Police Discretion - Research Paper Example

Police Discretion Police discretion has been the subject of scrutiny in terms of the controversial nature of its scope, definition, perceived benefits and costs, as well as recommended extent of application in various police agencies and divisions. In this regard, the current essay aims to proffer pertinent issues relative to police discretion by initially providing an accurate definition of the term, prior to expounding on other areas that include positive uses, effects of abuse in application, perceived thoughts on police departments existing with discretion being banned, police discretion at different levels, and distinguishing its application within the patrol and detective division. Definition of Police Discretion In a study conducted by Beech (2008), police discretion was defined as “theability or willingness of an officer to make a decision ortake an action on the basis of personal values, beliefs, orexperiences rather than institutionally-instilled guidelines” [Bee08]. On the other hand, Stevens, an assistant criminology professor at the California State University, cited Davis’ (1969) definition of the term ‘discretion’ to indicate it as manifestation of “officials who show "good judgment" and exercise discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. By definition, discretion is the making of choices among a number of possible courses of action” [Ste04]. From the definitions presented, one could deduce that the ability to decide and make an appropriate judgment given a scenario at hand depends significantly on the police officers’ personal and professional ideals and philosophies that guide the decision-making process. As emphasized by Stevens, “discretion is not doing as you please. Discretion is bounded by norms (professional norms, community norms, legal norms, moral norms)” (par. 6). Positive Uses of Discretion In a faculty paper written by Thomas (2005), he identified good or positive uses of discretion in instances that consider the following factors or motives: “the youth of the offender, the minor nature of the offense, and the lack of evidence that it is a pattern of criminal behavior” (p. 6). Likewise, as noted by Gallagher (1979), the “factors affecting an officer’s use of discretion are: the seriousness of the act at issue; the mood of the officer at the time; the attitude of the citizen involved; peer pressure; community pressures; the officer’s educational level; and ultimate goals in a complex criminal investigation involving many criminal acts of varying severity” [Gal79]. As such, police discretion could be warranted in cases where swift and effective decision making is needed to ensure that lives, properties and other assets or resources are appropriately protected and safeguarded within the confines of legal, moral, and ethical standards. What Happens when Discretionary Powers are Abused When discretionary powers are abused, people who become victims of police abuse due to failure to exercise effective discretionary powers would develop less confidence, trust and reliance on the justice system. The effect therefore is higher preponderance for police corruption. As disclosed, “an officer not arresting someone for possession of dagga in return for some money would be an example of a corrupt act using legal police powers (i.e., the discretionary power of non- enforcement)” (Syed, 1997, par. 6). The direct effects of police corruption, in this situation, includes: victimization, fostering impunity and diversion of resources [Sye97]. Likewise, the indirect effects include spreading the culture of corruption and decreased public trust [Sye97]. Banning Police Discretion It has been revealed that police discretion, from the point of view of law enforcers, must be “limited by guidelines, where discretion is the ability of an officer to apply established procedures. This is decisively different from literature that asserts police discretion is the willingness as well as the ability to make personal choices while in the line of duty”[Bee08]. As it was already initially identified that there are advantages and positive points of exercising some levels of police discretion depending on identified factors and instances, banning police discretion out rightly within a police department would lead to more chaos than order. Discretion Used at Different Levels within a Police Department To ensure that police discretion is therefore exercised with utmost regard for previously established rules, policies, and regulations within the police department. As emphasized by Kelling (1999), “in any policy statement or guideline, departmentsmust explicitly authorize discretion andselective enforcement in the handling of situationsand problems” (p. 37). According to the cited disclose entitled “Prescribing What Officers May Not Do”: “Discretion is limited. Officers and departments cannot do particular things. Officers may usediscretion in deciding whether and how to intervene in a panhandling incident, but they maynot intervene on the basis of race. Officers may use their discretion to allow youths to stay in apark after curfew, but they may not authorize public or underage drinking (they may know thatsome of it goes on and be less than vigilant about catching it, but they cannot authorize it).Officers may work with neighborhood groups to control access to a neighborhood, but theymust not discriminate against ethnic groups in the process” (Kelling, 1999, p. 37). Discretion in the Patrol Division and in the Detective Division In a study on patrol officers activities, Famega indicated that “for all downtime activities except serving warrants and subpoenas, and attempts to locate suspects, witnesses or informants, officers are mobilized more often by patrol initiative than citizens and headquarters combined” (p. 154). This means that most of their activities exercise police discretion. The findings were revealed as exemplifying that “officers are spending this time on patrol because thatis what they choose to do with their downtime. Supervisors are not providing specificdirectives that officers are to engage in vehicle patrol when they are not responding tocalls for service. In fact, supervisors rarely provide specific directives to engage in any activities during downtime” [Fam03]. Concurrently, police discretion in detective divisions parallel the nature of work and responsibilities of the patrol officers in terms of being on field to gather facts, collect evidences, and follow new leads depending on the data gathered.Therefore discretion is used in areas of criminal investigation that need immediate response given a fairly short time frame. Actually, as emphasized by Kelling (1999), there are sets or criteria for exercising police discretion regardless of the rank, level, or division in the organizational hierarchy. The following five factors were considered: time, location, condition of the offender, condition of the victim or witnesses, and the numbers, volume or aggregation of the violations that need to be addressed [Kel99]. Conclusion The essay has hereby achieved its objectives of presenting pertinent facts relative to police discretion through the provision of its definition, identifying positive uses, determining effects of abuse in application, defining thoughts with regards to discretion being banned in existing police departments, police discretion at different levels, and distinguishing its uses within the patrol and detective division. Through greater understanding of these areas, one’s awareness and recognition of the extent and limitations of police discretion are hereby realized and appreciated. Works Cited Bee08: , (Beech, 2008, p. 1), Ste04: , (Stevens, 2004, p. par. 1), Gal79: , (Gallagher, 1979, p. 1), Sye97: , (Syed, 1997), Bee08: , (Beech, 2008, p. 65), Fam03: , (Famega, 2003, pp. 155-156), Kel99: , (Kelling, 1999), Read More