Legal Issues in Blog Posts - Coursework Example

Collective bargaining is not a tool of oppression. Police are not the enemy of the public and one should never think that citizens and law enforcement authorities need to be at war with each other permanently. There is no conflict of interest between the two agencies. A couple of wrong approaches by police officials should not be cited to brand the entire police force as wrong. KC Veatch (2008) in his article “The Effect of Collective Bargaining on the Use of Innovative  Policing”, makes mention of “three methods of innovative policing: citizen review boards, early warning systems, and the use of in-car camera systems” (Paper 14). The public is interested in getting service. In substance, it is not interesting whether the powers are with the union representatives or with the management officials. But progressively, more and more powers are wrested by the latter as such they would be concerned with retaining the goodwill of the public. Policing is a responsive function. Just because there are bad elements in the public, policing becomes necessary. In an ideal society free from violence and negativities the question of policing does not arise. But to attain such a perfect state is an impossibility and the question of law enforcement comes to the fore. In the conditions obtaining today, unions continue to expand as such the community of utilizing collective bargaining has come to stay and will expand and it will be beneficial to law enforcement.

The provisions of the Constitution of America apply uniformly to all its citizens. There are no divisions between ordinary citizens and police citizens. When a police officer is being investigated, he is entitled to all the benefits of a fair trial like any other privileged citizen. Police officers work under tremendous stress and at times the disposition of the investigating officer seems bad, but finding solutions to the tough cases is not kindergarten stuff. The life of a police officer is filled with uncertainties and he too is aware of his constitutional duty to maintain the highest ethics in law enforcement. It is the easiest of the options for researchers, thinks tanks, and politicians to frame laws and prepare duty lists for police officers. Such people should spend a day in the police station, or get involved in the investigating responsibilities related to serious crimes, and only then they will understand the pressure in which the police officers function.“[…] two important U.S. Supreme Court cases, Garrity v. New Jersey and Gardner v. Broderick, the police officers' bill of rights, as advocated by the Fraternal Order of Police, provides basic guidelines that serve to ensure fairness and to make sure that, during an administrative investigation, officers' basic constitutional rights are protected ”(criminology careers) This is the correct approach and as such, I commend the contents of the Police Officers' Bill of Rights. No officer should be asked to reveal some information under the threat of losing his job. No officer can be wrongly compelled to testify against himself. A fair administrative investigation is alright, but criminal investigations for allegations of illegal activity and corruption charges must be proceeded as per democratic principles as chances of deliberate victimization and the vindictive attitude by some senior authorities to fix a particular officer cannot be ruled out. As such I commend the Police Officers' Bill of Rights as it is framed to protect the interests of the Police Officers.