Consider the following scenario: On Tuesday at approximately 1700 hours, you received a complaint from Mrs. Jones that on Monday evening John, a public safety professional you supervise on the 1600-2400 shift, called her an F-ing expletive. As is your role, you vow to investigate the matter. Later, you pull John aside and ask him, hey, I got a complaint from Mrs. Jones that you called her a F-ing expletive last night; is that true? John repeatedly denies the truth of the complaint. Upon reviewing the documentation, you determine that Johns contact with Mrs. Jones occurred at 0005 hours on that morning not last night as you had put the question to John. Your poor interviewing skills aside, assuming that, shortly after 0005 hours on Tuesday John called Mrs. Jones a F-ing expletive, did he truthfully answer your question? Why or why not?
What, if anything, does Johns response tell you about his character? Would you see the matter differently if the stakes were higher? In other words, would you be more likely to accept Johns statement as okay (excusable) if the offense you were investigating carried the possible penalty of termination, civil penalty, or incarceration?
Finally, is there an argument to be made that in public safety, the stakes can be so high that we should not need to be so guarded in our conversations with each other? In other words, should we have to cut off all possible avenues of deception when we communicate with each other? Should this type of deception, if we call it that, be considered a serious infraction?
At least one page long, double spaced 10 pt font with at least 3 references using APA 7 style.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|