Problem:
Write a positive response:
One prominent example that fails the "front-page test" involves Gregory Rodriguez, a former prison guard at the Central California Women's Facility, who was convicted on dozens of counts of sexual abuse against incarcerated women. Over nearly a decade, Rodriguez allegedly manipulated his power, isolating prisoners in areas without surveillance and coercing them into sexual acts-sometimes by offering tobacco or other favors, or by threatening disciplinary action. When one imagines seeing a headline like "Long-time Prison Guard Exploited Dozens of Inmates - Sentenced to Over 200 Years," it's clear that his behavior would not pass the front-page test: what he did profoundly violates both professional and moral norms.
It is likely Rodriguez did not fully anticipate-or at least did not publicly acknowledge-the full scale of the front-page scandal his actions would create. From his perspective, he may have rationalized his behavior in several ways. First, he might have believed he was helping inmates in a "mutually beneficial" way, offering items like gum or tobacco in exchange for favors. Such a mindset could be framed (internally) as caring or transactional rather than abusive. Second, he may have minimized the harm by convincing himself that what he was doing was consensual, despite the inherent power imbalance in his role. This kind of moral rationalization allows someone to preserve a self-image of being "helpful" or "trusted" rather than predatory. Third, he might have suppressed or avoided thinking deeply about the ethical implications by distancing himself psychologically from the moral weight of his actions-what psychologists call moral disengagement (i.e., reframing one's behavior so that the usual ethical standards don't seem to apply in the moment).
These forms of internal justification are well understood in the literature on unethical behavior. In her model of moral rationalization, Jo-Ann Tsang (often misspelled "Tang") describes how people use cognitive strategies to convince themselves their actions are morally acceptable even when they clearly violate their own standards (Tsang, 2002). In the case of Rodriguez, he may have employed precisely such strategies: minimizing the severity, reframing the nature of his actions, or focusing on perceived benefits to both himself and the inmates, thereby reducing feelings of guilt or self-condemnation.
Beyond self-justification, there may also have been systemic or organizational rationalizations. Rodriguez could have believed that because complaints were rarely taken seriously-or because prison systems often fail to hold staff accountable-his risk of repercussions was low. He may have viewed his actions as carrying minimal professional risk, especially if internal investigations were lax or victims were unlikely to be believed. This rationalization is consistent with what happens in organizations when unethical behavior becomes normalized or tolerated: people come to see it as part of "how things are done," cloaked in a sense of "everybody does it."
Research supports that such normalization can spread, especially when higher-ranking individuals model misconduct (Bauman, Tost, & Ong, 2016).
Ultimately, applying the front-page test to Rodriguez's case underscores how fundamentally unethical his actions were. If he had genuinely considered that such behavior would one day be exposed and publicly shamed, perhaps he might have made a different choice-or at least recognized the gravity of his misconduct. His failure to do so reveals not only deliberate abuse of power but also a deep moral disengagement. From an ethical-decision making perspective, the case illustrates how both personal rationalizations and a permissive organizational climate can converge to facilitate severe misconduct in corrections. Need Assignment Help?