Discretion And The Criminal Justice Professionals - Research Paper Example

Law Enforcement Officers: Discretion and the Criminal Justice Professionals Irvin Lancaster Law Enforcement Officers: Discretion andthe Criminal Justice Professionals The term ‘discretion’ refers to the authority of choice among various “alternative courses of action” based on judgment and conscience of an individual (p.15). In the context of criminal justice, discretion connotes to ability of a criminal justice professionals to decide on operational matters by relying on their “personal judgment” rather than “formal rules or official information (Gaines & Miller, 2014, p.15). The major reason for the reliance on such informal practices by law enforcement officers is the paucity of funding and other resources including adequate staff to hand all instances of violation of law in a formal manner. Thus, when a police officer encounters a minor criminal activity such as brawl between two adolescents, he or she may choose simply stop them and send them on separate ways rather than arresting them. If the officers are required to arrest violators for such minor crimes, they would be left with hardly any time to prevent other major crimes and the “courts and jails would be overwhelmed” (p.15). On the flipside, “ethical considerations” are of high significance in the informal decisions law enforcement officers make by exercising discretion and making moral judgments (Banks, 2013, p.3). Thus, while using their power of discretion, police officers need to adhere to ethical practices and not only ensure that a serious offender is not let off without arrest but also that they desist from use of excessive force, in violation of the rights of citizens. Police officers are endowed with immense authority and the power they use in executing their duties is an “exercise of discretion” (p.29). Similarly, their “uniformed presence” in public gives them an aura of immense power and usually people fear and respect them (p.29). Some of the police officers tend to misuse this power for ulterior motivations such as financial rewards by way of bribes, favoring relatives or friends by not arresting them when they commit crimes, and showing discrimination towards members of other ethnic groups, use of excessive force on the public etc. They also have the discretion to take decisions on various matters involving law and order and occasionally they may choose not to take action when intervention is necessary for the prevention or investigation of a crime. In certain cases, police officers will have to take decisions as to whether arrest or not or whether to use force or otherwise. Under these circumstances, there is a high probability that by virtue of police officers’ discretionary powers they may misuse it to cause harm to the public. Therefore, many people contend that discretion by police does not have any “rightful place in a free society” (p.30). One of the major opposition against discretionary powers to law enforcement officers is that they often use it as a tool for discrimination. Evidence suggests that police officers in many cases have used excessive force due to “influence of suspect’s race” (Correll et al, 2007, p.1006). In this context, many studies have found that police officers tend to use “lethal force” when the suspects involved are from the ethnic minority groups such as African Americans (p.1006). On the other hand, when White suspects are involved, they tend to use less severe measures for their apprehension. An example of the law enforcement officers’ tendency to use brutality on ethnic minority can be evidenced from the incident of assault, using a “deadly weapon” by the LAPD officers, on Rodney King, a Black youth (ABC News, 2014). When law enforcement officers use discretion overtly, it becomes a violation of civil rights. If the LAPD officers followed ethical principles, incidents like the Rodney King case, which is a good example of professional ethics crossing ethical boundaries, could have been averted. Some police officers resort to unethical practices of accepting bribe or financial rewards in return of the favor of “not reporting” a crime or violation of certain laws (Polinsky & Shavell, 2001, p.1). For instance, a police officer may stop a speeding vehicle but let off the offenders by taking a bribe instead of taking action against the offender. Here, the officer is exercising his discretion for a personal gain, which is unethical and against professional integrity. The main reason for allowing discretion to police officers is because of the difficulty in prescribing specific regulation for addressing “every possible circumstance” (McCafferty & McCafferty, 1998, p.61). The leeway for discretion in the law enforcement profession offers enormous possibilities to the police officers such as spinning testimony in favor of an offender, beating up an innocent person because of racial prejudice and, in extreme cases, allowing offenders to “get away with murder” (p.61). Such conducts on the part of law enforcement officers are unethical and often entails the violation of civil rights of citizens or results in risk to the society. Thus, because of the discretion that police officers enjoy, their possibilities of harassing citizens or delivering street justice will be limited only by their “level of integrity” (p.61). The power of discretion endowed upon the police officers allows them to exercise “non-negotiable coercive force” on citizens and people from all walks of life fear them (Moll, 2006, p.1). They can even frame an innocent citizen for a crime that he or she has not committed and through false testimony can obtain a sentence for them. Similarly, when police officers harbor prejudice against certain ethnic groups, they tend to victimize individuals from that segment for no reasons. On the other hand, the criminal justice system in the country has prescribed certain ethical principles, which law enforcement officers need to follow in the discharge of their duties. The officers are also offered special training programs in ethics and other related matters so as to motivate them to retain their integrity while handling their official duties. However, irrespective of the reinforcement of ethics and other regulatory policies, many officers, especially those who have chosen the profession for the “wrong reasons,” continue to engage in unethical practices such as accepting bribe, using excessive force as a tool for discrimination against ethnic minority groups and favoring individuals (p.2). Under such circumstances, the discretion of these officers crosses ethical boundaries and violates the rights of citizens. However, it may not be reasonable on the part of the government of US to limit powers of the law enforcement in the modern day, especially in the context of terrorist activities, which have become a major challenge for security forces across the world. Under normal circumstances police officers are required obtain a warrant for the search of private premises or arresting an individual. Terrorist activities pose imminent and immediate threat to the citizens and it will not be practically feasible for police officers when they notice suspected terrorist activities and want to intervene. On the other hand, some researchers argue that since law enforcement officers in the US possess “extensive authority and discretion,” they can cause potential harm to the lives and civil liberties of citizens (Murray, 2005, p.347). The author also contends that police is the “most vital” of all public services and therefore, while enjoying the enormous powers vested in them, law enforcement officer also need to ensure that they stick to their ideologies, moral values and sense of justice (p.350). Similarly, a “sense of mission” is an integral component of police culture and maintenance of law and order is not a mere profession but needs to be perceived as a “way of life” with a noble purpose (p.351). However, police officers often remain suspicious of citizens and, with the power of discretion at their disposal, sometimes falsely implicate people in terrorism. When police officers indulge in such acts, it compromises their integrity and thus they cross the ethical boundaries of their profession. Another major issue relating to police discretion is the concept of balance between police authority for surveillance and the rights of privacy of citizens, which has dramatically changed in “recent years” (Bloss, 2007. p.208). In the wake of escalating terrorist activities it becomes vital for police forces to maintain proper vigil and undertake surveillance of neighborhoods to detect suspicious activities. Citizens have to understand that the primary interest of law enforcement is to safeguard public interest and protect them from the potential harm of terrorism. Thus, rather than objecting to such surveillance they need to cooperate with police officers and render them maximum assistance by reporting promptly any suspicious activities that they notice. However, while carrying out surveillance, the police officers have to ensure that they do not compromise the privacy of individuals in an indiscreet manner. In the modern day police deploy a wide array of technology to carry out surveillance, using highly sophisticated equipment and gadgets. Thus, citizen’s privacy becomes vulnerable to exposure and recording by the law enforcement officers, which is a matter of grave concern. Therefore, researchers argue that the efforts on the part of security forces “unforeseen effects” on the privacy of citizens (p.224). Under such situations, if the police officers do not respect the value of privacy of citizens, their action will constitute the crossing of ethical boundaries. From the evidence evaluated during the course of this research, it has transpired that law enforcement officers are bestowed the power discretion which offers them immense authority over the citizens of the US. Many police officers misuse this power for personal gains such as accepting bribes, favoring individuals by not reporting their crimes, inflicting harm on ethnic minorities, poking into the private lives of citizens etc. On the other hand, there is a need for the police officers to have such powers because of their role in protecting the safety of citizens and fighting the menace of terrorism. Terrorist activities across the world and especially in countries like US, UK and India are on the increase and, therefore, police officers need to be endowed with the authority to check vehicles, search home and private premises, arrest suspect or even shoot terrorists to prevent the escalation of violent terrorist activities. However, police officers should be professional in their actions while dealing with the citizens and maintain their values as well as codes of conduct befitting responsible officers and ensure that they do not cross ethical limits by violating citizens’ freedom. Thus, while tackling the issue of terrorism and other crimes, police officers need to adhere to ethical principles and take all steps to protect the civil rights of people whom they are bound to protect. References ABC News. (2014). 3/7/91: Video of Rodney King Beaten by Police Released. Retrieved from Banks, C. (2013). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Bloss, W. (2007). Escalating US Police Surveillance after 9/11: An Examination of Causes and Effects. Surveillance & Society, 4(3), 208-228. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Wittenbrink, B. & Sadler, M. S. (2007). Across the Thin Blue Line: Police Officers and Racial Bias in the Decision to Shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1006-1023. Gaines, L. K. & Miller, R. L. (2014). Criminal Justice in Action: The Core. 7th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. McCafferty, F. L. & McCafferty, M. A. (1998). Corruption in Law Enforcement: A Paradigm for Occupational Stress and Deviancy. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 26(1), 57-65. Moll, M. M. (2006). Improving American Police Ethics Training: Focusing on Social Contract Theory and Constitutional Principles. Forum on Public Police. Retrieved from Murray, J. (2005). Policing Terrorism: A Threat to Community Policing or Just a Shift in Priorities? Police Practice and Research, 6(4), 347-361. Polinsky, A. M. & Shavell, S. (2001). Corruption and Optimal Law Enforcement. Journal of Public Economics, 81, 1-24. Read More