The appropriate ethical theory to address the dilemma in scenario two is deontology. This theory would be effective because the officer already must protect the law and has a clear set of rules to follow. Deontology presumes that a fixed set of rules exists and prescribes the person to follow those rules independent of circumstances or consequences. While ethical theory defines how the person should behave in each situation, personal morals define how the person views and judges other people’s actions. The distinction is crucial since ethical theory, particularly deontology, can be at least somewhat objective. Personal morals, however, cannot be separated from the person and their background, political views, intrapersonal relationships, et cetera (Walker & Lovat, 2017). Actions dictated by personal morals could contradict the deontological theory, which dictates the officer to follow the rules at all times, independent of consequences. One of the drawbacks of deontology is the possibility of such situations where no existing law is applicable, whether due to lack of information or the novelty of circumstances. In these situations, morals must guide the actions since they are the only guidance available.
If I were the officer in the scenario, I would insist on bringing the mayor in for an alcohol test. This course of action is the only one appropriate for the officer sworn to protect the law and “safeguard the citizens” (Schmalleger & Hall, 2017, p.433). Furthermore, this action will be effective in preventing future transgressions by the mayor. While one might argue that this particular scenario describes a victimless crime, the law enforcement officer has a duty to protect the state, and “the states are the primary victims at law in the US” (Schmalleger & Hall, 2017, p.431). Personal morals could motivate me to lie to protect my carrier for the sake of my family by judging the mayor’s crime as not significant. Ethical responsibility to uphold the law here takes precedent over personal morals. Finally, the modern society in the US scrutinizes the actions of officers more closely than ever. The society can often empathise with the perpetrator and cast them as a victim of police misconduct, since “everyone has an intuitive appreciation of what it means to be a victim” (Schmalleger & Hall, 2017, p.431). Under such scrutiny, only the actions that strictly comply with the law are seen as appropriate (Monaghan, 2017). This heightened visibility makes always acting strictly within the law not only the duty of the criminal justice practitioner but an absolute necessity.
References
Monaghan, J. (2017). The special moral obligations of law enforcement. Journal of Political Philosophy, 25(2), 1-20.
Schmalleger, F. & Hall D.E. (2017). Chapter 13: Victims and the law. In Criminal law today (6th ed) (pp. 429-464). Pearson.
Walker, P., & Lovat, T. (2017). Should we be talking about ethics or about morals? Ethics & Behavior, 27(5), 436-444.