Law Enforcement - Assignment Example

College: Law Enforcement # Question According to Hudson 20 million or more American citizens work for local, or federal governments. A great percentage of these workers comprises of police officers and other law enforcement workers. Occasionally, these individuals get punished or face disciplinary measures for openly talking against their employer, that is, government. These punitive measures could be taken against law enforcers for bringing to light a case of corruption by senior government officials, criticizing policies adopted by the law enforcement agency, or even getting involved in conduct that is does not meet the employers’ approval. The disciplinary measures could take a varying range of forms including demotion, transfer or in extreme cases, dismissal of the perceived offender. The principal reason as to why law enforcers cannot speak openly without potential repercussions from the employers is because they are supposed to uphold effective operation of security structures (Rosenthal 530-532). If the law enforcers were to speak openly about everything regarding their work, then this would jeopardize security and risk causing panic among members of the community. This is because officers of the law are often entrusted with sensitive information. Further, the public relies on law enforcement agencies and their personnel to have total control about matters concerning security. This implies that, speaking openly about potential weaknesses in these agencies would spark doubt among citizenry about the law officers’ capacity to safeguard citizen’s lives and their property. Therefore, it would be irrational to constantly criticize the agency and other officers and, at the same time, risk causing panic and potential mayhem among citizens. Law officers can also not talk candidly in public without risking punishment because negative remarks lead to substandard service delivery to their respective community. This means that it is entirely rational for government employers to punish law enforcers for speech, which undermines the purpose or integrity of the agency or police department while disrupting other officers’ working morale. Further, the public tends to trust information provided by officers of the law. Therefore, in cases where officers decide to express their opinion particularly in politics, they might unknowingly influence members of the public (Hoppmann 994). An excellent example is the case of McAuliffe v. New Bedford. The plaintiff was a former policeman, dismissed for talking about politics. Town officials had reported McAuliffe for political campaigns and soliciting votes from members of the public and he had ended up losing his job. The mayor had dismissed the policeman for his violation of police regulatory guideline, which states that no officer of the department has the permission to be a political participant or even solicit aid or money for any political purpose. Despite the plaintiff’s allegation that the mayor infringed his right to political expression, the state court of Massachusetts upheld the dismissal decision (Hudson 4-6). Overall, it is indisputable that government employers require a permissible difference or allowance, especially when dealing with law enforcers. After all, a government agency’s purpose is to guarantee provision of efficient public services. This means that each time such an employer was to be second-guessed delivery of security services would be hindered. However, this does not imply that government employers should always discipline law enforcers even when the reason is unjustifiable, like when they speak genuinely about content the employer dislikes, or when one votes for someone disliked by the employer. This is because; just like other entities in society, government employers must adhere to provisions of free speech stipulated by the First Amendment (Rosenthal 540). # Question 2 Writing a reference or recommendation letter by a Sheriff’s Deputy to a court in support of a convicted defendant with a criminal past could be detrimental to the department’s reputation. The principal reason for the discredit is because it is not the sheriff department’s role to defend convicts, but to safeguard the safety of the county. Further, it is inappropriate for the deputy to interfere with court proceedings. This would prompt many to question whether the sheriff’s department intends to cover up the defendant’s wrongdoing. Many could even argue that perhaps the defendant did a criminal act in favor of the sheriff’s department and the reference letter is a way of showing gratitude for the department (Klockars 45). The defendant is said to have a long history of crime and violence in the past. Therefore, members of the public are likely to argue that his time in prison did not reform him or rehabilitate his behavior. Therefore, a sheriff’s deputy reference letter would not resonate with the public. They would think that the law enforcement department is no longer interested in safeguarding their well-being, hence its support for the release of a violent and previously convicted felon. This would, in turn, cultivate mistrust and hinder efforts of community policing and other collaborative activities between members of the public and the sheriff’s department. The recommendation letter would come in handy only if the individual has shown total commitment to rehabilitation and positive integration with the rest of the community. However, this is clearly not the case, since he is in court possibly facing other criminal chargers. Therefore, at this point, submitting the letter could be viewed by members of the public as an obstruction of justice, hence loss of reputation for the department (Klockars 47-48). It also raises doubt to the public on whether the sheriffs, department is corrupt. This is because one may fail to comprehend why a the sheriff’s deputy can write such a recommendation letter instead of making sure that such a person is convicted and taken off the streets to ensure people’s safety. It is also questionable on whether the individual has given money to the department so as to make sure that he is provided with a recommendation letter from the sheriff’s office. In many cases, the sheriff’s office is the one that makes sure that they give enough evidence that will facilitate going to jail for such a person but by providing him/her with a means to get back to the community and interact with them, then the deputy is not enforcing the law but making it easier for the criminals to evade justice. A recommendation letter gives such people freedom and does not ensure that they face the consequences for their mistakes and get incarcerated for reformation. The sheriff’s office is not showing integrity by offering such a letter because it raises the question whether the police are involved in criminal activities with the convinced defendant and that is why; they are supporting his release (Klockars 54-60). # Question 3 The Sheriffs core values were challenged in different ways after offering a convicted defendant a letter of recommendation. The core values of a sheriff are to make sure that he offers public service to all people regardless of their background. However, by offering the public lacks trust in his governing because he seems to be biased. By providing a recommendation letter for a convicted defendant, the sheriff might be seen to be less concerned about the public safety. This is because somebody who has been convicted will always be seen as a criminal and a person who cannot change regardless of the fact that he has undergone the right aspects of rehabilitation. Despite the fact that, a sheriff is supposed to provide comprehensive safety for the public, and the entire community, in a fair manner the sheriffs values can be challenged in that he has to make favorable decisions that seems to be right to the public. In this case, one can say that the sheriff was fair in providing his services but at the same time inconsiderate of the public safety. This is a huge challenge that many people might pose for this action (Alexandriava n.pg). Integrity is another aspect that is considered as a core value for a sheriff. In many cases people always take the law enforcers to be people with utmost integrity. This is why, the sheriff’s values of candor and honesty might be challenged. By providing a convicted defendant with a letter of recommendation, people will doubt his integrity which is one of the most important core values in a sheriff’s job. Accountability means that the individual is responsible for all people that he has endorsed or recommended as upright in the community. However, it can be viewed like one’s integrity as a sheriff has been tinted if he offers a supportive document for a convicted defendant. This is because instead of offering him a recommendation letter to go back and interact with the members of the society, he should be making sure that the individual is not allowed to mingle with the public. This is because in some cases these people might have gone through the system but pretend to be reformed but in real sense they are pretending. This means that no individual will be safe around that person (Alexandriava n.pg). Loyalty and commitment is another factor that will be challenged if the sheriff offers a recommendation letter to a convicted defendant. This is because the sheriff will be seen not to cooperate with other offices of law enforcement in making sure that convicted defendants are fully punished. By offering such a service, then it is clear that the sheriff is not committed towards upholding public trust via adherence to the community. Additionally, there are questions that were raised on the value of professionalism. People starts to wonder if a sheriff can offer a recommendation letter to a defendant, then he does not have work ethics and does not respect the community and the people that are in it. Additionally, the leadership skills of the sheriff are seen to be valueless towards developing the community. Leadership, doe not only mean that somebody is supposed to supervise, but one should also show the ability to care for others safety. Providing such a letter of recommendation is good but the most imperative aspect is making sure that one keeps a follow-up record for the person to make sure that he or she is not violating his freedom. Work Cited Alexandriava. Sheriff’s Office: Core Values. Web. 8 December 2013. Hoppmann, Karin. Concern with Public Concern: Toward a Better Definition of the Threshold Test. Law Review, 50(1997): 993- 996. Hudson, David. Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech. First Reports, 3.2(2002): 1-46. Jansky, Donald. Criminal History and EMS Considering a Career? Read the Law First. Web. 8 December 2013. Klockars, Carl, et al. "The Measurement of Police Integrity." Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. 2000. Print. Rosenthal, Lawrence. Permissible Content Discrimination under the First Amendment: The Strange Case of the Public Employee. Constitutional Law Quarterly, 25 (1998): 529-556. Read More