There are various situations where as an administrative office there is a dilemma pertaining to the decision making on ethical conduct in a professional environment. There are biases that cannot be avoided at times, which may be due to certain situations that are unavoidable however at the same time the emphasis on genuine corrective action cannot be ignored considering the fact that an honest and impartial approach should be taken at all times. The above can lead to severe conflicts if a decision is taken in either of the directions and therefore it becomes important to take actions keeping in mind restorative justice which will not only allow correction and ethical management however will also help to keep the operational environment clear from undesired technicalities. Hence, in the case of DWI probationer officer, filing an MTR may seem to be the only solution from a criminal justice perspective. However it is important to understand that may hamper the social environment within the office but in order to induce a corrective action ‘peacemaking corrective action plan’ can be a comprehensive solution to the problem where the officer could be placed into a plan that should include certain activities combining extensive counseling, discussions and close monitoring of performance. The ‘high ranked officer’ can act as a strong support in these peacemaking corrective actions as his request for not filing the ‘MTR’ is also simultaneously agreed upon (Gavrielides, 2007).
Restorative justice has to be given in line with the societal callings for fairness in all dealings. Ethics have to be embraced in this given case, despite the fact that my job as a probation officer is at stake. The instructions from high ranking administrators should be taken in but they should not undermine the rights of others. The orders should also put into consideration what is deemed as right in the eyes of the whole society.
The three basic choices that I would have to consider include coming up with a peacemaking corrective action plan, take it upon myself to call the other parties in the case to get approved sanctions and lastly recommend a given full-blown revocation. Depending on the nature of violation and the instructions from the high- ranking administrator, I may be forced to go for the first option. It would protect my job and cause an ample environment for both parties in the case. It also depends on the nature of the violation at hand and the caseload that is presumably postulated. The victim’s prior relationship with other members while on probation also needs to be put into consideration. In this given case, a viable traffic ticket could be well placed to trigger a revocation basing on the nature of the offence and how it affects the whole state. The second option of calling the other parties and coming up with an approved sanction may be challenging in its own realm. It involves calling the probationer into my office and threatening him that he would be jailed or judged in a given court. I may also have it upon my shoulders to change all the terms that are postulated in the probation. The slant nature in which I may be forced to predict the verdict of the legal proceedings of the case and the lack of fact checking during the whole session presents a difficult and daunting option. Rights of the probationer would also be ignored in the case, hence not a preferred option. The full blown revocation, as the third option calls for presenting the motion to the given District Attorney to gear towards the final approval of filing the motion in court. This would eventually lead to the arrest warrant on the probationer (De Mesmaecker, 2010).
The peacemaking corrective action plan would be the best solution to the case at hand since it provides an amicable ground for all the parties. Based on the analysis of various course of actions that could be taken in this situation, we can conclude that its only the peacemaking correction which can help not only to manage the existing issue at the moment however will also help to induce the measures necessary to avoid such an instance in future.
De Mesmaecker, V. (2010). Building Social Support For Restorative Justice Through The Media: Is Taking the Victim Perspective The Most Appropriate Strategy?. Contemporary Justice Review 13 (3): 239–267.
Gavrielides, T. (2007). Restorative Justice Theory and Practice: Addressing the discrepancy. Helsinki: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control.