Police Discretion and Its Impact on the Way Police Do Their Job - Essay Example

Police Discretion and its Impact on the Way Police do their Job Unit The role of policing requires that an officer make choicesthat are informed by the law. However, this is not always the case; the law is sometimes rigid while other times its provisions are not the most appropriate based on the situation at hand. This void gives a police officer an opportunity to exercise his or her own judgment. According to Bronitt and Stenning “police work by its very nature is discretionary” (2011, pg 320). The ability of a police officer to make a decision that is based on a particular incidence encompasses the window of discretion. When presented with various scenarios an officer is required to make a fast and appropriate decision that will ensure that there is some form of fairness. An array of options are available for an officer but the decision to either arrest, investigate, interrogate, charge, caution or prosecute is dependent on their discretion. Before making a judgment there are several variables that an officer should put into perspective. Therefore, police discretion should be based on fairness, professionalism, morality, legality, as well as social protection. The police are law enforcers but on the other hand, they are human beings. At times, they are faced with situations that call for their own intervention; this is because the law can be silent on some issues. It is also likely that the law presents some ambiguity hence the diverse interpretations makes the officer to be the sole decision maker for a particular scenario. The officer is trained in many aspects including making of discretions that are based on sound reasoning and analysis. Davis refers to it as “making of choices from a number of alternatives” (Davis 1969). This means that the officer is required to weigh the options and make the most appropriate choice based on the circumstances, the involved parties, as well as the prevailing environment. Not unless there are several options that the officer is required to consider, discretion is not necessary when the law or policy provides only one option. However, the fact that new laws keep on being developed as well as the old ones being amended means that it is rare that the officer will have only one option. Despite having the room to employ discretion, the officer is limited by the law. It is apparent that the exercise of discretion is not applicable in all cases; however, there are particular incidences that have attracted the discretion of the cops. Cases of domestic violence have attracted the attention and the intervention of the cops. The police officers are exposed to situations that require their discretion involving family conflicts. In providing lasting solutions, they have gone to the lengths of seeking the help of social workers to make interventions. Instead of rushing to prosecute the offenders, they have approached the situations mildly in an effort to find a lasting solution (Pepinsky1984). The cops’ discretion in cases of domestic violence has been geared towards provision of counselling, calming down the warring parties, as well as conducting social service referrals. Another intervention that has demonstrated successful cops’ discretion is in dealing with traffic offences. Traffic offenders who commit minor and accidental mistakes can be allowed to drive away under the discretion of the police officer. For example, a failure to adhere to the traffic lights when there are no vehicles on the road can be treated lightly under the discretion of the cop. In another case, the cop may ask a drunk driver to part the car and take public transport or call someone to come for them. Apart from these, petty crimes also attract the discretion of the cops a lot. The decision made by the cop in most cases is geared towards facilitating the criminal to reform. In exercising discretion, an officer should put into perspective at all times three important factors. The first consideration is the offender’s variables; this includes a number of aspects that relates to the condition of the offender. Before concluding on the discretion to be made, the officer ought to consider the situation of the offender in terms of their health status, age, economic status, social status, gender, and race among other relevant considerations. For example, the police officer will consider going slow on an offender who is sick compared to a healthy one. On the other hand, the discretion that they will make against a dignitary is different from that made against a local citizen who has no particular recognition. This ensures that individuals are treated slightly differently depending on various accompanying variables. Some lawbreakers will be sympathized with and cautioned against repeating the crime while there are those who will be immediately arrested and prosecuted. However, despite the offender’s variable the rest of the factors are to be put into perspective. Secondly, the situational variable also comes into play. This brings in various aspects that relate to the crime such as its seriousness, the involved property, the investigator that initiated the process, and the visibility of the crime. All criminal activities are not of the same magnitude, some are more serious than others. Petty or minor criminal activities are taken with less seriousness compared to the serious crimes. There are crimes that an individual will commit and the police will have no other option rather than arrest and charge the offender, for example one involved in a murder. On the other hand, a situation that involves some sort of rebellion or involves some rebellion is not treated kindly as compared to a situation where the offender is cooperative and apologetic. Pepinsky (1984) has argued that police will overreact when exposed to a threatening situation, for example, where there is exchange of fire. Consideration of the property at the center of a crime is also very important, when dealing with property of high worth such as buildings, cars, and land among others, the officer should be very cautious. Contrary to this, for property of low worth the officer can exercise their discretion in mediating the situation. The other issue that should feature is the visibility of the vice, it is expected that the discretion made by the officer will depend on the presence of media, witnesses or some audience. The third and final factor to be considered is the condition of the system. The system variables attract different decisions by the officer irrespective of the situational variables as well as the offender variables. The exercise of discretion by the officer is reliant on the frameworks that govern a society; it involves those that affect the individual officer to the ones that affects the community at large. For example, a police officer will make a decision based on the way in which their seniors will summon them. Other community factors such as the presence of correctional centers affect the discretion of an officer; they may refer an offender to such a center for counselling and rehabilitation. The judicial system can also influence the decision made by an officer. Herman (1990) points out that when the courts have a backlog of case and the prisons are overflowing, the discretion of the officer may tend towards leniency. In another scenario, when the government wants to capitalize on every opportunity to earn revenue, the police will be stringent in their operations and will focus on decisions that targets to charge the offenders. Police discretion has a number of merits. Having the police make decisions that are informed by the three factors discussed above brings forth a number of benefits in the law enforcement as well as the justice system. Firstly, it enhances realism; the police are humans who can successfully handle some of the criminal situations without the use of the sometimes tedious and chaotic judicial system. They are able to deal with incidences that require their intervention. On the other hand, the justice system is spared from engaging in so many cases that could have been dealt with appropriately at a lower level. It is also apparent that they are able to sieve cases depending on their severity. Secondly, it promotes flexibility hence reducing the level of autonomy and rigidness of the law (Powell 1981). It would be very difficult to adhere to laws that are cast on stone; discretion ensures that the police are sensitive to issues and are able to make the most preferable and acceptable choices. The third advantage that comes with exercise of discretion is that it gives an opportunity for the police to be humane. It would become so unbearable to interact with the police if they did not have this loophole to exercise their position on various issues. The public perception of police would be characterized by fear. However, discretion gives them an opportunity to interact with offenders at a human-to-human level where the cop is able to understand the offender and is capable of offering advice if it deems necessary. Discretion has a fourth merit; it promotes efficiency in the justice system as well as helping avoid unnecessary expenses as well as waste of time. The time that could be spent in the courtrooms is spared through the ability of the police officers to exercise discretion through their ability to filter cases. Fifthly, it ensures that the police officers enjoy their work. The ability to make decisions based on one’s knowledge and ability gives an individual a sense of satisfaction. This scenario occurs to the cops who exercise their judgment over various issues that they meet as they perform their routine duties. Finally, exercise of discretion promotes fairness. Instant justice is found through wise exercise of discretion by a police officer (Skogan and Kathleen 2004). Despite having a number of advantages, the exercise of discretion can be abused hence, it brings forth some challenges. Firstly, the personality of the officer may influence the decision made, which may not conform to any moral or legal value. It is possible that a cop can make an irrational judgment. Secondly, discretion is a breeding ground for corruption as well as promotes partiality in the way people are treated. For example, an exercise of discretion by an officer will foster some special treatment for a dignitary as compared to any other common citizen. An officer can easily be bribed in order to allow a criminal get away with the offence. Thirdly, in the exercise of discretion it is possible that a majority of the police officers do not have the slightest imagination of the outcomes of the decisions made. According to Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (2011), the exercise of discretion among the officers may not be informed about the outcomes. For example, the discretion of an officer may result to exoneration of an individual who will depict recidivism. Such a though may skip the mind of the cop at the time of discretion. Finally, the chances of the discretion freedom being abused are high because an individual is the sole authority that makes the final decision. The outcome of the decision made can result to fatal occurrences including injuries and deaths. To prevent these disadvantages from influencing the way cops exercise their discretion, some control mechanisms have been developed. Adherence to the law by all, including the police officers is not debatable. It is a requirement that even as the police officers exercise this freedom; they should try as much as possible to remain within the confines of the law. Alternatively, it is important that the decisions made conform to professionalism and morality while taking into perspective the social concerns of the people (Jerome 1994, pg 6). To ensure professionalism is upheld, the officers are supervised (Kelling, Wasseman and Williams 1988). In addition, the police department has its policies and procedures that guide the execution of duties by its officers. Communication is also an important aspect that can facilitate transparency in the exercise of discretion. Another thing is the working of officers in groups of two or more rather than as individuals. This will ensure that the decision made by them is agreeable among them. However, this is limited because the intervention of a personal or domestic matter may not work well when several parties intervene. In conclusion, the personal judgment that is made by police officer in execution of their duties entails their discretion. The discretion made by police officers is very vital in resolving domestic violence cases, traffic offences, and other petty offences among others. A number of advantages arise from the exercise of discretion by police officers. Police discretion promotes fairness, police officers exhibit job satisfaction, a humane view of officers is enhanced, promotes efficiency in the justice system, promotes flexibility, and it promotes a real situation of dealing with issues. Some demerits also accompany this freedom. The personality and personal views of the officer can affect the discretion of the police officer. In addition, it can be a breeding ground for corruption. On the other hand, it is possible that the officer who exercises their discretion will not have imagined of the outcomes. However, despite these disadvantages, the exercise of discretion is very important and methods such as proper supervision can reduce these demerits. References Criminal Justice Joint Inspection (June 2011), Exercising Discretion: The Gateway to Justice. Retrieved on 24 January, 2014 from http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/exercising-discretion-the-gateway-to-justice-20110609.pdf Davis, K.C. (1969), Discretionary Justice, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Herman, G (1990), Problem-Oriented Policing, New York: McGraw-Hill. Jerome, H. S (1994), Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society, 3rd ed, New York: Macmillan College Publishing Company. Kelling, G. L., Wasseman, R. and Williams, H (1988), Police Accountability and Community Policing, Perspectives on Policing 7, Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. Pepinsky, H. E (1984), Better Living through Police Discretion, Law and Contemporary Problems 47, no. 4:253. Powell, D. D (1981), Race, Rank and Police Discretion, Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol 9(4), 383-389. Skogan, W. and Kathleen, F (2004), Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Stenning, P. and Bronitt, S (2011), Understanding Discretion in Modern Policing, 35 Crim LJ 319, retrieved on 24 January 2014 from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/44249/76896_1.pdf;jsessionid=5BE4F02DC731F6C20EFDC935D58AFBAB?sequence=1 Young, B. B (2011), Police Discretion in Contemporary America. Retrieved on 24 January, 2014 from https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553420/youngBerniceBrooks.pdf?sequence=1 Read More