Research Proposal

The research problem and its importance

Is it ever ethical to lie as a police officer, a lawyer, a corrections officer or a forensic
scientist?
The purpose of this proposal is to argue in the negative about dishonesty as an ethical choice
among law enforcement officials and members of the law and scientific community, with
particular emphasis on forensic scientists. Conveying the opinion that lying can never be
ethical is important to educate professionals in their fields to minimise damaging actions or
inactions. The consequences of ignorance or failure to exercise appropriate ethical behaviour
in forensic science are severe in that they can infringe upon an individuals freedom and
rights as a human being (Frankel, 1989), an example being wrongful convictions. In other
areas such as law, the consequences are equally critical and ultimately work against the
principles of each profession. The importance of discussing dishonesty as unethical
behaviour, especially in the field of forensic science, lies in the definition and purpose of
forensics itself. The words forensic and science relate to the common theme of truth, either
seeking or speaking it. From Latin, the definition roughly translates as, to speak the truth in
public, (Sapir, 2008). In the present case, this extends to speaking the truth in court. The
scientific aspect involves data analysis and scientific methods that rely upon accuracy and
competency. It therefore stands to reason that lies, and any form of dishonesty, hold no place
within the boundaries of forensic science, thereby rendering all lies unethical.
To find out if a lie can ever be considered ethical in forensic science, law enforcement or law
itself, we must first understand what constitutes an ethical lie. An ethical lie is one that is
morally correct where the result of telling it are less damaging than exposing the truth, for
example, a white lie that is harmless. In philosophy, this relates to the theory of utilitarianism
1

which is concerned with the consequences of lying and agrees that it is ethical to tell a lie if it
would lead to a better outcome than telling the truth (Goodin, 1995). A Christian theologian
St. Augustine (354-430) taught that lying in general was wrong, but believed that some lies
could be pardoned, and that there were occasions when lying would be the right thing to do.
In contrast, a duty based ethicist, a deontologist, would argue that even if lying has better
consequences, it is still morally wrong (Spielthenner, 2005). The thoughts of Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804) are most notable in this regard in which he believes that his moral theory
prohibits lying under all possible circumstances (Pruss, 2001).
Coupled with these philosophical insights, the topic of professional ethics further adds to the
equation.
Literature
The literature associated with ethics in a professional background all have the same
connotations relating to a universal agreement that dishonest behaviour is unacceptable,
regardless of the profession; however, there are outlying factors that contribute to the
opposite belief. Ciske (1999) stated that police officers and other criminal investigators were
ethically permitted to employ deception or lie during the course of a case and that he
believed there to be cases where a police officer is morally obligated to lie. This suggests that
the moral dimensions are greater in law than in science as the influences of society and
humanity and the emotional uncertainties that exist therein, are more prevalent rather than
balanced by scientific fact.
Regarding law enforcement personnel, Brooks (1999) relates the decision to lie with
utilitarianisma belief that the truth will cause a greater damage than the deception and that
individuals, including police, find themselves in these situations frequently. Some common
deceptive practices that involve lying among individuals in law enforcement include the use
2

of wiretaps, informants and undercover operations. The practice of deception techniques may
be condoned and commonly used by police, but to determine its ethical standing, the motives
behind the lies must be observed. According to Bommer et al (1987), a lie with the motive of
greed or ones self interest is considered unethical.
Bowen et al (2009) further defines ethical dishonesty, stating that anything that dehumanizes
a person is unethical because the act of lying deprives human beings of their free will and
ability to make their own choices. It is therefore obvious that for a lie to be considered
ethical, it must meet certain criteria involving no negative motivations and no act depriving
free will. In the same literature, Bowen (2009) poses the question, "Is it ever ethical to lie if it
spares someone's feelings or if it keeps a person out of harms way?" The answer changes
depending on the context of the situation. In the case of forensic science, the question itself
becomes redundant as issues of feelings and personal protection should never ideally be
imposed on the scientist. In law enforcement, Ciskes (1999) opinion becomes increasingly
relevant where a moral obligation to lie may exist to keep a person out of harms way or other
exigent circumstances.
According to Saviers (2002), the goal of all forensic specialists is to provide unbiased,
scientific information based upon data. To keep their work free from bias, the scientist must
remain objective at all times, leaving emotions behind, or as Mahoney (1979) stated,
scientists must be passionless observers, unbiased by emotion and intellectually cold. With
an attitude such as these, the only issues of ethics that may arise are due to political pressures
or matters of convenience. The most common lies made among forensic scientists, as
observed in a survey by Bowen (2009), were the falsification of data, overestimating
credentials and offering opinion outside of discipline. These types of lies have a large impact
on the results of any inquiry and the consequences can never be less damaging than the truth,
hence the opinion that lies cannot be ethical in a forensic setting.
3

Cannon (2007) commented on the use of scientific evidence, saying that short cuts are taken
with facts in order to get at a larger truth.
Conclusion
As previously stated, when the damage inflicted upon a scenario or person from a lie is
greater than if the truth were told, a breach of ethics has occurred. This would be the case in
all forensic settings, among any forensic scientist however for the forensic scientist who is
also a sworn officer, Lucas (1989) notes that conflicting ethics of science and law
enforcement present major dilemmas. This issue appears to be overlooked in the majority of
the literature concerning ethics and further research would benefit the conflicting ideals
usually held separate for scientists and law enforcement.
References
Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravander, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A Behavioural Model of Ethical
and Unethical Decision Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(4), 265-280.
Bowen, R. T. (2009). Unethical Behaviour: The Fork in the Road Ethics and the Practice of
Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Brooks, M. E. (1999). The Ethics of Intentionally Deceiving the Media. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 68(5), 22.
Cannon, C. M. (2007). Untruths and Consequences. The Atlantic, 299(1), 56, 65.
Ciske, M. (1999). The Ethics of Police Deception. Paper presented at the Ohio University
Student Conference on Applied Ethics, Ohio University.
Frankel, M. S. (1989). Ethics and the Forensic Sciences: Professional Autonomy in the
Criminal Justice System. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 34(3), 763-771.
Goodin, R. E. (1995). Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Psychology of the Scientist: An Evaluative Review. Social Studies of

Science, 9(3).
Pruss, A. R. (2001). Lying, Deception and Kant. Retrieved from
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/papers/LyingAndDeception.html
Sapir, G. (2008). Forensic Science, Ethics and the Expert Witness. Paper presented at the The
Science of DNA Profiling Bioinformatics Conference, Dayton, Ohio.
Saviers, K. D. (2002). Ethics in Forensic Science: A Review of the Literature on Expert
Testimony. Journal of Forensic Identification, 52(4), 449-462.
Spielthenner, G. (2005). Consequentialism or deontology? Philosophia, 33(1-4), 217-235.