and where they cannot afford the defense, the state shall provide them with one. These are just some of the safeguards that are meant to ensure equality of treatment under the criminal jurisdiction procedure.