Police Discretion in Domestic Violence - Research Paper Example

? Police Discretion in Domestic Violence [Assignment Number] [Section Number] Domestic violence causessevere physical and psychological problems for its victims. When the victim feels seriously threatened by her spouse of partner to seek help from the police, it should be addressed accordingly. To deal with such situations, the police have discretionary powers as to their course of action. In some cases it is just enough to give a verbal warning to the offender, who then desists from such behavior in future. However, the discretion also give the police officer the power and authority to arrest and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Most police officers feel that a domestic dispute is a private matter that should be handled by both parties. However, police officers mostly rely on their experience as police officers to handle the situation as they think appropriate. Police Discretion in Domestic Violence Introduction Family problems which breed domestic violence are universal issues which affect all members of the family including parents and children. Domestic violence can be fatal, but it can be effectively controlled with the proper implementation of law and timely and appropriate intervention by the police. Police reactions to incidents of domestic violence have usually depended upon the attitude and discretion of the officer involved in investigating the reported incident. “Discretion can be characterized as the authority of the police officer to chose his/her course of action or inaction. Police have discretionary powers in their positions as protectors of the public and upholders of the law. A lot has been written about police discretion in the criminal justice field procedures. It has been proved that arrests in such matters reduce incidences, as the offender might not repeat the offence for fear of prosecution. Many abused women do not call the police because they feel that they will not be taken seriously, and the police might make use of its discretionary powers and not arrest the abuser. In such cases, it leads to further violence causing greater injury or harm to the spouse, partner or children. Sometimes women do not report domestic violence because they do not want their spouse or partner to be arrested and sent to prison (Green & Kelso, 2010). Discussed below are some of pros and cons of the police discretion in domestic violence. Police discretion was an unmentionable subject right up to 1956, when it was brought to light by an American Bar Foundation Study. Until then, no one would admit that it was a reality. The approach of police high-ups was that any digression from accepted or written down procedures was not permissible by law, and most probably a basis for dishonesty. When it became public knowledge, the police administration made efforts to play it down or even have it outlawed. The actual problem lies in the abuse of discretion, not in its implementation. Police discretion is now accepted as an indispensable malevolence, which can be of great use if used properly. Community policing is where officers can exercise discretion to help the community more effectively. Discretion is good when it is managed and well thought-out. (Green & Kelso, 2010) Defining Police Discretion Some facts which can be regarded as both pros and cons depending upon application have described “police discretion” as an area where the law is not implemented or as the “gap in the doughnut”. Discretion is the vacant space which is surrounded by the relevant set of principles and procedures. Alternatively, it can be described as cases where no rules are applicable and the officer makes a personal decision based on beliefs, assumptions and his own interpretation of the situation. Discretion is not the same as repetitive and consistent compliance. It entails information, talent and the ability to act and perform in random and awkward situations. Police are not soldiers who must obey orders blindly and without question. Police must be quite proficient in applying rules and get used to implementing those rules in accordance to the prevailing conditions and within the framework of the law (Bell, 1985). Other pros and cons are that discretion does not mean an attempt at determining unfamiliar matters. It means making individual assessments and sound judgments based on your authority and knowledge. It means having the guts to make coherent on the spot decisions according to your conscience, even if those decisions are later changed by higher authority. Discretion does not envisage making calculated, protected or soft choices. It means making respectable, honorable choices using experience and routine. This comes from understanding people and being tolerant of their weaknesses, compassion and exercising discretion in all its manifestations. Discretion is not the circumventing of the law, or the separation of ethics from regulations. It means acting freely in exercising the duties of a police officer within the law. Discretion in no way means that the police are free to do what they please. Discretion must be used within certified and accepted standards of ethics and behavior encompassing legality and morality. The continued and future of police discretion relies on its appropriate use and implementation. The problem is that there are very few areas that do not generate controversy, and the people want the police to follow firm and proper procedures, as they are not comfortable with casual police methods (Bell, 1985). Domestic Violence The most positive pro feature in this that police have readily sought the help of social workers, social scientists and other experts to control this very contentious issue. The police have desisted from taking action against violent husbands and have suggested counseling, a cooling off period and social service consulting. The inaction of police was attributed to considering domestic violence as an internal matter between husband and wife. Usually the victims did not cooperate because the incarceration of the head of the family and possibly the only breadwinner would hurt the family. Women are usually hesitant to give evidence against someone they love or have loved. The person might be the father of their children and the couple has lived together in the past. Women are also pressurized to protect the family name, and pursuing the case in court could add to their difficulties. Women belonging to minority communities do not want to be accused of not being loyal to their communities and cooperating with the police. Most women are also not given legal protection to prevent further violence in the period that the case comes up in the court for trail (Brown, 1984) Another reason for uncertainty shown by victims was that male officers would usually side with the male attacker. During experiments carried out over a period of 18 months, the officers selected subjects at random and interviewed them to find if they had repeated the offence again. Those that had not been arrested were more likely to repeat the offence than those who had been arrested. Besides this, people who were unemployed really did not care whether they were arrested or not. Arrests prevented people in large cities from repeating their offences, and a very small number of violent offenders is usually responsible for repeat offences. Those who managed to elude arrest were deterred by the issuance of warrants. Police are also aware where discretion can be used and what laws to implement keeping in mind which cases prosecutors will press charges against, and which judges will hand down a significant sentence. Police also base their arrests on previous experiences and according to each individual situation (Brown, 1984) Police can exercise considerable discretion when they need to make a principled decision on how best to handle a call regarding domestic violence, especially when attending to a call which involves another police officer. The basic belief of most Americans is that household matters are private and should be handled accordingly. However, sometimes police officers discourage the victims from pressing charges because they believe that this is a matter for the family, not the system to handle. If the police officer pressurizes the complainant from pressing charges, then he is going against the norms of community policing because he is not serving the interests of the community but rather adhering to maintaining the conspiracy of hushing incidents prevalent in police departments. . Police discretion is an important part of the everyday job of policemen. Every single day, police officers come across incidences where they must use their discretionary powers whether to arrest the offender, or release them with a citation or a word of warning. This discretion is quite powerful and police officers must be careful not to misuse this power. This discretion is severely tested in cases of domestic violence. It is possible that both parties are equally responsible, and both may have sustained injuries. If both parties are equally to blame, then both parties could be arrested, or separated for some time to allow the situation and their tempers to cool down. When making the decision to arrest or just warn, especially in domestic situations, the officer usually has to consider the children of the couple, and the problems they could face if one or both parents were arrested. It is obvious that police discretion is carried out for the best interest of the public, and not in a quest of personal advantages or to avoid the responsibility of the paper work and other issues (Brown, 1984) Nature of Police work By its very nature, police work is discretionary because it requires prudent choices and judgments. Every level of police work requires discretion, and to exercise proper discretion, the police department must be free of personal, departmental or other outside pressures. This would ensure that the police are looking after the interest of the public that it is meant to serve and not some personal or private interests. This seems to be a genuine concern, but sometimes it becomes difficult to differentiate between public and private interests. The reason that it sometimes becomes difficult to reach a decision as whether the matter at hand requires further investigation, if charges are to be brought, the seriousness or lightness of the charges, whether to negotiate over the plea and other legal matters or which magistrate the case should be placed before. However, discretion is not exclusive for the police. Discretion is a part of all criminal law systems, and is usually compared with the “standards of legality” the purpose of which is maximizing the efficacy of legal systems everywhere. Although for many different reasons, police discretion in domestic violence and other matters is predictable and indispensable, there is some doubt that this could lead to corruption and subjective and unprincipled attitudes. However, it would serve public interest much better if discretion is practiced with integrity instead of doing away with it altogether. There is a definite need to create effective guidelines for police discretion so that they reduce the probability of errors or decisions that make the public mistrust police discretion and feel that they have been discriminated against in any family dispute. Guidelines would also help the police reach fair decisions when they have to use discretion to settle issues of domestic violence. This would also be quite helpful for police officers in ascertaining where they have a legal duty to carry out investigations where the police suspect domestic violence is being committed or could possibly be committed in future (Brown, 1984). To ascertain the pros and cons of police discretion in domestic violence studies were carried out and data collected the purpose of which was to assess the advantages and the restrictions on protection of civilians and safety measures offered to the victims of domestic violence. Among many other things, it was observed that obtaining protective orders augmented their substance of “well being” and reduced the incidences of domestic violence. However, the research did not include any findings or analyze the advantages or limits of the children of victims of domestic violence as was done with the petitioners. The pros and cons were assessed on separate sources of data in interviews with women petitioners after one month of their obtaining their protection orders, then after a period of six months follow up interviews were carried out with most of the women. Included in the research were the civil case records of the women participants and the criminal records of the male perpetuators of domestic violence. Other personnel involved in this were also interviewed which included judges, court employees, members of police domestic units and prosecutors. The data was collected from women who had applied to the courts for protection orders. When informed of the purposes of the study, the women who agreed to participate signed consent forms (Pagelow, 1992) One definite advantage is that victims of domestic usually feel safer if the offender has been arrested or a restricting order has been issued. As a matter of routine, most police officers usually want both parties involved in the dispute to amicably work out things among themselves without the involvement of the police or the courts. However, in some cases the discretion to arrest the offender and prosecute him is when the officer feels that this is the best course of action in the absence of which the victim may be further harmed or injured fatally. Police discretion is usually an option that must be handled with real care to defuse the situation if possible, and to safeguard the safety of the victims even in future. There are instances when the police officer has made a wrong decision which has backfired and harmed the victim. Police discretion is usually based on experience in police matters and knowing the community that the police officer is assigned. Regular patrolling to get to know the residents helps the police officers use discretions in the best interest of the community and the victims of domestic violence (Pagelow, 1992). Reference List Bell, D. J. (1985). Domestic violence: Victimization, police intervention, and disposition. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13 (6), 525–534. Brown, S. E. (1984). Police responses to wife beating: Neglect of a crime of violence. Journal of Criminal Justice , 12 (3), 277–288. Eigenberg, H. :. (2013). Examining Police Officers' Awareness of State Legislation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6 (1), 102-109. Green, T., & Kelso, C. (2010). Police Discretion in Domestic Violence Incidents. The American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal, 14, 24-44. Pagelow, M. D. (1992). Adult Victims of Domestic Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7 (1), 87-120. Read More