Leadership Personal Issues and the Rules of Law - Assignment Example

 Recruitment, profiling, and training is imperative in any sector that involves a workforce, but the process is so overwhelming in the police service employment protocols in the US today. Historically, recruits were drawn from the position of previous military men habituated to discipline and self-control. However, the plan was abolished and required police recruits sort to be unrefined high school alumnae who had modest discipline or experience following commands. The police department changed the minimum age for fresh recruits from 20 to 22 years in 1995, as a way to recompense for the dilemma. Consequently, they made obligatory that the recruits ought to have two year's college credits merits or two years in the military (Nytimes.com, 2000). Nonetheless, there has never been consensus over the issues. Those arguing against the postsecondary education prerequisite hold that the requirement the unreasonably limits the current thin applicant pool by not including the otherwise other qualified applicants. In addition, they argue against the requirement as discriminatory in nature and therefore having a disproportionate negative blow on minorities because it provides unequal opportunities for secondary schooling. They also view that higher education does not entirely provide all the skills looked-for to execute the job since those skills come exclusively because of experience on the policing career (White and Escobar, 2008). On the contrary, those who support the requirement also have stern reasons for their stand. They believe that policing is a complex career, where knowledge and skills indispensable to do the job effectively can only be scholarly acquired in a classroom, and not exclusively through on-the-job experience. The society has become progressively more well-informed, and it is indispensable for police to keep tempo with the larger civic. According to proponents, postsecondary recruits are more mature and more-rounded and are likely to interact easily with the public to offer solutions with understanding rather that authoritarian approach. Consequently, they hold that those who learn criminal justice at higher institutions will bring a more in-depth acquaintance of the system, its diverse components, how it works, as well as the established hypotheses on the causes of crime (White and Escobar, 2008). As a final point, the proponents suppose that the modern policing has transposed towards a problem-based style that requires both critical and analytical skills to execute successful operation and such skills are obtained at college (White and Escobar, 2008). Considering all the points above, I support that it is necessary for officers to possess post-secondary education. Not because, the concerns shared by the opponents of the requirement are not significant, but for the fact that the modern policing system have changed and there is need to have officers who have enough understanding of the system (White and Escobar, 2008). Moreover, the current expectations vested on the police force are greater than before; they are expected to prevent and resolve crime, disputes, and act in response with care and concern to societal needs as well as to utilize sophisticated investigative approaches that can engage the community, and offer protection against the ever-evolving threats of terrorism (White and Escobar, 2008). Even though the substantiation of postsecondary education to improved policing performance is diverse, it is undeniable that the emergent skills necessary for effective police service delivery particularly in 21st century are developed in class. With disproportionate impact concerns, the 1991 police executive forum sustained that there is an adequate pool for majority and minority postsecondary men and women with an interest in police recruitment. Postsecondary education makes candidates more attractive, and once employed, promotion and income increases are often attached to their success (White and Escobar, 2008). Differences between arrest, searches, and seizure with or without warrant The police operation in criminal investigation in the USA involves arrest, searches, and seizure practices, all conducted to validate if one is culpable of an offense. Both operations are executed either with or without warranties but with due consideration of the law. Despite the three operations having same objective of obtaining or unearthing evidence needed to hold one as either guilty or innocent, they both have differences. The foundation for either a warrant is justifiable is properly laid in the Fourth amendment that is a ratification to uphold the US Bill of Rights (Spiotto, n.d). The 4th amendment provides the foundation for upholding people’s rights as regards to arrest, seizure, and searches either with or without a warrant as outlined in the Bill of Rights. The amendment offers protection to private individuals against governmental unreasonable searches, arrests, and seizures in four constitutionally confined or protected areas (Spiotto, n.d). They include persons- unreasonable, houses, papers and effects including individual possessions such as clothing and automobiles. The warrantless arrests in a public places are allowed to individuals for a felony arrest, even though the officer arresting suspect had sufficient time to obtain a warrant, so long as the officer deems there is probable grounds that the suspect has committed the an offense. However, felonies arrests in private places or not open to the public require a warrant, unless the arresting officer is hot pursuit of a fleeing criminal (Justia Law, n.d.). Further, the fourth amendment permits warrantless arrest for transgression committed in police officer's presence. Contrary to warrantless arrest operations, the fourth amendment application to seizure is not mandatory that a detention be a prescribed arrest in as a way of complying with the requirements of warrants. Therefore, unlike arrest, the officer must show some justification to validate the seizure (Nolo.com, n.d.) As described in the fourth amendment, police can search only specific places as prescribed in the warrant draft. For instance, an officer cannot search a backyard or a garden if the warrant specifies a search in the house. Nonetheless, that does not imply that officers can only seize the items scheduled in the warrant, for if in the line of the search, the officers come across an evidence of a crime not in the warrant list, they can still seize it. Contrary to this provision, a warrant is not necessary in case of consent searches. This is the case where the owner of the premise to be searched or property to be seized gives consent and if the law enforcement limits their seizure or search to only what an individual agreed to, then search is deemed valid (Nolo.com, n.d.). However, courts do not necessarily oblige that the law enforcement request for consent before searching anywhere, for they find that the preliminary consent was enough to rationalize whatsoever search the officers carried out, so long as the officer’s explanation is sensible (Nolo.com, n.d.). Packer’s crime-control model and the due process model The principle guide to the execution of criminal justice in the US is a process characterized with tension following the varied reaction to how a particular crime was administered. In one of his influential book, a Stanford law scholar, Prof. Herbert Parker described the US criminal justice system as the upshot of two competing stances, the crime control, and due process justice models (Goldstein, n.d). The crime model of administering justice vests a high precedence on reducing criminal doings in society by mounting the powers of law enforcing personnel and the prosecuting team. The due processes approach emphasis on an individual’s rights and freedom and is anxious regarding the overwhelming authority and influence of the administration over the individual. Amid tensions, the models have the same objectivity as the US government equally funds both (Goldstein, n.d). According to Packer, the crime control approach is construed as a conservative strategy of combating crime for it focuses on protecting the public from criminals by flexible criminal demeanor and justice. In addition, this style stresses stringent and swift reprimand for crimes and from this stern adherence are societal benefits that include arresting the fear in criminals that they will be unsympathetically punished. In doing so, the model envisages at dispensing justices in the criminal system as hastily as possible (Goldstein, n.d). The swiftly criminal justice is so imperative that the proponents of this model will not mind the expansion of court powers and subsequent police and prosecution powers in handling the cases. In contrast, due process is perceived as a liberal criminal justice approach and shows favoritism to criminal’s rights. Packer notes that this approach functions under the precept that accused are innocent till proven guilty. The argument by the opponents of this model is that, it sets numerous obstacles in the way of realizing justice (Goldstein, n.d). Professor Packer refers the criminal control model as resembling an assembly line (Goldstein, n.d). By this, he means that the model vests much reliance on the capability of undercover and prosecutorial officers, performing in a familiar setting in which their individual skills are given full influence. Such is to bring out and recreate a reasonably accurate account of what really took place in a supposed criminal incident (Goldstein, n.d). Conversely, the due process discards this argument and replaces it with a view of informal, non-adjudicative evidence finding that stresses on the likelihood of error in alleged criminal event. The proponents hold that people are liable to poor observation of disturbing instances and that the confession by individuals in custody may be due to a coerced psychological or physical inducement. Clearly, the difference here is a matter of technicalities. For criminal justice, the fact-finding of prosecutors and police are sufficient for arrest and filing of charges- the accused is presumed guilty. On the other hand, the due process contests that the facts obtained are not reliable, and thus police should protect the accused until the judicial system finds otherwise (Goldstein, n.d). Possibility of ethical violations in law enforcers In my judgment, I think crime control approach lends the likelihood of an ethical violation by law enforcement or officers for that case. For the officers to execute their mandate, they ought to be well versed with up-to-date information of terror suspects, wrong-doers, and even illegal aliens (Unkelbach, 2005). Police at both local and state levels often are baffled about the extent of their authority, for instance, in regard to immigration regulations. Local enforcement police officers may have very little opportune information on aliens with whom they might come in contact in day-to-day operations. Therefore, even though the officers may arrest the supposed criminal, often the fact-finding by either question or observing documents may not give full convincing evidence for one to be presumed guilty (Unkelbach, 2005). Thus, such is delicate, as the officers may be found liable of an ethical violation in law enforcement. Situations where police supervisors may be held criminally liable for their officer’s misconduct: Two situations that may warrant a supervisor liable include supervisor’s acquiescence and failure to discipline (Unkelbach, 2005). Acquiescence refers to a supervisor giving subordinate a go-ahead in operation. The best example is the Third Circuit's setback of a lower court's grant of synopsis ruling against a junior officer who took charge in a drug raid. In Baker v. Monroe Township, the court appeal re-petitioned the case for determination if the supervisor could be individually liable. The claims by the respondents were that, during the raid, excessive force was used and their properties were seized despite them being visitors to the accused (Unkelbach, 2005). As per the court ruling, despite the supervisor not individually using excessive force, the evidence showed that he knew and had acquiesced the treatment. Secondly, a supervisor may be found liable if it is established that he or she facilitated, condoned, approved, or turned a blind eye on a junior’s misconduct. For instance, in the case of the Jones v. city of Chicago, the court established that three supervisors were aware of false actions taken by their subordinate, approved all steps. They were found liable, and the subordinate were let free as the court ruled that they were wrong people for prosecution (Unkelbach, 2005). Reference Goldstein, A. S. (1974). Reflections on Two Models: Inquisitorial Themes in American Criminal Procedure. Stanford Law Review, 1009-1025. Nolo.com,. Search Warrants: What They Are and When They're Necessary | Nolo.com. Retrieved 26 November 2014, from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html Nytimes.com,. (2000). How to Recruit Police Officers. Retrieved 26 November 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/09/opinion/how-to-recruit-police-officers.html Spiotto, J. E. Search and seizure: An empirical study of the exclusionary rule and its alternatives (n.d). The Journal of Legal Studies, 243-278. Unkelbach,, C. (2005). Chief's Counsel: Beware: Supervisor Individual Liability in Civil Rights Cases. Policechiefmagazine.org. Retrieved 26 November 2014, from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=648&issue_id=72005 White, M. D., & Escobar, G. (2008). Making good cops in the twenty-first century: Emerging issues for the effective recruitment, selection, and training of police in the United States and abroad 1. International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 22(1-2), 119-134. Read More