Assignment:

Please read the following ethical decision making scenarios: Supercop.This scenario has a number of questions that need to be answered. Please read the questions carefully and answer each as thoroughly and accurately as possible.

Super Cop

1. Discuss the arguments of both sides for using such investigative techniques. What would you do in this situation?
2. How could a criminal investigator develop informants without using money or "promises"?
3. In you opinion, when does a police officer have justification in "throwing back the little fish" in favor of apprehending serious offenders? Explain your answer.

Your responses should be supported by academic research or class materials as needed.

Bold each point to make it easier for the reader

• You must provide a title for the paper
• Provide a short introduction based on the points you will cover from 1-3 and cover the points from 1-3 in the body paragraph and you must summarize the points for your conclusion after.
• You must provide at least 3 references in APA format one for each point.
• About 2 pages for the scenario double space

Here is the Scenario to Read

Supercop

going to put both you and Hammonds on the case and see If we can't get this thing solved," the captain says. Walking out of the captain's office, you feel as though you have been slapped in the face. It seems obvious that the captain feels you are not as competent as Hammonds would be in solving this case. It is an Insult, but one you will have to live with. The next day. Hammonds walks up to you. sporting a grin. "Mike, I hear you're having trouble with a burglary at the country Super Cop club?" Bill asks. somewhat snidely. "Very funny. Hammonds. C'mon, let's contact some of your snitches and see if they know anything, * you retort as you grab your overcoat. Hammonds will not allow you to talk with any of his informants. Hammonds always insists that you stay in the car while he gets out to talk. You are not very concerned because several detectives are "pro- (ective" of their sources and do not like others around while talking Bill Hammonds' name appears once again on the "Best Detective with them. After a while, you begin to wonder what kind of infor- of the Month" roster. It is the sixth time in a row that Hammonds has mants Hammonds has working for him. Almost all of Hammonds' received the honor. Hammonds was promoted from patrol to investi- snitches seem to be either drug users or pushers. gations just nine months ago. "Now all we have to do is sit back and wait for a phone call," Ham- 'How does he do it?" you ask yourself aloud. monds says as he begins to drive back to the station. "Hammonds is doing a damn good job, isn't he?" Pete Rowe com- "Did any of your snitches know anything?" you ask. ments as he steps up to the bulletin board. "No, not yet. But one will turn up something real soon," Ham- "That's not the word for it. Look at the difference in all of our case monds responds confidently. loads and conviction rates and then look at Hammonds'. His convic- That afternoon, Hammonds comes Into the detective office with a tion rate is almost 80 percent while the average is around 20 per- warrant in his hand. cent," you point out. "This is it. Mike. I've got a warrant for Jake Lennan, the one that "Well, I've heard that he's got a whole army of snitches working for broke into the country club." Hammonds says as he waves the war- him," Pete says as he walks away from the bulletin board. rant in your face. "Snitches" is a slang word for informants. Without good informants, "OK, Hammonds, now tell me how you did it," you say, looking an investigator can do very little with an Investigation. But it takes time over the warrant. for an investigator to develop good informants. Hammonds did not "It was easy. Mike. My snitches came through with the informa- seem to have any trouble developing informants during his first weeks tion. Besides, I think there is a real good chance that Mr. Jake Len- as an investigator. It took you almost two months to develop a couple of nan will want to talk and confess to the break-in as well as return the snitches, and Hammonds seemed to have an "army" of snitches work- stolen property." Hammonds comments. ing for him during the first several weeks of hits detective assignment. You look at Hammonds in disbelief. Hammonds, noticing the "How does he do it?" you ask yourself again. expression on your face, continues to explain. That afternoon your captain calls you into his office. "Look, if this Jake guy doesn't talk and confess I'd sure hate to be "Mike, how's that investigation coming on the country club bur- in his shoes when my snitches get hold of him." glary?" the captain asks. Hammonds' last statement puts a thought in your mind. Appar- "It's a pretty tight case, Captain. I've got a couple of leads and I'm ently Hammonds is using his informants to do the investigation work waiting for a response from the crime lab," you explain. for him. Hammonds' Informants may even be using force on suspects I've been getting some pressure up the ranks to get this thing like Jake Lennan to confess and return stolen property. It seems resolved. You've been working on the case for about two weeks. I'm Pete was right about Hammonds having an army of snitches. Youbegin to wonder what Hammonds Is giving his informants in return for thelr services, \"What're you paying your snitches for doing your work for you?" you ask with Increasing skepticism. \"Nothing much, I may let them slide on a few things they may be involved with,\" Hammond responds as he turns and walks away. Itis becoming more apparent to you that Hammonds may be solv- ing cases by using his informants to do the investigation work, as well as engaging in other inappropriate activities. Hammonds' use of drug addicts and pushers as informants leads you to other possible conclusions, He could be ignoring violations of narcotics laws by his informants in return for information and services. You decide to con- front Hammond with your suspicions. \"Well, why not? I'm solving more cases than anyone else here. Why not let snitches slide on some things in return for good convictions? | haven't put one thug in jail that didn't deserve to go. It's throwing back the little fish for the big ones," Hammonds argues. Hammonds continues to explain to you how he has been using his informants to \"catch\" the crooks and make them confess to their crimes. As you think about what Hammonds sald, you wonder if that is the way an investigation should be handled. His argument seems to have some merit and does produce results. It does not seem right to you that a police officer should ignore illegal activities of one group and arrest others. You decide to ask your captain. \"Look, Mike, in our business it's give and take. We have to look at our priorities. We have to look at the worst offenses and let the oth- ers slide, We can use that to our advantage the way Hammonds Is doing. We've all done it as investigatorsmaybe not to the extent that Hammonds has, but if all of us would take that advantage, we would solve more cases,\" your captain explains, The captain's statement still does not satisfy you. You still believe Hammonds' methods are uncthical, even if \"that's the way it Is" in detective work. You wonder what you will have to do to become \"Detective of the Month.quot