Ethics Case

I think that the partner's best choice in this situation is the moral experience aspect of Sherman's Four Stages of a Moral Career. This is the best choice because the partner does know that it is extremely wrong and is sickened when he first gets the picture of the evidence being planted and he is so new to this aspect of policing that he could easily transfer. After thinking the situation all the way through and about his life and his daughters, the thoughts that it may have been okay cross his mind because it got a repeat sex offender off the street. At this point he is starting to slip into the apologia stage but he still knew that it was wrong. The partner still has time in his career to know that morally he should not plant evidence even if in the end he felt it was for the greater good.

Contingencies stage doesn't fit for the partner because he did start to consider that planting evidence may have been justified but he did not encourage or discourage the planting of evidence. The apologia stage doesn't fit right either because he only started to rationalize the choice of planting evidence but still knew that it was not right. The partners actions do not fit the stages part because he had not started to progress into unethical behavior.

Police deception during an interrogation can lead to false confessions. A study had shown that an interrogated person can feel coerced from psychological pressure; they internalize the falsified evidence and confess to the crime. There have been cases of a person having no recollection of a crime and confessing anyway because of falsified documented or physical evidence. The argument has also been made that a person would not admit to a crime they did not commit no matted the evidence presented.