Big police departments are more likely to be corrupt. This is because they can develop a sub-culture that will prevent any large scale reformation even when corrupt practices are exposed (Walker & Katz, 2005). Police departments that are located in crime prone areas are also more likely to have corrupt officers because of the reigning apathy in the community in regards to crime. Police officers who are corrupt or abuse their power are not reprimanded or punished enough for their actions. This is the reason why police corruption is not fully eradicated in many places.
Examples of allowable discretion include jay walking and littering the neighborhood. This is because laws against both crimes or misdemeanors may be expressed in broad terms that do not fit the vagueness of the misdemeanors (Reid, 2006). This means that it is left to the policeman on the street to interpret how he ought to implement this type of legislation. In crimes such as domestic battery and aggressive hate crimes, the officers in question should use the laws against these crimes to full effect.
The officer is right in the suggestions he makes about a police officer using his discretion when determining the right option to take when a driver engages in a misdemeanor. Nash rightly observed that there are a range of options that police officers could use in determining the seriousness of the crime or misdemeanor that has been committed (Policedynamicschanel, 2012). Even though there is not enough time for an officer to learn about all aspects of an individual who breaks the law, it is very important for him or her to determine, through present interactions with the accused, if he should charge him or her, or make an allowance in the case of traffic