Correction officers often face numerous ethical dilemmas. The relationship of corrections officers and their clients is complex and rooted in a fundamental inequality of power. An officer can make demands that override a client's wishes and can restrict the client from any activity or place that is deemed questionable.
Ken Johnson, a parole officer in Oregon, was approached in his office by an attractive young woman asking for assistance one morning. She explained that her husband was coming up for parole in about nine months and she wasn't sure what to expect of him and all of the requirements he would have to be meeting. The woman, Lisa Hammond, said she wasn't even sure if he would be the same person or if she still loved him. Ken sat down and explained all of the rules to her and told her that if her husband got parole and worked at it he would do fine. She thanked him and offered to buy him a drink sometimes to which he said he would be glad to accept. A few days later she called and asked if he was free that evening for the drink and he agreed to meet her at a local lounge. After they had a few drinks they ended up back at her house having sex. They carried on a regular affair for about 6 months and she asked him if he thought he could get her husband as part of his case load. That way, she said, he could help him stay on the straight and narrow. So, Ken checked into it and was able to get Larry Hammond on his case load when he made parole.
A month after Larry made parole Lisa seemed to be pulling away from Ken and wasn't being as available as she had been before. She started making excuses as to why she couldn't meet him which frustrated him. After being refused one day he told her that her husband had been late for his last two appointments and that he could violate him and send him back to prison if he chose to do so. She asked him not to and agreed to meet him at a local bar and then go home with him. This became more or less a regular routine, in that, when she did not want to see him he would remind her that he could find a reason to violate him and send him back to prison. During this time, Lisa's husband figured out what was going on and really didn't pay much attention to the parole rules because he knew he wasn't going to be violated. One night, however, he was caught up in a drug sweep and arrested on a drug possession charge which led to the District Attorney requesting that he also be violated on his parole. This was now out of Ken's hands. Larry was ordered to serve the two years remaining on his sentence plus an additional two years for the new charge. Now with nothing being held over her head Lisa went to the Chief Parole Officer and turned Ken in for abusing his authority. Ken was fired immediately and the D.A. was researching conspiracy laws to determine if he could be charged with obstructing justice.
Developed an ethical perspective of the problems involved in Ken Johnson's case using the Hedonistic or Kant theories of ethical philosophies.
Fully address the questions and rely upon scholarly resources or adequately rely upon Kantian or Hedonistic theories.
Use applicable theories, perspectives, and arguments to support your answers.
Use appropriate examples and references from texts, Web sites, and other references or personal experience.
As I'm sure you're aware, experts cannot actually complete assignments directly; however, I'll do my best to address all of the questions' content in order to give you enough to both understand and further the discussion wherever necessary.
First of all, it is unquestionable that Ken violated both personal and professional codes of ethics, but it should be made clear that this was the case when he decided to take on Lisa's partner for his case load. The problem is that once he is already attached to Lisa, Ken's ability to measure and guide Larry is compromised by such an attachment. It is worth considering how liable Ken's boss would have been in ...
Kantian and Hedonist philosophies are explored in application towards a particular case study about obstructing justice. The solution is 443 words.