Key Issues before Correctional Officers Part 1 and 2

Part 1

As the lawyer working for the State Bureau of Prisons, I have been subjected with the responsibility of assessing key problems that surrounds a number of correctional officers and the prison institute and the behavioral conduct of the lawyer responsible for their representation. This group of correctional officers has re-counted a number of assault scenarios by prisoners which has resulted in physical harm. In this context, if the assault assertions are proven as factual then the law generally obligates for two additional years on top of the prison sentence of the inmates in general. So that the actual facts behind the claims can be established discussions and hearings, in regard to the allegations have been conducted. Based on the response from one of the accused inmate besides being indicted misleadingly they were also subjected to interrogations and hearing conducted by the institute’s warden and correctional officers head without any form of justifiable reason. With respect to this case, despite the awareness of the improper practice and the lack of evidence, in my opinion, I highly suspect misconduct and suspects abuse by the institute’s executives and its officers.

This case mainly offers the most feasible sample of ethical dilemmas that are mainly experienced by attorneys in their genuine trials to resolve conflicting matters amid correctional staffs, prison executives, and prisoners. To begin with, one of the leading ethical problems that are central to the case in regard to whether there was any infringement of human rights that occurred against the prisoners, prison executives or wardens. It is worth noting that, human rights infringement in regard to the case of the prisoners might have taken place in an actual sense if the prisoners were involved in the assault and creation of physical harm to the officers while carrying out their responsibilities (Ross, 2016). In an actual sense, one of the primary difficulty of operating as a correctional staff is the consistent exposure to the danger of being attacked, harmed or assaulted by prisoners (Siegel & Worall, 2016). This is mainly based on the fact that to the inmates the officers are their enemies despite having to work for their wellness. it cannot be ignored that being charged falsely or correctly will create some sort of feelings that are not very appealing that might lead to assault which might be either physical or verbal based on its level as well as the ability of the holder to assert control.

The threat that is related to some obvious assault from the prisoners is mainly related to the capability of prisoners to transforming certain things into alternative arms that are utilized in attacking as well as creating harm to the correctional staffs. Some of these issues can best be addressed by ensuring that the inmates are exposed to some counseling programs that not only seek to transform their perceptions by help in creating psychological stability thus reducing verbal assault. This is evident from the scenario as the inmates hold that they were charged the wrong way and exposed to unjustified interrogations which might be influencing their need for revenge. Based on the ethical matters that are featured from the raised claims demonstrates clearly that there is a major violation of the legal code within the setting that needs to be fixed. Based on the provisions of both State and Federal laws in America, inmates are to be bound to be given protection from any sort of provocation or violence ranging from physical and verbal attacks, sexual harassment and so on. It is through such acts that psychological or physical harm is created which are, in turn, a violation of human rights in general (Siegel & Worall, 2016). One of the primary requirement of correctional staffs is ensuring that they accomplish their given roles without any application of unequal or discriminatory act with respect to the law. In that within the diversity that is present in the prison institute the ability to ensure that discrimination is not applied in regard to judging individuals based on race, religion, age and so on is never encouraged. Such measures are mainly objected to creating a comfortable surrounding that is accommodative and inclusive as provided by law.

Such processes are used in regard to guarding the provided human rights as well as other different prisoners’ rights as offered by the legal constituents and code (Kleinig, 2008). When correctional staffs utilize unlawful strategies in regard to treating inmates this implies that their actions are not just an infringement of the prisoner’s human rights but the legal code as well (Kleinig, 2008). In that ethics demands that individuals act in a manner that is not just acceptable but one that follows the general provisions in regard to moral. In that, in the correctional facilities, it is evident that individuals are not only allowed to treat others with respect but also to ensure that their rights are guarded (Ross, 2016). This is by providing them with the right platforms for hearing and allowing them to fully defend themselves in addition to living in a desirable surrounding.

In the attempt to resolving the presented ethical and legal issues from the case, the case will be decided on the ground of abuse suspicions as well as misconduct in reference to the act demonstrated by prison’s executives and its correctional officers. This settlement is grounded on the fact that as an attorney the unlawful practice within the setting is very evident and clear that is mainly facilitated by the prison executives even though there is nothing that can be utilized to prove (Banks, 2012). An additional rationale that best demonstrates and proves the claim of abuse and misbehavior by the correctional institute’s professionals is grounded on the decision to perform interrogations and hearing on the prisoners without the engagement of an attorney as set by the law. This implies that their charging and conviction was illegal on the ground that they might have been subjected to intimidation that hindered their general ability of fully defending themselves. In addition, they were denied the platform that was necessary to set a feasible case through their attorney. In this context, if the prisoners actually subjected attacks to the correctional staffs thus causing them physical harm. The prison management responsible to controlling activities and ensuring operational effectiveness should have utilized the needed measures as offered by the law to ensure that justice prevailed rather than allowing the charges to be grounded on the interrogations that were performed by the officers without the presence of the attorney (Banks, 2012). This means that some standards of reporting and interrogations might have been violated leading to the incorrect charge (Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2014).

Based on the American constitutional provision as illustrated by the 14th, 8th and 5th amendments inmates are fully guarded against attacks or exposure to dehumanizing prison state such as the lack of food, medical provisions, abuse and misbehavior by officers (Pollock, 2016). This, therefore, demonstrates that the misconduct that is demonstrated by the prison’s administration, officers and wardens is a factual infringement of individual’s privileges. In this case, it is evident that determining or solving the issues will mainly necessitate adequate and undeniable proof in regard to the manner in which the rights of the prisoners based on the provisions of the amendment have been infringed.  It is worth noting that this resolution procedure necessitates full comprehension of the constitutional privileges along with their applications in general with reference to the prisoners irrespective of the rationale behind the incarceration. In that, the rights are never dependent on the crime committed but they are mainly evident to every individual and should not be abandoned for any given rationale. After the infringement of rights has been proven fully it will be possible to raise a claim with respect to the law both for the state and federal laws on the matter (Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2014). In quintessence, this will result to me filing a civil lawsuit in contradiction of the prison’s administration and its correctional staffs based on their misconduct and the fact that they failed to adhere to the constitution while carrying out their roles. The general lawsuit claim is attributed by the fact it is only the responsibility of the federal or state administration is raising any sort of charges against an individual as offered by the criminal law and thus this is not the obligation of the officers. In other words, their actions were overboard on the ground that they acted on roles that are not within their jurisdictions leading to the violation of the prisoners’ rights.

Correctional Officer Misconduct Memo

Different measures and approaches that attorneys should utilize are offered both by the state and federal laws in the instance that correctional staffs and prison’s administrators are found mortified of assault or misbehavior in regard to handling inmates (Prenzler, 2009). On the grounds of research and the facts that are provided from the scenario if it is true that the correctional officers along with the wardens were guilty of certain indiscipline as well as misbehavior in their working roles as the attorney the most probable move is to visit the State Bureau of corrections of the warden’s related supervisors and authority. Based on the necessities that are grounded on the Employee Professionalism, and ethical conduct officers working in the criminal justice system are at all times needed to make reporting to their respective authorities with respect to their duties which is to be conducted during the hours that are not directed on working (Arizona, 2015). Given that the scenario mainly incorporates undesirable application of law both by the correctional majors and respective wardens interacting with the officer’s supervisors or the warden’s authority in addition to the Corrections State Bureau is to be performed through an informative report. In this context, the executives are anticipated to make immediate notification to the highest commander in regard to the activities of the subordinates which are not in accordance with the law. The statement is to be trailed by an informative report which is aimed at providing detailed reports in regard to the employee’s activities and the manner in which law was applied (Pollock, 2016). The settlement to visit the warden’s supervisors of the state Bureau is grounded on the notion that the activities which are unethical are associated with operations that are ongoing in the facility. In this regard, it implies that the matter will not be notified to the suitable law enforcer’s agencies given that their roles are not grounded in dealing with departmental staffs.

It is after acquiring the necessary reports in regard to these misbehaviors that the Administrative Investigation Unit (AIU) is needed to acquire the reports and commence the investigation procedures (Prenzler, 2009). Based on the fact that the investigative procedures are to be grounded on the reports acquired from the investigation and staffs Discipline units this will mainly be stirred in the directions of establishing the most suitable standards in regard to handling indiscipline’s as well as misbehaviors with wardens as well as correctional staffs. The established measures are to be applied based on the legal ethical codes that play part in governing conducts as well as operations within the administrators and the respective officers. Besides having to depend on the investigative procedures, prisoners as victims of the illegal treatment by the staffs will acquire legal based remedies (Pollock, 2016). In that, the foremost therapy that is available to such a populace is the utilization of the grievance program that is offered by the institution in order to raise their complaints while seeking that those that are responsible are punished adequately. This also seeks to provide an inclusive surrounding that is free from misconduct and prejudice. In addition, the prisoners can also file lawsuits on the grounds that their rights as offered by the constitution were infringed by the institute’s staffs and its management. This can mainly be grounded in the incorrect charge and being denied the opportunity to defend themselves fully under their attorneys. Lastly the prisoners, the prisoners can file a tort allegation in contradiction of the activities by the wardens and officers (Prenzler, 2009). It is worth noting that the remedies are only viable and feasible if the prisoners were established to be assault victims by the institution’s officers.

Part 2

The reserved lawyer to assist the correctional staffs in regard to the conducted misconduct in relation to their correctional roles has been accused of disrespectful and inappropriate remarks in regard to me as the attorney and my team. The lawyer made accusations in regard to my team of not just parodying the case but also interfering with case files. The attorney has been accounted as incompetent based on his drinking problem and past complaints in relation to his demeanor and undesirable behavior that he even has the propensity of discounting proper files documentation. These actions are not only unacceptable but very unethical in general (Podgers, 2012). In that, all the claims are made based on assumptions and recklessness rather than following the governing codes in general. The case facts are not only obvious but they are accurate and my team and I worked tirelessly to establish the existing dilemma and the manner in which each one of them is to be resolved without affecting the outcome or violating the rights of all those that are involved. The team did not, therefore, interfere with files but mainly worked on the basis of the provided facts.

There are a number of ethical as well as moral issues that are at stake based on the actions of my colleague. To begin with, it is evident that the attorney has the tendency of applying wrong judgment on others without the engagement of facts. In addition, the fact that the attorney has a drinking problem best illustrate that he is not in the right mind of making judgments in general in regard to the case. In that clients should always be represented by attorneys in their right senses not only to make decisions but also to ensure that they have the ability to make the most suitable choices based on the provided facts (Podgers, 2012). Based on attorney’s Conduct Professionalism when handling such cases is usually ruled by the approach of professional behaviors which offers immediate foundation for some important ethical guidelines in the context of attorneys in every state in America (Arizona, 2015). It is therefore unprofessional or a misconduct for an attorney that violates the provisions of such measures. In addition, it is unethical professionally for an attorney of any given case to get engaged in unethical activities on the basis of practical rules and provisions (Arizona, 2015). Based on the facts from the case, it is evident that my colleague as an attorney has been engaged in uncivilized misbehavior by infringing the provisions and rules that relate to professional acting to the state that his reliability, competence, and factuality in conducting his responsibilities are being doubted by those in the same department and field. It is the same misbehavior by the lawyer that has mainly played part in making the unsuitable, disparaging and disrespectful commentaries in regard to my work and that of my team without any probable reason or evidence.

One of the prime infringement in regard to the professional conduct standards that are demonstrated by the attorney is mainly grounded in his usual behavior that involves ignoring to adhere to the preparation of the proper document for legal cases. It is obvious that legal cases are mainly ruled by facts and procedures (Prenzler, 2009). In this context, the involved legal teams should at all times play part in proper files preparations that help in setting grounds for proper cases in general. The behavior of the lawyer best asserts that he does not only operate unethically and also has the vulnerability of misrepresentation of facts during cases while tampering with documents based on the lack of a well-developed outline. In addition, his drinking issue and careless behavior demonstrate his general incapability of offering adequate time and proper grounds to a case as he does not work based on rationality.

In summing up, based on the misbehavior of the attorney and the inability to differentiate assumptions from fact and his inability to fully prepare the needed files for the case I would recommend that the lawyer should not be retained. In that, a more suitable attorney based on merits and competence should be selected for the case in order to establish the conflicting facts in regard to the case and how best each of them is to be resolved. In this context, the attorney’s license should be revoked for a limited time to enable him to charge and to engage in continuous training and counseling to understand ethical provisions and requirements in regard to legal cases. This will work to ensure that reform is attained while preserving the reputation of others which he works to destroy (Prenzler, 2009).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Arizona, Government. (2015). Employee Professionalism, Ethics and Conduct. Retrieved from https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/policies/500/0501-effective_091517.pdf

Banks, C. (2012). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. Sage Publication.

Jocelyn M. Pollock. (2016). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning.

Kleinig, J. (2008). Ethics and Criminal Justice: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

Larry J. Siegel & John L. Worall. (2016). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning.

Podgers, J. (2012). A New Look: ABA Plans First Comprehensive Review of Disciplinary Enforcement Rules in 20 Years. ABA Journal. Retrieved from http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_new_look_aba_plans_first_comprehensive_review_of_disciplinary_enforcement/

Prenzler, T. (2009). Ethics and accountability in criminal justice: Towards a universal standard. Bowen Hills, Qld: Australian Academic Press.

Ross, J. I. (2016). Key issues in corrections. Bristol: Ill.

Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D. B., & Klofas, J. (2014). Criminal justice organizations: Administration and management. Cengage Learning.