Discuss the Pros the Cons of Police Discretion in Domestic Violence Situations - Essay Example

?Discuss the Pros and Cons of Police discretion in domestic violence situations Introduction The work of the police force is one of the most important and those that can never be done away with in any way. This is because the police system has been designated to be the law enforcement agency of society (Babor et al, 2003). What this means is that in the absence of the jurisdiction of the police force, there would be total lawlessness in society and the rights of people would be denied. Indeed, justice would also be denied to those who deserve it and the law will be in the hands of some few people. It is for the sake of all these factors that the need to preserve the continual existence of the police force and their duties thereof is an important segment of society. The execution of their duties, and with reference to domestic violence situations, and all other legal issues, the police use two major methodologies of justice. These are ministration and administration of justice (Syllabus for JUS 205, 2004). Methodologists who support the ministration of justice believe that every regulation and rule such be followed ritually and religiously without fail to the letter in mechanistic, repetitive and assembly-line manner (Syllabus for JUS 205, 2004). Certainly, people who belong to this school of thought do not suppose the idea of discretion. The second group of methodologists who support the administration of justice hold the view that the police should show good judgment and practice discretion when the need arises. This means that the administration of justice is free from rigid adherence to the law. One aspect of police operations where discretion is most often applied is in the area of domestic violence situations (ALAC, 2008). Reasons why police apply discretion in domestic violence cases Victims are often uncooperative According to the Syllabus for JUS 205 (2004), most police officers will apply discretion and refuse to conduct arrest because female victims are often not willing to cooperate. It is an open secret that cases of domestic violence are cases that involve the private engagements of married couples. Because of this, there often exist personalized strings attached to the issue of handling over one’s partner to the police for arrest. This is because in the sight of most couples, that would constitute betrayal of love (Easton, 2002). Because of this, females who are often the worse offenders in cases of domestic violence cases refuse to cooperate with the police in terms of issuance of authentic information that could lead up to arrest. Once the police detect distortions and inconsistencies with information that they gather from the victims (most commonly female victims), they become left with no other option than to resort to the application of discretion in the execution of their duty. In effect, until there come such a time that couples will stop looking at cases of domestic violence as private issues but as civil and criminal issues that demand the application of the full rigors of the law, the police will continue to apply discretion in cases of domestic violence instead of the issuance of arrest. Arrest of the breadwinner would hurt the family Another major factor that brings about the use of discretion among police personnel instead of arrest has to do with the fact that police personnel often judge that “arrest of the breadwinner would hurt the family” (Syllabus for JUS 205, 2004). Yet again, the fact that marriage is a private relationship between two people, one of which often acts as the breadwinner of the family and caretaker of the other one, police have often reasoned that applying arrest on the breadwinner would put the entire family in jeopardy (OECD, 2007). Due to this, the police would often look for alternatives other than arrest that would ensure that the case of domestic violence is catered for. As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make right. In this context, the police are often tempted to believe that arresting the breadwinner would create double trouble because it would deprive the family and marital home of its economic existence. But speaking on the subject of arrest of breadwinners, it is important to point out that breadwinners are not always the husbands. In the same vein, domestic violence victims are not always the wives. To this end, the hands of the police become very tight in effecting arrest; whether the breadwinner of the family is a male or a female. Pros of application of Discretion by Police in Domestic Violence Cases Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism One major advantage that comes with the use of discretion by the police in cases of domestic violence is that it makes way for the promotion of alternative dispute resolution. In an era where pressure on the court system and the prisons has made alternative dispute resolution a necessity, it is only appropriate that the police would use their professional competence in the exercise of discretion in cases of domestic violence to champion the course of alternative dispute resolution by ensuring that it is not every other case of domestic violence that is carried to the court level (Jackson et al, 2005). But for the usage of discretion by the police, there is no denying the fact that the number of cases that line up in courts each day would have doubled. So if already, the court system is pleading for space with some of the cases it handles, it is only appropriate to see alternative dispute resolution mechanism administered by the police in exercising their discretion on cases of domestic violence as a pro rather than a con. As professionals, the police are often advised to use mechanisms including counseling, mediation and cooling-off periods to resolve cases of domestic violence. System of Employee Engagement Modern labor psychologists have also debated that the use and promotion of the use of police discretion in the police force is a useful way of promoting the ideologies of employee engagement in the police force (Graves et al, 2002). Generally, employee engagement may be seen as the practice of vesting power in the hands of employees to operate within their area of skill and knowledge without putting much restriction on them (Maxwell et al, 2004). From a human resource perspective, this is a useful way of developing the skills and knowledge of workers and helping them to become more effective at work. Employee engagement is also seen as a way of training the present generation of employees for future tasks and positions. In the police force, because the application of the rank system works so rigidly, it has often become impossible for employee engagement to be executed because police officers are often obliged to take orders from senior authority. But with police discretion, some of these junior members will be motivated to take up leadership and decision into their own hands and apply them appropriately for the wellbeing of the service. The fact that police discretion is used as a system of employee engagement therefore makes police discretion a useful pro instead of a con. Allows for appropriation of legal system in relation to situation variables What is more, it would be noted that the police are always faced with the need to rightly apportion situations and cases to fit the legal system when different situation variables arise. Because of the existence of different situation variables therefore, it would just be wrong to assign the same kind of action to all cases involving domestic violence. The use of police discretion therefore paves the way for the police to rightly assign each case or situation to the most appropriate legal system without having to direct al cases to the same course of action (Graves et al, 2002). In the long run, what this means is that the legal system is allowed to function on a regulation basis in a bottom up approach without those at the top of the system to always descend to the bottom to get cases rightly appropriated. Clearly, this cuts down the time and resources that would have been needed to get those at the top to come down to sort and appropriate different cases in domestic violence scenarios. Cons of application of Discretion by Police in Domestic Violence Cases Misjudgment and Bias One of the greatest challenges that come with the application of police discretion in the case of domestic violence has to do with the issue of misjudgment and bias. On the issue of misjudgment, it would be noted that the law court is the only legally accepted agency to pass judgment on an issue (OECD, 2007). It is for this reason that there are civil liabilities even for prejudice. For this reason, if the police use discretion in cases of domestic violence, it is a disadvantage in the sense that the eventual judgment would be unfair or misjudgment. From this angle, it is very important to note that any outcome of a police’s discretion amounts to judgment because it concludes the prescription of justice. Another worse development would even be the case of possible bias as a result of application of discretion. This is because in the application of discretion, there are no systems that are followed such as evidences and other systems are examined in the law court. Due to the systems in place in the law court and due to the fact that eventual judgment does not rest with only one person, it is virtually impossible for a judge to be bias. But in the case of discretion, judgment is done by only one police officer or a few ones. This is certainly a recipe for the promotion of bias; especially if the police have an interest in a said case. Interferes with their duty to enforce the law equitably According to Wortley (2003), a very strong demerit with the use and application of police discretion is the fact that it “interferes with their duty to enforce the law equitably.” This is because as explained by Wortley (2003), each person has an equal place before the law and the law of justice ought to be executed equitably. In essence, for a police to apply discretion on some cases of domestic violence and not on some other cases of domestic violence would just mean that the police are denying the duty of law enforcement to take its full course. On this note, it is important to point out that it is not always that the judgment that the police pass in applying discretion that goes in favor of the parties involved. Consequently, the party that may feel unflavored in the application of discretion would certainly have a feeling that he or she has been denied justice on the grounds that the law had not been enforced to the latter. Directly related to the fact that discretion interferes with the duty of enforcing the law equitably is the fact that the application of discretion does not open itself up to all areas of the legal system including an appeal on a judgment. To this end, in a typical domestic violence case where the police applies discretion to say, make the culprit undergo counseling instead of arrest, the victim might feel seriously indicted for justice. Conclusion From the discussions above, it can be concluded that the application of discretion by the police force in cases of domestic violence should continue to be applied in ‘discretion’. What this means is that, before police personnel uses discretion, he or she should be in a position to judge and determine the outcome of the particular case involved. This means that different domestic violence cases should be given preferential treatments. In cases where the cons would out weight the pros, the officer is advised to implement the normal provisions of the law rather than using discretion. On the other hand, in cases where the pros would outweigh the cons, the police should have the courage to go ahead with the use of discretion. In all of this, the police should be in a position to live above reproach in the jurisdiction of their duties. This is because when there comes such a time that the police force can be trusted on the grounds of professionalism and fairness, criticisms that often arise when they police use discretion would become a thing of the past. This is because the larger society would now be put in a position where they would embrace the police as always getting it right in the application of discretion and so criticisms against them would seize in this regard (Jackson et al, 2005). REFERENCE LIST ALAC. Our Strategic Direction: 2008–2013. Wellington: Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand. Babor T, Caetano R, Casswell S, et al. 2003. Alcohol: No ordinary commodity: Research and pubic policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Easton B. (2002). Police Discretion: Modernising Alcohol Excise Duties. Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand: Wellington. Graves T. D, Graves N B, Semu V, et al. (2002). Patterns of public drinking in a multi-ethnic society: a systematic observational study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 43: 990–1009. Jackson R, Broad J, Connor J, et al. (2005). The Burden of Death, Disease and Disability due to Alcohol in New Zealand. Wellington: Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand. Maxwell G, et al. (2004). Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. OECD. (2007). OECD Health Data. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Syllabus for JUS 205 (2004). Police Discretion. Accessed September 20, 2012 from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/205/205lect09.htm Wortley, R. (2003). Measuring police attitudes towards discretion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 538-558. Read More