Crisis Negotiation and Deception Crisis negotiation entails law enforcement communication and interaction with people threatening to cause actual bodily harm or property destruction. This may include hostage takers, suicidal individuals, stalkers, and barricaded subjects (McMains & Mullins, 2010). As can be exemplified by James Harvey's case, the distress characterizing such incidents coupled with lack of full control over the situation may tempt law enforcers to engage in deceptive tactics aimed at diffusing tensions (Frances, 1995; Lakhani, 2007). In 1988, Harvey held hostage a group of children in a class. After lengthy negotiations, Harvey was offered videotaped pardon from the Governor in return for a public press opportunity where he would air his grievances. As a result, Harvey surrendered his weapon after which he was wrestled to the ground and arrested (Frances, 1995). The promises offered were never fulfilled. In a similar case - State vs. Sands - the immunity offered to the appellant was not upheld. In both cases, legal decisions made held that the promises were made under duress (Frances, 1995). This...

Firstly, the lies could be expedient to the extent that they easily dissipate the situation without any physical confrontation (McMains & Mullins, 2010). This is advantageous as it averts possible loss of life and destruction to property which are commonplace in physical confrontations. Secondly, lying seems justified through considerations of utility (Lakhani, 2007). This point-of-view is grounded on the various justifications offered through philosophical reasoning. With regard to consequentialist reasoning, Sissela Bok asserts that lying in crisis situations is justified if the outcomes of deception outweigh the possible negative outcomes of the situation (Frances, 1995). In this case, lying is justified as a means to an end. In yet another argument in support of deception, Grotius asserts that the principle of forfeiture makes lying acceptable when it is done to hostile people…