• In my opinion police are officers are not allowed too much discretion. Just as citizens can decide to obey the laws or not, police agencies and their officers can decide which offenses to actively seek to control and which offenses to simply ignore, which services to provide and what level. The ability to use discretion is, indeed, a vital element of contemporary American policing. The police have so many duties to perform and such limited resources that good judgment must be exercised in when, where, and how they enforce the law. The less serious a crime is to the public, the less pressure is placed on the police for enforcement. Police discretion is frequently at the center of issues involving discrimination, racial profiling, use of force and pursuit. (Page 397-399)
2.
…show more content…
Do you see any problems with use-of-force continuums or pursuit continuums?
• No, I do not see a problem with use-of-force continuums. The amount of force used can be placed on a continuum: no force used with a cooperative person, to ordinary force used with a person who is resisting, extraordinary force used with a person who is assaultive. Yes, I see several problems with the pursuit continuum. Pursuits are dangerous and cannot always be controlled. The basic dilemma of pursuits is whether the benefits of potential apprehension outweigh the risks posed to police officers, the public and the suspects. Suspects who flew the police can be caught later without the risks of a high-speed pursuit. (Page 407-418)
3. Should officers and their departments be shielded from civil liability as was previously allowed for under “sovereign immunity”? Why or why not?
• No, officers and their departments should not be shielded from civil liability as was previously allowed for sovereign immunity. The U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights define the civil rights and civil liberties guaranteed to each citizen by the government. (Page 422)
4. What roles can K-9s assume in dealing with fleeing
As American history has shown us, with great power also comes great responsibility. The great power part has not been as much of a problem as the great responsibility has. And as history have shown us, many of those officers show great control and responsibility, but there are a small percentage of those officers who are corrupt.
However, after reading the article the author noted that police are mandated to enforce civilian law and order, investigate crimes, and strictly follow legal procedures even when in pursuit of chronic and dangerous criminals (Kagoro, 2014). Ideally, it has been argued, there should be strict dividing lines between the police and the military; the former for domestic purposes with the latter protecting citizens from external threats (Kagoro, 2014). In his article on the anti-militarization of the police in the United States, Kurt Andrew Schlichter aptly put it that the military is designed, organized, and equipped to execute rapid, violent and efficient obliteration of the “enemy”-whoever the enemy may be ( Kagoro, 2014). However, the law enforcement is usually modeled after the military and in fact there a large number of police officers who are former military personnel. This was a new criticism of police that was unfamiliar to me in the study of criminal justice but, I found it to be a valid point. The idea of changing the focus of policing to be less of a battlefield and more of a community may be a compelling approach to make interaction with citizens less
I think police discretion is very common. Police officers exercise the choice of whether to question someone, arrest a suspect as well as several other duties and each of these decisions are made without the presence of supervision so perhaps this is the reason it exists. Discretion may be decreased but I don’t think it can be eliminated, even with supervision police officers together hold the authority to make discretionary decisions even if the public disagrees with their tactics. I don’t necessarily think police discretion should not be eliminated because, majority of the decisions that are made by them are made in the best interest of the public or victim.
Officers are known as public servants, they are held at higher standards than everyday citizens. According to Wyatt-Nichol & Franks(2009) when officers behave unethically, it is a violation of public trust and damages the image of law enforcement everywhere (p. 40). Officer should receive in-death training of cases that make headlines within the newspapers or media. For example, the Freddie Gray or Eric Garner case could be used in scenarios with the steps taken to avoid any ethical dilemmas they could possibly run into. Updated training should be conducted every 6 months for ethics alone in addition to the yearly training that’s already in place. The civilian review board can recommend more training of officers that engage in unethical behavior or misconduct. Intense training, followed through with morals is important factors to avoiding the civilian review board and their process in reviewing investigations against officers. When all training officers receive has been overlooked and failed to comply. Police officers should be held accountable for their actions, through training officers learn to understand their position and need within the community. Although training is offered yearly and on an as need basics, officers are held to a high standard within their community. Some tend to lose sight of their mission of daily duties which are to maintain order and
In more extreme cases, officers may obstruct justice and lie under the oath to save themselves or a fellow officer from discipline and prosecution (Holbert & Rosa 69). Despite police not taking fault in their actions and going against the oath, it gives government official a bad reputation in the moto of protecting and serving their
Although accountability has always been an issue, the injustices that are currently occurring make it priority. Police officers are getting “special treatment” and are not facing charges for crimes they have committed. Police officers are not held accountable for their a...
Over the years, this country has witnessed many cases of police brutality. It has become a controversial topic among communities that have seen police brutality take place in front of their homes. Officers are faced with many threatening situations everyday, forcing them to make split second decisions and to expect the worst and hope for the best. Police officers are given the power to take any citizens rights away and even their lives. With that kind of power comes responsibility, that’s one major concern with the amount of discretion officers have when to use force or when to use lethal force.
“The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence,” Robert Peel. The use of force for police officers is something I find to be justified and right, because it can possible help save the officers life and any witnesses lives.
In the Ferguson article (2015), there was an example given about an African American man claimed that he was standing outside of of Wal-Mart, an officer called him a “stupid motherf****r” and a “bastard.” According to the man, a lieutenant was on the scene and did nothing to reproach the officer, instead threatening to arrest the man (p. 80). This demonstrates that the police in Ferguson had no respect for the civilian and even though the lieutenant was present, they did nothing. The officer was not suspended nor held responsible for this incident. By failing to hold officers accountable, it sends a message that officers can behave as they like, “regardless of law or policy, and even if caught, that punishment will be light.” (Ferguson, 86). This message serves to excuse officer wrongdoing and heighten community distrust. This is also to say that police can possibly get away with murder because they are higher officials and work for the
The degree of force that officers use is heavily influenced by police discretion in real-world situations rather than espoused by a certain agenda. Discretion can be classified into four different categories where administrators, the community, and the individual police officer exercise differing degrees of influence in decision-making. What is needed to help officer discretion is a central ethos that will guide discretion when all other rules fail to help.
Police discretionary practices vary from officer to officer and every officer is differently trained by departments. Without the proper use of discretion out on the field, police officers are left open for legal suit actions however, if the officers are trained and exercising the use of discretion in a good manner, each individual officer can be held accountable. The second disadvantage of use of police discretion is that it allows the police officers to have too much power on making decisions which can affect the life, safety or liberty of an individual (Bargen, 2005). Police discretion presents a clear danger to society because the average officer can make a poor decision and affect the life of a person or persons. If discretion in law enforcement is used in a wrongful manner, it has great potential for being abused out of the field. Discretion allows police officers to “perform a duty or refrain from taking action” (Gaines & Kappeler, 2003, p. 251). Police officers are supposed to enforce equality under the law, people in society all should have equal rights and should be treated the same. However, discretion allows police officers to misuse it by treating offenders of different genders, race, class, ethnicity, religion, age and more inappropriately (Pepinsky, 1984). Law enforcement officers are
Discretion is defined as the authority to make a decision between two or more choices (Pollock, 2010). More specifically, it is defined as “the capacity to identify and to document criminal and noncriminal events” (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). Every police officer has a great deal of discretion concerning when to use their authority, power, persuasion, or force. Depending on how an officer sees their duty to society will determine an officer’s discretion. Discretion leads to selective enforcement practices and may result in discrimination against certain groups of people or select individuals (Young, 2011). Most police officer discretion is exercised in situations with individuals (Sherman, 1984).
A video from a dash cam showed what seemed to prove the officer had liable reason to shoot the man but when audio was released with the video the perspective really came into view. In the video the man is seen stepping out of his car as the officer told him to do, but when the officer tells the man to get his license and he reaches in the car to grab it he is shot. The officer is heard telling the man to “put his hands up and get out of the car.” When the man was shot he had his hands in the air, with his wallet in hand. While the officer had the right to defend himself against a potential threat it was extremely unnecessary to shoot at the man. Thankfully the man was not killed in the shooting but the man’s lawyer stated that his client was not unhandcuffed until an officer remembered that he did not have his handcuffs and went to the hospital to retrieve them.
• The Use of Force is about a girl who may have Diphtheria, but refuses to open her mouth to let the doctor look at her throat. After much struggle, emotional and physical, the doctor forces her to open her mouth and it turns out she does indeed have the disease.
Police decisions can affect life, liberty, and property, and as guardians of the interests of the public, police must maintain high standards of integrity. Police discretion concerning how to act in a given situation can often lead to ethical misconduct (Banks 29).