NAME: PRABHSIMRAN SINGH

BATCH: 2020-2023
SEMESTER: Ist (LLB- Weekend)
COURSE CODE: K-1001
TOPIC: DEONTOLOGICAL
JURISPRUDENCE
 DEONTOLOGICAL JURISPRUDENCE
Deontological ethics ,are the ethical theories that place special emphasis on the
relationship between duty and the morality of human actions. The term Deontology , is
derived from the Greek word “deon” which means “duty”, and “logos” means
“science”.

Jurisprudence or Legal Theory is that the philosophy of law, i.e., the science of law.
It is the study of the theories and principles on which a legal system is founded.
Jurisprudence is that the study of the science of law.
There are several differing types and schools of jurisprudence. Some treat the subject
like science or math. Others, however, take a different approach.

The word Jurisprudence is Derived from the word:-

• ‘juris’ meaning law and
• ‘prudence’ meaning knowledge.
So, Jurisprudence is that the study of the science of law.
The study of law in jurisprudence is not about any particular statue or a rule but of
law in general, its concepts, its principles and the philosophies underpinning it.In the
other words, jurisprudence commonly means the philosophy of law, which seeks to
reveal the historical, moral, and cultural basis of a particular legal concept.

Examples of Deontological Theories are:-

• Divine Command Theory
• “The Golden Rule”
• Natural law and Natural Right Theories
• The non-aggression principle
• Kantian Ethics (categorical imperative)

Deontology was formulated by Immanuel Kant 1724-1804. He was the primary great

philosopher to define deontological principles, the 18th-century German founding father
of critical philosophy that's (Kantianism).
According to Kant’s theories, the end result is not of primary importance; rather, the real
importance is in determining the moral intent of a decision or action itself. His theories
or philosophies would assess the morality of one’s action and disregard the
consequences. The German founder further believed that the duties are imperative and
that these duties must never be abandoned, regardless of the anticipated outcome. These
duties are absolute and must be applied to everyone equally and the notion of the duty is
important to law enforcement officers who are bound by law to perform their duty. The
duty must be execute, regardless of whether we want to or not. In the circumstances the
duty may have a personal or professional negative consequence attached to it, but as it is
a requirement or obligation, it is absolute or imperative .Kant had distinguished the
duties into two types, i.e., conditional or hypothetical imperatives and categorical
imperatives. A hypothetical imperative duty is a duty that is necessary to accomplish a
specific goal. It is something that we do to achieve an end. The Banks uses the example
of the duty of a student to study hard in order to get good grades in academics.
In enforcement , we've to seem at the hypothetical duty of a patrol officer to write
down as many search warrants as possible to be considered for a detective job. A
categorical imperative duty is one which is an unconditional rule or duty regardless of
the impact that the decision may cause, the duty remains the same and must be done.
Accordingly in this way, the act is unrelated to the end result which is a duty regardless
of the outcome. Example in law enforcement is a domestic assault where policy imposes
a duty on a police officer to charge a spouse with an assault if evidence exists. In this
way duty is regardless of the outcome or the wishes of the officer. The duty during
this case is policy written by British Columbia Attorney General’s office. It is not
necessary that the categorical imperative does not only have to be written policy, a
police officer who stops a violator may have a duty to write the ticket if certain
conditions of the violator stop warrant it, such as the danger of the activity and the
driving history of the driver. There is much to mention about the specific imperative
for enforcement .
Within the specific imperative, Kant states that “every rational being, exists as an end in
himself, not merely as a way .” Kant said that we should always never use people to
attain our desired end result, rather we should treat everyone with respect regardless of
the outcome. Neil uses an example in which person deliberately makes a promise to
another person without ever intending to honour that promise. In this sense, the one
that is being deceived cannot consent because the rule, or maxim, of the
primary person isn't known. In a enforcement context, a police investigator who
promises a witness that she is going to not need to testify against someone if she gives a
press release wouldn't be respecting that person and would be using her as a way to an
end. An officer would know that this is often not a promise that ought to be
made because it is ultimately up to Crown counsel to work out who testifies and
who doesn't . Kant would argue that the promise is using the witness as means to an
end, and thus not ethical. A enforcement officer must decide whether to follow a
consequentialist perspective, during which the results of his or her actions are more
important, or a Kantian perspective in which the witness ought to not be used as a way to
the effective ends.
Coercion is additionally how during which Kant would suggest that respect isn't shown.
Given the powers that enforcement officers yield, coercion may be a tactic that, while
perhaps producing an efficient end to an investigation, would be wrong in Kant’s view
regardless of the result because the coercion didn't allow the opposite party to consent to
the act. Kant’s conclusion is that the following maxim: “Act in such how that you
simply always treat humanity, whether in your own person or within the person of the
other , never simply as a way , but always at an equivalent time as an end”.

RIGHT
WRONG
THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY TO DO A WRONG THING!!

Divine command theory- it's a sort of deontology. consistent with it the rightness of any
action depends upon that action being performed because it's a requirement , not due to any
good consequences arising from that action. If God commands people to not work on
Sabbath, then people act rightly to not work on Sabbath because God has commanded that
they are doing not do so.
If they're doing not work on Sabbath because they are lazy, then their action isn't , truly
speaking, "right" albeit the particular physical action performed is that the same. If God
commands to not covet a neighbour's goods, this theory holds that it might be immoral to try
to so, albeit coveting provides the beneficial outcome of a drive to succeed or had best .
One thing that clearly distinguishes Kantian deontologism from divine command deontology
is that Kantianism maintains that man, as a rational being, makes the moral law universal,
whereas divine command maintains that God makes the moral law universal.

Contemporary Deontology-Contemporary deontologists makes a distinction between

deontic and epistemic authority.
A typical example of epistemic authority would be "the relation of an educator to his
students." an educator has epistemic authority when making declarative sentences that the
scholar presumes is reliable knowledge and appropriate but feels no obligation to simply
accept or obey.
An example of deontic authority would be "the relation between an employer and his
employee." An employer has deontic authority within the act of issuing an order that the
worker is obliged to simply accept and obey no matter its reliability or appropriateness.
Deontological moral theory posits that the rightness or wrongness of actions doesn't depend
upon their consequences. The specific imperative espoused by Kant is that the central
philosophical underpinning of deontology and emphasizes that there's a supreme principle of
morality, and further, that the top result's not of primary importance. So in essence, a
deontological decision assesses the morality of one’s action and disregards the results .
In deontology, these duties are absolute and must be applied to everyone equally. Taking it a
step further, the perfect of duty is of paramount importance to enforcement officers who are
naturally bound by the law and their oath to perform their duty. Essentially, enforcement is
required to execute their duty under all circumstances, no matter whether or not they want to
or not. As a result, this requirement is without equivocation and naturally becomes an
important .
For example, if an individual believes that lying is wrong, then under no circumstances is it
permissible to lie. during a police context, a politician comes across a gaggle of juveniles
throwing snowballs at cars and decides to exercise discretion and allow them to off with a
warning. He must return later after an equivalent group again threw snowballs forcing one car
off the road resulting a fatality. the choice to let the youth off with a warning was based in
deontology. Despite the horrific outcome, one could argue that the officer’s motivations were
appropriate and just, and thusly, moral, despite the outcomes in terms of human welfare.
Similarly, one may additionally reason that it's the moral imperative or duty of a policeman to
issue tickets to speeding vehicles albeit the tickets were issued at 3 a.m. and no other cars or
pedestrians were affected and a warning could have a viable option.
Kant believed that everything that an individual does is born out of excellent will. Lechner
further tells us that while a person’s action could be morally correct, it's possible that others
perceive the act to be morally wrong because it had been not influenced by goodwill. Kant
also brings into focus that folks do certain things because they're driven by the morality of the
specific imperative and not the results which may follow. A person’s moral principle is what
commands that person into action or, avoid an action due to its consequences.
In contrast, we've the principle which has the “if” command in helping one weigh his or her
choices. In such a case, if someone wants to remain from being arrested, then they ought to
not involve themselves in criminal conduct. supported these concepts, it's evident that the
specific imperative seems to involve acting unconditionally, while the principle demonstrates
the potential consequences of private behavior and selection , particularly because it relates to
breaking the law.

TO CONCLUDE ONE CAN SAY THAT

Deontological ethics asserts that duty must be done for duty’s sake. The rightness or
wrongness of an act or rule is a minimum of partially , a matter of the intrinsic moral features
of that specific quite act or rule. For example, acts of lying, theft, or murder are intrinsically
wrong and therefore, Deontological theory would assert that we have a moral duty not to
engage in these acts. However, it does not mean that the consequences of those acts are not
relevant in terms of assessing the acts .In essence, consequences help us determine what our
duty is, but consequences alone, don't define the duty, rather, it only helps enforcement align
their actions with they know their duty to already be.
In the end , enforcement should aim to empower individuals, promote humanism, and support
the thought that the proper thing to try to is that the only thing to try to. While neither ethical
theory is without its own deficits, law enforcement would be well served to teach all
members the basic fundamental underpinnings of utilitarian and deontological ethical theory
to inform their approach. This would be instrumental in helping guide law enforcement
towards meeting the universal values of honesty, integrity, compassion, and lead to more
ethical behavior and ethical decision making.

THANKING YOU
(YOUR STUDENT)