Ethical issue corrupt fto

Ethical Issues Police corruption is normally viewed as a longtime problem synonymous with other top policemen and other police departments. In this regard, the denial and avoidance of ethical compromise prevents officers and administrators from formulating an innate appreciating and understanding of the underlying issues (Pollock, 79). There are several ethical issues evident from the actions of the corrupt field training officer. Foremost, is the action of the field training officer drinking in the line of duty. The ethical issue here is categorized under acts of commission that are administrative in nature. This is whereby the police officers regularly avoid job responsibilities and commit administrative violations. The action of drinking alcohol by the field training officer is significant in relation to his personal accountability and professional accountability. The second ethical violation act committed by the field training officer entails the writing of a favorable evaluation. It is quite obvious that the evaluation is unfavorable and corrupt given that the rookie police officer had received a reprimand for an improper disposition of a traffic accident. In this regard, there are two ethical issues of classification pertaining to this act. Foremost, entails entitlement versus accountability. This comes about when an officer develops a great sense of victimization and increased resentment on administrators and supervisors that are in control over their jobs (Pollock, 96).
In this regard, the officer develops a sense of entitlement or a mindset that officer should ‘ stick together’ and accord themselves special treatment. The sense of entitlement bestows the belief that officers can operate within their own rules and can bend the law to suite them. Evidently, the field training officer habours a resentment against higher authorities by providing an evaluation that is favorable to the rookie officer despite the earlier reprimand of an improper disposition of a traffic accident. Moreover, the field training officer believes that victimization has been accorded to the rookie police officer through the reprimand given for the improper disposition. This false sense of entitlement and accountability triggers the unethical action by the field training officer in favor of the rookie police officer.
The other ethical issue under scrutiny here is in regard to loyalty versus integrity. This is evident by the field officer action in giving a false and favorable evaluation for the rookie police officer. Evidently, the field training officer has traded his integrity as loyalty to the rookie police officer.
In light of the unethical conduct by the field training officer, there are several courses of action that can be pursued by the rookie police officer. In regards to the action of drinking beers while in the course of duty, the rookie police officer is morally and duty bound to advice the field training officer against consuming alcohol while on duty. The rookie police officer should foremost approach the field training officer in an informal manner and politely remind him that it is unethical for an officer to partake in alcohol while on duty. Moreover, the rookie officer should remind the field training officer the code of ethics that he/she agreed to abide to when taking an oath of duty. In the event that the field training officer is opposed and not receptive to the word of advice, the rookie police officer should consider another option. In this regard, the rookie police officer is morally obliged to file a report with his/ her superiors regarding the act of drinking while in duty by the field training officer. The other unethical action of the favorable evaluation by the field training officer should prompt the rookie officer to take another cause of action. In this regard, the rookie police officer has the option of requesting his/her superiors to assign another field training officer. The rookie field officer should hence proceed to request another evaluation in order to ascertain whether the initial evaluation was issued in a fair and justified manner without favoritism.

Reference
Pollock, J. M. (2007). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.