Understanding that a well know criminal is in the district does not negate the fact that he too, as a citizen, is protected by the law. "Police officers must uphold the law regardless of the offender's identity" (Pollock, 2013, p. 115). As an officer of the law, it is their duty to enforce the law and protect the community from crime ethically. In situation two, if a known criminal was the victim, I would know the ethical decision would be to treat this criminal's case as fairly as anyone else’s. After reading this incident, it reminded me a of a First 48 case where a suspected murderer was murdered. Despite knowing that the victim had killed a man and a woman, the detectives investigated his murder as they would do anyone else’s.
The fact is that every crime has a criminal behind them. That criminal needs to be prosecuted in order to bring justice to the victim and to protect community. This criminal who stole the lawnmower may move on to steal from someone else, or even commit a larger crime. Although it may seem foolish to protect a criminal, the minor criminal is still a victim of a crime. I would not attempt to provide unfair service to the minor criminal during this incident, as that would compromise my integrity as an officer. By ignoring this crime, as an officer, I would give the community mixed signals about what I am there to do. I should send the signal that I am there to enforce the law at all times. However, this would not stop me from staying vigilant to any information that I could gather in relation to the crimes of the minor criminal. I would make it a point to ensure the community continues to know that we are still working to have all criminals within that community prosecuted.
References:
Pollock, J. M. (2012). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (8th ed). Belmont:
Wadsworth Cengage