To begin with, it may be particularly important to examine the very concept of it. Thus, it is suggested that while performing their duties, the law enforcing officers have an ability to choose from a wide range of option when it comes to dealing with citizens, especially when the law does not provide clear instructions. In other words, a police office selects and action that one deems to be the most appropriate under particular circumstances. A good example is interaction with homeless people. On the one hand, there is no law they violate by living on the street; however, on the other hand, they actions or the mere location in a particular place might have negative effect on the society under certain conditions (Sylvestre 2010:804). That is why police officers are provided with the so called tool box from which they can choose options that they would implement in order to deal with the homeless in the best way possible. There is no doubt that such practice requires vast experience.
However, people should not perceive the notion of police discression as a license for the law enforcing officers to do whatever they want to. In reality, the scope of actions that they can choose from is rather wide, but it is finite. In other words, they do make a choice, but the number of option is rather limited. What is even more important is that the more police discression is structured; the more this process is organized, the easier it is for the officers to choose from they option they have. In addition to that, the evidence shows that when policemen are give a sufficient amount of freedom in doing so, the practice in question is able to have a profound positive impact on the society in general (Carrington and Schulenberg 2008:350). While it is quite obvious that the officers are less likely to be strict, the avoidance of imposing strict punishments