Discourse Community of Law Enforcement - Admission/Application Essay Example

?MEMORANDUM xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx October 8 Discipline Investigation Report INTRODUCTION This memorandum outlines the issues surrounding the discourse community of law enforcement. The assignment is about a discourse community, and it explores the way that people communicate within the law enforcement professional area, looking at informal and spoken contexts as well as more formal written contexts. It consists of a brief introduction, a summary of a spoken interview conducted on xxxxxx (date) with a qualified patrol division sergeant, a summary of the written “Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials” (1979) and a conclusion which analyzes both spoken and written types of discourse. This analysis looks in detail at the way language is used and highlights the specific rules and conventions that apply in the policing professional context. Appendices containing the interview questions and the actual code of conduct are attached at the end for reference. INTERVIEW SUMMARY The purpose of the interview was to gather information from an experienced officer which helps to educate a less experienced person, such as an applicant to the police academy. The questions were at the same time professional and personal, for example exploring what the officer finds good about his job, and what he finds difficult. The first questions were simple and factual, such as asking how long he had worked in this particular job, but as the interview progressed, and a rapport was built up between the interviewer and interviewee, some more open questions were asked, such as explaining what the main features and duties of the job actually are. It was apparent that there is a significant amount of discourse going on in a police division. There are basic levels of factual narrative, which each officer must prepare in writing, and there is also a checking mechanism in place, so that a senior officer looks over the work that junior officers have done. This officer moves between formal processes, such as submitting reports, and informal processes, such as building up a relationship of brotherhood with his fellow officers. It was clear also that some situations are very difficult, and require high levels of skill such as dealing with sexual abuse and rape cases. Some technical vocabulary is necessary when writing about police equipment and procedures, but there are also informal names for things which only police officers use between themselves such as “rat squad” and “puzzle palace” which refer to different grades of police officer and detective. An outsider would have some difficulty understanding this language at first, but learning to talk like the other officers is part of the process of bonding and becoming a functional team. DOCUMENT SUMMARY The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials was written in 1979, and it is in the form of a set of articles declaring what officers must do, followed in each case by commentary, giving more explanation on what the terms mean and how the instructions have to be interpreted. It was probably drafted by a committee of several senior people, and no doubt has been through several revisions to make sure it stays up to date and in tune with the law. The language is extremely formal, with no mention of “I” or “you”, but instead only an impersonal style of giving out orders such as “law enforcement officials shall...” There is no emotion, or personal touch to the document, because it is intended to suit all persons and all occasions, as a guideline to be followed. The Miranda warning is a very common text which is required by law to be used when arresting suspects for questioning. There are different formulations of it, some with more detail than others, but the basic function is the same: to inform suspects of their legal rights and ensure that both suspect and arresting officer behave in full awareness of what they are doing, and possible implications for any legal processes which follow. It is constructed in the second person “you” form because it is specifically addressed to the potential suspect in a very acute situation. CONCLUSIONS Law enforcement is a serious business and there can be a lot at stake for people who are involved in its processes. Officers and administrators who are responsible for gathering evidence and formulating reports play a very important role and their professionalism ensures that errors are avoided, and that everyone is treated equally within the system. In order for this to happen there has to be a set of procedures, and an agreed style of doing things. If everybody just did things the way they wanted to, then there would be too much variation in the system, and people would find themselves in situations where they worry about accuracy and consistency. Anyone who joins the police in a formal capacity has to learn how to fit into the bigger system. This happens in the way that people dress, for example, wearing uniforms in certain roles. A smart appearance sends out an important message to the public, namely that an officer is organized and professional. In the same way, it is important that people address one another respectfully in their spoken language. Senior staff are spoken to with high levels of respect, which underlines their rank and importance in the organization. Fellow officers in a canteen can be more informal with each other, and often build up a close relationship. This team spirit is a necessary part of the job because tough things happen, and officers rely on their colleagues for support. Members of the public must also be spoken to, and written about with respect, even in situations where they might be accused of violent or serious crime. Writing genres include official regulations like the code of conduct which uses legal terminology and a very impersonal style. Incident reports are somewhat less formal, but the key thing about them is that they have to be full of detail and they have to be accurate and specific. These can be used in any legal context such as a court of law. Special jargon is used to describe processes and equipment that are special to police forces, such as for example the tazer, which is a crowd control tool with the ability to temporarily disable someone who is likely to become violent. On key feature of police terminology is that it can be used informally, over the radio on patrols, or in the officer areas. Referring to other groups by humorous names can lessen the stress of the job and keep everyone feeling part of the team. It is important, however, to know when to use the informal language of brotherhood between officers, and when to use the formal and professional type of language. Members of the could easily be offended by some kinds of police discourse, because they are not under the stress of the difficult circumstances that police have to deal with, and they might think that police do not care about what they do. In fact, however, using humor is an important way to deal with stress, and bond with each other. The Miranda warning is obligatory in some situations and it has a very important legal purpose to protect both suspects and officers in any legal process. The style is such that it makes complicated legal concepts very simple and straightforward to understand, focusing on the main point that a suspect has a duty to be truthful when questioned, but this has consequences which might follow. The advice about having a lawyer is to remind the suspect of his or her rights, so that a police officer is not allowed to abuse his or her powers. It is interesting to note that the officer who was interviewed was aware of the rhetorical strategies that he used in writing reports. Each officer has to be responsible for what he hands in, and so following a prescribed format helps him to remember what to include, and in what order. The whole area of using discretion and judgement is also important to a police officer, and his decisions in this area will be based on facts, which in turn are most often based on written information from various sources. If the facts are inaccurate, then the judgement is likely to be inaccurate too, and this makes it fundamentally important that even junior officers learn from the very start to write in the style and format that is the norm in law enforcement. Document Analysis Report Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (Appendix 1) is a formal set of rules that govern the behavior of professional police officers. It is important that officers understand these documents very thoroughly, and that is why terms are carefully defined, and explanations are given to bring out what is implied in the instructions. The two main styles are clear instructions, followed by helpful definitions and guidance. The audience for these formal documents is mainly professional police officers. The style of the document is extremely formal. It uses legal terminology such as “articles” “declarations” “minimum rules” etc. and it refers to a number of other national and international regulations and guidelines. The rhetorical strategies used are a combination of logos and ethos. The logos aspect comes through the step by step laying out of a series of instructions. Reasons are given for what is being commanded, but there is no opportunity to question or debate the main instruction. The ethos of authority is conveyed by the title which notes that the code was “Adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979.” There is no named author, but this whole group, who in turn officially represent the nation, represent one of the highest authorities in the land, and this gives the text a lot of weight with the reader. The numbers and date signify that it is recorded in history and cannot be changed without coming back to that original authority and being given a different number and date. The headings serve to track the documents origins and its place in the national legislature. The organization of the code is very clear, with bold type headings, and bullet point explanations. Articles come first, giving the general point. Commentary comes second, and is dependent upon the first articles, giving more detail or explaining aspects of the main article. Everything has its number or letter, and so that it can be quoted in full or in part in other documents. There is no narrative line in this text, and this suggests that it is probably intended mainly to be used as a reference text, for checking up what the law says on different items, or for training people in basic principles. It is written in the present tense, which again stresses its general appropriateness for all times, past present and future, rather than for any one situation. Miranda warning – 2 versions. Police officers are required to learn by heart the particular version of the Miranda warning that is currently used in their unit of operation. It is designed to be easily understood, and so it has simple statements in the second person “you” form, which the officer must address directly to the potential suspect. In practice it is often the case that people are under stress, for example when being arrested during some kind of disturbance, or following some violent or dangerous event. They listen to what is being said to them and may even answer questions in the affirmative, without really taking in what is going on and what the implications of their actions are. This is why the longer form of the Miranda warning contains the supplementary question “Do you understand?” after each statement. The Miranda warning derives from a particular court case involving a man called Ernesto Miranda who confessed to a crime, but argued that the confession did not count because he did not know that he could have a lawyer present. Since the constitution guarantees any suspect the right to have a lawyer, this could be seen as a violation of his rights. Ever since that date the Miranda warning has been obligatory and its language is so simple that no person can claim not to have understood what is happening and what the implications are. It aims to balance the rights of suspects guaranteed by the constitution, and the rights of officers to do their job in investigating crimes. The authority in the Miranda warning is implicit, since it derives from the context of being arrested and the underlying guarantees of society which are formulated in the constitution and the protocols for officers. This is an argument based on ethos, and officers receive also some further arguments based on logos in their training, so that the details of the warning can be fully understood. This is an example of the complex subtext that is contained in some police paperwork and verbal behavior. Officers have to know when to apply this warning, and how to apply it, so that they remain within the regulations set down for police interventions. The reasons for the warning are explained, and also exceptions to the norm, and situations suggested where officers might wonder whether or not to use the warning. Over time the jargon of police work has created the verb “to Mirandize someone” out of the name of the warning, and this shows how deeply embedded it has become in police culture. Appendix 1 Copies of the two documents analyzed Document 1. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials  Text in PDF Format Adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979 Article 1 Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfill the duty imposed upon them by law, by serving the community and by protecting all persons against illegal acts, consistent with the high degree of responsibility required by their profession. Commentary : ( a ) The term "law enforcement officials", includes all officers of the law, whether appointed or elected, who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention. ( b ) In countries where police powers are exercised by military authorities, whether uniformed or not, or by State security forces, the definition of law enforcement officials shall be regarded as including officers of such services. ( c ) Service to the community is intended to include particularly the rendition of services of assistance to those members of the community who by reason of personal, economic, social or other emergencies are in need of immediate aid. ( d ) This provision is intended to cover not only all violent, predatory and harmful acts, but extends to the full range of prohibitions under penal statutes. It extends to conduct by persons not capable of incurring criminal liability. Article 2 In the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons. Commentary : ( a ) The human rights in question are identified and protected by national and international law. Among the relevant international instruments are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid , the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. ( b ) National commentaries to this provision should indicate regional or national provisions identifying and protecting these rights. Article 3 Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. Commentary : ( a ) This provision emphasizes that the use of force by law enforcement officials should be exceptional; while it implies that law enforcement officials may be authorized to use force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for the prevention of crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, no force going beyond that may be used. ( b ) National law ordinarily restricts the use of force by law enforcement officials in accordance with a principle of proportionality. It is to be understood that such national principles of proportionality are to be respected in the interpretation of this provision. In no case should this provision be interpreted to authorize the use of force which is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved. ( c ) The use of firearms is considered an extreme measure. Every effort should be made to exclude the use of firearms, especially against children. In general, firearms should not be used except when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender. In every instance in which a firearm is discharged, a report should be made promptly to the competent authorities. Article 4 Matters of a confidential nature in the possession of law enforcement officials shall be kept confidential, unless the performance of duty or the needs of justice strictly require otherwise. Commentary : By the nature of their duties, law enforcement officials obtain information which may relate to private lives or be potentially harmful to the interests, and especially the reputation, of others. Great care should be exercised in safeguarding and using such information, which should be disclosed only in the performance of duty or to serve the needs of justice. Any disclosure of such information for other purposes is wholly improper. Article 5 No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior orders or exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Commentary : ( a ) This prohibition derives from the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly, according to which: "[Such an act is] an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [and other international human rights instruments]." ( b ) The Declaration defines torture as follows: ". . . torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating him or other persons. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners." ( c ) The term "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" has not been defined by the General Assembly but should be interpreted so as to extend the widest possible protection against abuses, whether physical or mental. Article 6 Law enforcement officials shall ensure the full protection of the health of persons in their custody and, in particular, shall take immediate action to secure medical attention whenever required. Commentary : ( a ) "Medical attention", which refers to services rendered by any medical personnel, including certified medical practitioners and paramedics, shall be secured when needed or requested. ( b ) While the medical personnel are likely to be attached to the law enforcement operation, law enforcement officials must take into account the judgement of such personnel when they recommend providing the person in custody with appropriate treatment through, or in consultation with, medical personnel from outside the law enforcement operation. ( c ) It is understood that law enforcement officials shall also secure medical attention for victims of violations of law or of accidents occurring in the course of violations of law. Article 7 Law enforcement officials shall not commit any act of corruption. They shall also rigorously oppose and combat all such acts. Commentary : ( a ) Any act of corruption, in the same way as any other abuse of authority, is incompatible with the profession of law enforcement officials. The law must be enforced fully with respect to any law enforcement official who commits an act of corruption, as Governments cannot expect to enforce the law among their citizens if they cannot, or will not, enforce the law against their own agents and within their agencies. ( b ) While the definition of corruption must be subject to national law, it should be understood to encompass the commission or omission of an act in the performance of or in connection with one's duties, in response to gifts, promises or incentives demanded or accepted, or the wrongful receipt of these once the act has been committed or omitted. ( c ) The expression "act of corruption" referred to above should be understood to encompass attempted corruption. Article 8 Law enforcement officials shall respect the law and the present Code. They shall also, to the best of their capability, prevent and rigorously oppose any violations of them. Law enforcement officials who have reason to believe that a violation of the present Code has occurred or is about to occur shall report the matter to their superior authorities and, where necessary, to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial power. Commentary : ( a ) This Code shall be observed whenever it has been incorporated into national legislation or practice. If legislation or practice contains stricter provisions than those of the present Code, those stricter provisions shall be observed. ( b ) The article seeks to preserve the balance between the need for internal discipline of the agency on which public safety is largely dependent, on the one hand, and the need for dealing with violations of basic human rights, on the other. Law enforcement officials shall report violations within the chain of command and take other lawful action outside the chain of command only when no other remedies are available or effective. It is understood that law enforcement officials shall not suffer administrative or other penalties because they have reported that a violation of this Code has occurred or is about to occur. ( c ) The term "appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial power" refers to any authority or organ existing under national law, whether internal to the law enforcement agency or independent thereof, with statutory, customary or other power to review grievances and complaints arising out of violations within the purview of this Code. ( d ) In some countries, the mass media may be regarded as performing complaint review functions similar to those described in subparagraph ( c ) above. Law enforcement officials may, therefore, be justified if, as a last resort and in accordance with the laws and customs of their own countries and with the provisions of article 4 of the present Code, they bring violations to the attention of public opinion through the mass media. ( e ) Law enforcement officials who comply with the provisions of this Code deserve the respect, the full support and the co-operation of the community and of the law enforcement agency in which they serve, as well as the law enforcement profession. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/codeofconduct.htm Document two: Notes on the interview with patrol division sergeant. Appendix 2 The Miranda Warning (2 versions) The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights. Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police's position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person's fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right. This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda's lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights. Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the "Miranda rights." When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been "Mirandized." Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime. As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976. The following is a minimal Miranda warning, as outlined in the Miranda v Arizona case. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense. The following is a much more verbose Miranda warning, designed to cover all bases that a detainee might encounter while in police custody. A detainee may be asked to sign a statement acknowledging the following. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? List of Interview Questions. How long have you been in the patrol division? Have you had any similar position before? What is the best way to prepare for the academy? What were the reasons for you joining the police academy? What kind of duties do you carry out in your job? What is the best part of your job? What is the worst part of your job? What qualifications do you need for this job? What kind of jobs could I do with my major? What kind of writing conventions exist in this job? Do you use any rhetorical strategies in your writing? If so which ones? Is there any special language police officers use when talking to each other? What about technical language – are there specialist words that need to be used? Read More