Deontological ethics examines (Multiple Choice)

c

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Correction norms can include the following: Always going to the aid of an officer in distress; do not rat; never making another officer look bad in front of inmates; always supporting an officer in a dispute with an inmate; always supporting officer sanctions against inmates; and not wearing a white hat (participating in behavior that suggests sympathy or identification with inmates). These behaviors can lead to unethical behavior.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

c

- - - - - - - - - - - -

c

- - - - - - - - - - - -

 Judges can engage in improper conduct or overstep their bounds in many ways: abuse of judicial power (against attorneys or litigants); inappropriate sanctions and dispositions (including showing favoritism or bias); not meeting the standards of impartiality and competence (discourteous behavior, gender bias and harassment, incompetence); conflict of interest (bias; conflicting financial interests or business, social, or family relationships); and personal conduct (criminal or sexual misconduct, prejudice, statements of opinion).
 Defense attorneys should be bound to these ethics and do the following:
1 . Treat others as ends in themselves and not as mere means to winning cases.
2 . Treat clients and other professional relations in a similar fashion.
3 . Do not deliberately engage in behavior apt to deceive the court as to truth.
4 . Be willing, if necessary, to make reasonable personal sacrifices of time, money, and popularity for what you believe to be a morally good cause.
5 . Do not give money to, or accept money from, clients for wrongful purposes or in wrongful amounts.
6 . Avoid harming others in the course of representing your client.
7 . Be loyal to your client and do not betray his or her confidence.
 Prosecutors engage in improper conduct because of the following: Misconduct works. Oral advocacy is important in the courtroom and can have a powerful effect. Another significant reason for such conduct is the harmless error doctrine, in which an appellate court can affirm a conviction despite the presence of serious misconduct during the trial.