An officer is testifying on the witness stand in a court trial. As her examination moves along, she realizes that the drug dealer that she arrested is likely to be found not guilty. This is because even though she obtained a verbal waiver of Fourth Amendment rights from the suspect, she had in fact searched the trunk of the suspect’s car prematurely. She realizes that only if she lies (“testilies”) will the suspect be found guilty. She also realizes that the suspect is confused about the entire process, and will not even be aware of her lie if she decides to tell it. Thus, the ethical dilemma is hers and hers alone.
What does she do? Does she “testilie” in the interests of justice? Why would she? What would her rationalization be? Would that, indeed, involve promoting justice? What would the ethical implications be if she did lie? Why do experts on police ethics consider that she is on a “slippery slope” if she lies? What is the long-term danger of police officers becoming criminals themselves by testilying? In other words, how would testilying impact upon justice from the opposite direction?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|