European Police Interrogation

A Philosophical Inquiry on the Moral Justifications for the Use of Deadly Force in Police Interrogations by European Police

Introduction

The use of force by the police has been a subject of many ethical and moral debates particularly in democratic countries such as that of the European Union where human rights are considered to be inviolable. However, with the societal goal to preserve peace and order for the greater good of the society, the police are vested with considerable formal power (force de jure) and physical power that they can use in emergency circumstances and in matters needing solution (Kleinig, 1996; 2-3). While critics of police use of force have been abundant, some scholars are also looking for moral and ethical justifications of police use of deadly force. While many moral philosophies abound, the consequentialist theory stands as the most credible theory in justifying police use of force.

In the English and European Legal System, criminals are assured of fair trial and hence, the methods by which the police uses custodial investigations are put into question particularly on how the use of force during interrogation (Tonney, 2002; 411). For instance, unlike in the American legal system, European countries has a European Human Rights System that honors the decision of the European Court of Human Rights ("EctHR"), which interpret and apply the European Convention on Human Rights ("Convention") (Rodriguez Iglesias, 1995; 169). This was instituted in order to prevent the abuse of power of the police in custodial investigations. However, with the overlapping principles that govern the use of deadly force by the European Police, the question of the justification of the use of force is further reinforced.

Consequentialism justifies the use of force by the police by virtue of three important principles: police discretion, police authority and social contract. Accordingly, the police are bound to protect the society using these three methods. The curtailment of such privileges would make them ineffective in solving crimes and preserving peace and order. On one hand, the justification of the use of force by the police is rooted on their legal and moral discretion- wherein, Davis (1975; 4) defined as that public officers have discretion to make choices among possible courses of action or inaction within the effective limits of his power. Within this legal right and duty, police officers are left with individual judgment on the limits of their own power.

However, as Fyfe (1996; 198-199) had emphasized, more than anything else, the police should act with the goal of protecting life, rights and property. The limits of discretion are therefore put into question when the police use force that subjects civilians into life dangers where police authority can be withdrawn. For instance, Davis (1975; 4) questions the lawlessness of actions of policemen in solving crimes- they are said to be lacking the rules and guidelines of ethical and moral principles in order to guide their actions. Hence, moral decisions are based only on statures, ordinances and manuals (Davis, 1975; 4) which are relatively ineffective in guarding civilian rights. This is one of the reasons why despite the massive use of force in the police ranks, very few cases of police abuse has been reported in European countries.

Along with the question of police discretion and authority, one of the more important justifications by the police and their use of methods necessary for a given situation is that of the presence of a social contract (Feder, 1998; 356). Authority and discretion is given to the police with the goal of preserving peace and order in a society- this role necessitates the use of means or methods that at times may not be ethical and moral but circumstances would dictate that it is the necessary action to do. This is the same true in European countries and the European Union- a social contract binds these countries in order to ensure that harmony and multilateral development is achieved.

However, confusion appears when the social contract, discretion and police authority and their use of deadly force is put side by side with that of human rights or civilian rights. It is held in democratic states that civilian authority is above police authority- and by virtue of the social contract; civilians can delineate the authority given to the police. In criminal cases then, who would the police protect- the rights of the defendant or the plaintiff? The preservation of peace and order would dictate that the police force in democratic countries such as Europe would favor security- that would mean arresting the criminal and putting them into custody for interrogation. The goal of the interrogation is to know the truth and in the process, ensure that if the criminal is a threat to society, he/she be confined in prison in order not to commit the same crime again.

The debate on which moral justification can best provide the defense for the police use of deadly force is still predominant in ethical and philosophical dilemmas in the police force. Moreover, the police force is still in limbo as to the moral and ethical guide can be used in their decisions in everyday crime scenes. This study is an attempt to propose Consequentialism specifically Act Consequentialism as an important guide for the police force in their use of force or deadly force. Consequently, this paper explores the use and extent of use of force by police authorities in Europe and how European Laws guides or limits this power. Furthermore, this paper proposes that Consequentialism more than any other philosophical theories can best guide and justify the use of deadly force in the police ranks.

Background of the Study: Consequentialism and the Use of Deadly Force

Consequentialism arose as a challenge to prevailing moral theories such as Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue approaches in determining the morality of an action. According to Vallentyne (2006; 1) consequentialism is distinct in that it does not judge the motive of the action such as in Deontology nor does it judge the goodness of an action based on the person. Moreover, unlike Utilitarianism, Consequetialists does not regard the attainment of maximal pleasure and happiness but rather rests on the principle of the goodness of the impact of the action to the greater good. Hence, the goal of consequentialism is to attain maximal goodness based on how it can affect the greater good of the society.

One of he more important debates as to the use of consequentialism in legislation has been the question on the impact of consequences of an action or policy to whom- would it be that of the police force, the victim, the assailant or the society? For instance, according to Toney (2002; 411), determining as to where this perspective should take place on is important in order to render justice to those concerned. Consequently, Bentham (1996; 3) argues that consequentialism should also consider the aspect of both human and non-human subjects and find the equilibrium in order for its actions to be justified morally and ethically.

Several criterion are proposed by Consequentialists in order to attain the maximal impact of Consequentialism (Vallentyne, 2006; 3-17): 1) Maximizing Act Principle where an action is permissible if and only if its consequences are morally maximally good; 2) Satisficing Act Consequentialism holds that an action is permissible if and only if its consequences are morally good enough; 3) Constrained Act Consequentialism where an action is permissible if and only if, of those actions that satisfy certain specified constraints, it has consequences that are sufficiently morally good; and 4) Rule Maximizing Consequentialism wherein an action is permissible if and only if it conforms to rules that, if generally followed (internalized, upheld, etc.), would have consequences that are at least as good as any feasible alternative set of rules. These variations of act consequentialism presupposes that the consequences of an action need not be absolute such as that of the maximizing act principle or too strict as that of the Rule Maximizing princple but rather it just needs to sufficiently fulfill the basic premise of consequentialism that the result of an action need just be sufficiently good enough morally (Arnesson, 2003; 383). Hence, within the Satisficing and Constrained Act Consequentialism, the police force in the European Union would be evaluated.

In the police department, the use of deadly force or force has been widely debated. Is it morally acceptable to use force in order to obtain evidence or in order to solve a crime and put justice for the victims? The justifiability of the use of force among the police has been a subject of philosophical debate such as in the Dirty Harry Problem wherein force is used to solve a crime by police personnel. Consequentialism justifies the use of force such as in Dirty Harry cases because the end would justify the means indicating that maximal utility was achieved because of the use of force (Stubbart, n.a.; 1). This presupposes that the goals would not have otherwise been achieved if force was not used. The moral problem in this justification however that is the search for the best consequence of the action may disregard the presumptive rights of some people.

Statement of the Problem

Generally, this study seeks to evaluate the moral theory of Consequentialism as applied to the use of deadly force among the police authorities in European countries. Specifically, act consequentialism will be examined in order to determine the extent to which it can justify the use of deadly force by the police and the limitations of such principles particularly in suspect interrogation and in resolving crimes.

The following questions will be answered in the study:

What are the moral theories that have been advanced in order to justify the use of deadly force by the police?

To what extent has these theories been successful in justifying the use of deadly force by European police authorities?

What are the advantages, limitations, strengths and weaknesses of the Consequentialist theory in justifying the use of deadly force in European police departments?

How effective is the use of Consequentialism in guiding police authorities in their moral and ethical decisions regarding the use of force?

Using the consequentialist principles, what possible guidelines can be incorporated in the police force policies regarding the use of force?

Significance of the Study

This study seeks to contribute to the growing body of literature that seeks to resolve the moral dilemma of the use of deadly force among the police ranks particularly in democratic and human rights activist countries such as the European Union. For policy makers, this study can serve as a guide in resolving issues that pertains to the scope and limitations of police authority and police discretion. For police personnel, this study can aid in shaping and redefining their decision-making and analysis of situations particularly on cases that requires the use of force. Contemplative and analytical in nature, this study can serve as a reflection guide to police authorities in reflecting on their own virtues as these are important in their decision to use force. For scholars and researchers, this study can contribute to the existing gap in the literature on the quest for the moral theory that can best justify the use of force. Consequently, while studies in the United States have been abundant, studies on the police force in European countries are not as abundant.

References

Arneson, R. (2003) Consequentialism vs. Special-Ties Partiality. The Monist. 86(3): 382-390.

Bentham, J. (1996). An Introduction to the Principles of Moral Legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davis, K. (1975) Police Discretion. West Publishing Company.

Feder, L. (1998). Police Handling of Domestic and Nondomestic Assautl Calls: Is There a Case for Discrimination? Crime and Dlinquency 44:355-349.

Fyfe, J. (1996). Structuring Police Discretion. Pp. 183-205 in Handled with Discretion: Ethical Issues in Police Decision Making, edited by John Kleinig. Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Kleinig, J. (1996) Handled With Discretion: Ethical Issues in Police Decision-Making. Rowman and Littlefield.

Rodriguez Iglesias, G.C. (1995) The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, 1 COLUM. Journal of European Law. 169, 175.

Stubbart, P. (n.a.) Dirty Harry: One Problem, Two Resolutions. Retrieved 26 January 2008 at http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwphl/ethics/downloads/DirtyHarry.pdf.

Toney, R. (2002) English Criminal Procedure under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Implications for Custodial Interrogation Practices. Journal of International Law. 24(3): 411-427.

Vallentyne, P. (2006) Consequentialism in Ethics in Practice by Hugh LaFollette. Blackwell Publishers.

We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.