Discrimination Impacts and Consequences in the Law Enforcement Work Environment - Research Paper Example

Discrimination Impacts and Consequences in the Law Enforcement Work Environment Executive Summary The law enforcement institutions constitute the most integral arm of the government with the constitutional mandate of ensuring order and compliance with the criminal justice system of the land. Additionally, such an institution has the mandate of providing rational interpretation of both domestic and international laws, with the aim of promoting justice and fairness for the citizens under governance. However, the law enforcement has come under immense criticism from various factions of the society, particularly in relation to the manner in which certain practices within its mandate are executed. Among these has been the level of discrimination witnessed within the work environment of these institutions, a factor that has significantly impacted negatively on its effectiveness to provide the just services to the society as expected. This paper critically analyses the context in which the various discriminative practices occur, factors promoting them, the effect of this to the personnel involved and the public in general, as well as the possible measures that can be used in alleviating the deteriorating law enforcement units. From this analysis, it can be understood that discrimination within this institution is high, particularly on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, as well as on the individuals’ racial and ethnic identities. The biased and preferential treatment within the law enforcement institution has been a precursor to the low work output of the officers within the institution, hence leading to the high crime rates witnessed in the society. Discrimination Impacts and Consequences in the Law Enforcement Work Environment Introduction Law enforcement generally refers to the mode or system applied by certain society members to ensure that there is a form of organized acting in terms of enforcement of law, through discovery, rehabilitation, deterrence, as well as punishment of people who engage in violation of the norms and rules governing the society concerned (McCormick, 2009). As much as the most common of these law enforcement institutions are the prisons and courts, the term has been widely applied in reference to other institutions and individuals who engage in direct surveillance and patrol in discovering or persuading criminal activities, together with those involved in the investigation of criminals and apprehension of those committing the same (Miller & Segal, 2012). Additionally, as much as enforcement of law is primarily associated with the punishment and prevention of crimes, there are organizations in existence whose major obligation is to discourage a range of non-criminal bridge of norms and rules, and this is done through imposing of consequences that are relatively less severe (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). According to the convectional political theory, the criminal laws within the society are based on the democratic process therein. The laws that prescribe the manner in which citizens ought to be governed are enacted and legislated by the personnel chosen by the governed. The police are tasked with the enforcement of these laws, and they thus perform a ministerial function, with impartial intention of routing out the violation, together with taking those involved in violation to custody (McCormick, 2009). In majority of the jurisdictions, the articulation of the theory is done in statutory language, which imposes upon the police the responsibility of faithfully and diligently enforcing all the penal laws in the land. Discrimination has been described as an assault on then notion of rights belonging to another human being. In other words, discrimination is demonstrated as the systematic denial or obstruction of certain groups or people from accessing human rights in totality based on what they are or what they believe in. denial of the fundamental human rights is also associated with the perception of an individual as being less human than the rest (Rudyk, 2010). Discrimination can be demonstrated in variable ways, which include on the basis of ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, class, sex, belief, sexual orientation, health status, age, gender identity, as well as a combination of such factors (McCormick, 2009). Whereas the settings within which discrimination is significantly variable, similar to the perpetrators of the same, at the core of every sort of discrimination are prejudice and ignorance. With various commitment at both personal and society level, there has been need to fight against discrimination, which is undoubtedly an outrageous abuse of the very humanity of the individual subjected to the same, although such impunity is well enjoyed by those perpetrating it (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). Discrimination within the law enforcement field is one of the most prominent forms of malpractices in the country and the world at large, whose impacts and effects have great impacts on the individuals and the nations at large (Miller & Segal, 2012). The root of such forms of discrimination are variable, but most notable is the fact that certain governments have gone as far the extent as expressing openly of their justification of certain discrimination forms, disguised in practices of morality, ideology or religion (Rudyk, 2010). As enshrined in law, for instance, woman may be restricted from certain fundamental freedom or just fail to be acknowledged in some practices within the law enforcement work environment. Similarly, certain rights to certain category of individuals, on the basis of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation and belief, and age, have been overlooked in these practices, and this demonstrates outrage determination to strip the human rights away from these victims (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). Types of Discrimination in Law Enforcement Work Environment Discrimination within this field of justice administration is of diverse forms and extents, directed to different types of people in different contexts (Miller & Segal, 2012). For instance, discriminatory practices may be internal, where prejudice and differential treatments are directed to the different personnel of the law enforcement institutions, or towards the citizens and other civil institutions by the law enforcing bodies at large (McCormick, 2009). Law enforcement is just another form of employment and working place like any other, where apart from the services the individual offers to the society in ensuring justice for humanity, the law enforcing personnel expects equal fair treatment from within the law enforcing institutions (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). However, discrimination and preferential treatments have been reported at different moments, based on different identity aspects of the individual. For instance, there have been prejudice in the recruitment, promotion, enumeration, demotion, and lay-off of law enforcing personnel on the basis of their gender, race, religion, belief, and other different forms of identity aspects as presumed relevant by the authorities concerned (Johnson, 2014). As witnessed within the law enforcement environment, certain groups, based on the varied categorizations of diversity in human race, have been denied equal protections as expected by the law, particularly from the forms of violence that befall them (Peruche & Plant, 2006). For instance, domestic violence, racist attacks, together with other forms of attack that are directed to specific groups or individuals, due to their perceived or actual orientations have been rampant in the society, all due to the similar segregations and preferential treatments offered to the same population at the law enforcement level (Miller & Segal, 2012). In law enforcement, discrimination in there practices is meant to demonstrate that a particular category of people or groups are considered more likely by the authorities to commit crimes compared to the others, making them an easy target by the law enforcing institutions (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). As a result, these victims of discrimination are prone to non-procedural arrests and imprisonments. On the other hand, discriminatory practices make the otherwise less favorable population or individuals victims of treatments that are comparatively harsher, which are potentially equivalent to torture or other categories of ill-treatment, any time they are in the criminal justice system (Peruche & Plant, 2006). The status and identity of the individual is another factor that influences the consequences and nature of treatment the person is bound to be subjected to in the biased law enforcement practices (Peruche & Plant, 2006). For instance, the transgender women, who are detained simultaneously with their male counterparts, suffer higher risks of sex-related abuses, which include rape and other sexual violence forms. Majority of the individuals are discriminated against on the basis of their identity elements (Rudyk, 2010). The LGBT Discrimination Like any other society, Law enforcement work environment is a composition of different groups of people with diverse cultural, economic, social and political alignments (Miller & Segal, 2012). Human beings, as social beings, have devised numerous modes of coping with, or adapting to the ever-growing diversities amongst its population to enhance the cordial coexistence within the society (McCormick, 2009). Irrespective of the individual or group’s sexual orientation and alignment, all human beings are entitled to social appreciation and happiness. Like any other human being, the LGBT group is protected by the human right articles, which advocate for equality, respect and non-discriminatory acts against any individual based on race, sex and color (Rudyk, 2010). According to the declaration by the United Nations Human Rights Council, violation, discrimination, stigmatization, prejudice, exclusion, or harassment of a person, due to his or her gender identity and sexual orientation amounts to gross violation of human rights, because the acts compromise the person’s personal dignity and integrity (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). Under this protection, therefore, the human society has the mandate to enable the lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender population to enjoy their individual rights as stipulated, which includes their privacy, equal treatment and autonomy, together with their free will to association and expression (Peruche & Plant, 2006). According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), creation of the society we want goes beyond persuasion of the government officials and judges to enact regulations and rules, but demands for rational societal way of thinking about the LGBT group in the society (Johnson, 2014). The position of the GLBT in the modern society continues to be marginal, with their plight immensely degraded. The group has been subject to numerous social challenges, which include lack or poor access to adequate, healthcare, housing, together with other social requirements. Considering that, all human beings, as social beings, have gender identity and sexual orientation, they have no reason to discriminate against others because of their being gay, lesbians, bisexual, or transgender, and such negative view of other members of the society transcends through the entire society and affects the humanity nature negatively (Rudyk, 2010). Sexual orientation encompasses the sexual feelings, desires, identifications and practices. On the other hand, the gender identity is the existing complex association between gender and sex, as a reference to an individual’s experience in terms of his or her self-expression as per the social categorization of femininity or masculinity (Peruche & Plant, 2006). As much as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not categorically highlight the gender identity or sexual orientation, the rational conception of the international laws on human rights encompass the wide interpretation, and they cover the protection and rights of the LGBT community, together with its interests (Brooks, 2011). Despite the presence of laws safeguarding the interests of the LGBT community, this group continues to encounter various forms of discrimination and stigmatization all over the world. There have been instances where persons gender identity or sexual orientation has been the reason for their torture, violence, execution, imprisonment, or discrimination (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). Such inhuman treatments go against the fundamental tenets of the laws protecting human rights. The gender or sexual orientation-based human right abuses include, among other acts, the violation of the children’s rights, which include inflicting of cruel and torture, degrading, and inhuman treatment, together with the arbitrary detention on the basis of belief or identity as stipulate in the articles 5 and 9 of the human rights laws (Johnson, 2014). Such contravention can also be evident when an individual is restricted from exercising the freedom of association, or denied the fundamental rights of due process provided for within the article 20. Examples of acts that would constitute violation of human rights is loss of children’s custody by an individual due to his or her sexual identity and orientation, being executed by the state, and discriminated against in the acquisition of employment, health or housing services (Peruche & Plant, 2006). Others include frequent threats for engaging in LGTB human rights campaign, being denied asylum, frequent verbal abuses, as well as being raped or face in form of torture during the detention periods (Miller & Segal, 2012). Lack of governmental commitment to address the various forms of violence undergone by the LGBT group within the society publicly, propagates the unwarranted impunity culture, in which the abuses spread and escalate unmitigated (Miller & Segal, 2012). In many occasions, the state authorities are the major parties involved in these human rights abuses, regardless of the presence or absence of the legal sanctions. Employment harassment and discrimination on the basis of the gender identity and sexual orientation of the individuals is among the most prominent and pervasive problems that are witnessed within the law enforcement and the related correctional departments (Brooks, 2011). Evidence suggest that the discrimination in this form does not solely affect the LGBT officers, but equally impact on those regarded to be LGBT, those who associate with the officers perceived to be LGBT together with the community members, as well as all those who have been heard speaking up against this form of discrimination (Johnson, 2014). The discrimination of this form does not only affect the officers concerned with the enforcement of law and corrections, but by extension leads to impending of the effective policing of the community, most notably the cooperation and protection of the LGBT community (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). As much as the state, federal, and local laws patchwork offer a certain level of protection against some types of discrimination, there lacks a definite federal law nationwide, which could effectively and consistently curb the discriminatory practices evident in the employment procedures, which are characteristically based on the perceived or actual gender identity and sexual orientation (Miller & Segal, 2012). Effects and Consequences of Discrimination Studies reveal the existence of rampant discriminatory practices within the modern law enforcement practices, particularly based on gender identity and sexual orientation (Rudyk, 2010). Therefore, such practices are expected to result in, among other consequences, the underrepresentation of the LGBT group of people in the law enforcement, together with intense pressure on the personnel involved in the LGBT law enforcement, who are prompted to conceal their respective gender identity and sexual orientation (Miller & Segal, 2012). As a result, there are risks of reduction in diversity within the law enforcement work environment, which leads in potential barriers to the effective and efficient policing of the society. In fact, numerous reports and cases have indicated that discriminative practices, which are based on the individuals’ gender identity and sexual orientations, are not limited to the employees in LGBT category (Peruche & Plant, 2006). For instance, there have been frequent complaints regarding the incidence where perceived sexual orientations, even when the individuals being subjected to the discrimination do not identify with the said group of target have been discriminated against (Miller & Segal, 2012). Such unfortunate occurrences only demonstrate the malice that lies within the discrimination laid against the members of the society. For instance, if the stereotype was meant for any good, there could be procedures through which legal identification of the same is done in order to ensure that no person is a victim of the identities they are actually not part of (Rudyk, 2010). There have been hosts of cases reported where discrimination has been directed towards the individuals that associate with the LGBT group or simply on the basis of relation in line with the non-LGBT individual fighting to overcome such discriminatory practices, on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation (Brooks, 2011). The evidence demonstrated through the studies and data, administrative complaints, court cases, together with the anecdotal reports acquired from the organizations in the community and media sources indicate that the LGBT officers are still subjected to discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Such treatment has existed over many decades and its outcome has been observed in the low level of reporting witnessed among them (Peruche & Plant, 2006). For instance, the discriminatory practices, which include victimization when problems occur at work, limited promotional slots at work for them, as well as preferential enumeration and acknowledgements. Essentially, the occurrence of this form of discrimination is so rampant that many consider it a normal practice hence the victims of this are less likely to report to the relevant authorities since little has ever been done in regard to the previous reported incidences (Seabrook, Wilk & Lamb, 2013). On the other hand, the victims of the discrimination in the law enforcement working environment are characteristically lees likely to cooperate with the community policing in fear of further humiliations from other people. Development of a diverse police team would be important in enhancing the positive interaction and trust among the members of the law enforcement, together with the general communities to which they offer their services (Miller & Segal, 2012). Incorporation of the LGBT persons in the law enforcement staff would be an important part in ensuring the development of diversity within the police force, and this would enable the force to be effective in meeting the different needs of the community, particularly the population that is subject to similar treatment in the society. As a result of the rampant high-level discrimination against the LGBT society, there has been little understanding of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and the transgender community within the society, especially when they seek any form of help from the justice system (Seabrook, Wilk & Lamb, 2013). Lack of representation of this group means there is little understanding of their unique requirements and other forms of challenges they go through. In essence, the LGBT group is bound to feel suppressed in the society, even in the face of prejudice and mistreatment from the other members of the society since little help is expected, if any, from the law enforcement institutions, due to the outrage discrimination within the system (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). There is evidence to believe that the high rise in the incidences related to transgender prostitution, public sex environment, intimate partner violence, bullying, crimes related to hate and bias, as well as homelessness among gay youths are among the consequences of the discriminatory treatment experienced in the law enforcement work environment (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). The lack of integration of the gay and lesbian individuals into the police force means those in service, who have little understanding of the circumstantial challenges and course of such life cannot offer the required services in curbing these vises. The discrimination against the LGBT individual in the law enforcement institutions means the population suffers from underrepresentation and stigmatization, which eventually prompts them to conceal their respective orientations and identities to forge virtual equality in the face of the hostile community around them (Patterson & Walcutt, 2014). In addition, the lack of prohibition against the discriminatory practices within the law enforcement institutions, on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, the police and other law enforcing personnel run the risk of encountering forms of discrimination and other harassment related practices in their quest to reach out to the community of LGBT, and this makes them to be perceived as LGBT (Seabrook, Wilk & Lamb, 2013). Like any other place of work, the law enforcing personnel are bound to perform better when their presence and participation is appreciated and acknowledged. In this case, motivation of the personnel is key in provoking high productivity and willingness to effectively carry out the delegated duties (Peruche & Plant, 2006). However, discrimination against the law enforcing personnel prompts a sense of rebellion against the protocol and other changes initiated by the institutions (Brooks, 2011). For instance, an officer who is discriminated against is less likely to be innovative or creative in his or her duties, but simply tries to ensure the duties delegated are completed. Additionally, such personnel lack the drive and love for their duties, and this means they are likely to neglect the violation of the law by crime offenders in the society unless their bosses are watching them (Melnick, 2014). This less productivity and lack of interest in duties is a precursor for deterioration in the power of law in the society, leading to high crime levels in the society. The feeling of helplessness at time of discrimination leads to the development of anxiety and these kills any interests in the responsibilities, career advancements, together with any welfare of the institutions (Seabrook, Wilk & Lamb, 2013). The officer who feels like being an outsider of the law enforcement institution for which he or she works, based on any aspect of identification, loses self esteem and stops providing any constructive contributions and ideas towards the betterment of the practices within the system of justice (Peruche & Plant, 2006). Unfair promotions and bonuses on the basis of discriminatory considerations within the law enforcement are likely to result in anger and frustrations among the disadvantaged individuals (Melnick, 2014). In this respect, therefore, the aspect of stereotype that drives majority of the discriminatory appreciations of the personnel may result in demoralization and eventual underperformance on the part of the unfairly discriminated against individual. The ultimate end of all this discrimination is the poor service delivery to those who need it most. For instance, the crimes are likely to be ignored by the disgruntled member of the team, who believes the duties should be taken up by those that the management believes are better performers. Measures to Curb Discrimination in Law Enforcement There is need for the individual correction and law enforcement departments to put into effect the implementation of the internal non-harassment and non-discrimination policies (Peruche & Plant, 2006). Building of such policies from within increases the likelihood of implementation and acceptance of the same internally, leading to high equality and tolerance levels. Additionally, the departments within the law enforcement have the duty of offering the training to the members of the institution that aims at reducing all forms of harassment and discrimination of the officers based on any identification aspects, including racial and sexual orientations (Peruche & Plant, 2006). With such considerations, there is bound to be increased tolerance towards the LGBT population and other related aspects in the society, thus giving the officers from this class a higher morale for implementing their respective duties effectively. The said training is thus important in ensuring double impact of enhancing the environment of working by the law enforcement officers as well as improving the ability of the departments to assist the similarly discriminated against victims within the society (Melnick, 2014). Additionally, the law enforcement institutions should seek to liaison with the LGBT community, especially in societies that have taken the responsibility of forming such associations. An ideal example of this is the Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit created by the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C, which forms part of the policing strategy in the community, and this correlated well with the increase in reporting of the crimes that are committed against the LGBT community (Miller & Segal, 2012). The creation of such organizations can be done in response to the numerous incidences of harassment witnessed against the population prone to discrimination, especially in the society where hate-related crimes are underreported by the victims. Conclusion Generally, harassment and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation is pervasive within the corrections and law enforcement departments. In the current situation, there is absolute lack of a comprehensive non-discrimination law, which could otherwise protect the government workers from discriminative practices at their places of work. The developing body concerned with agency and judicial decisions has started establishing protection within the federal constitution as well as the law of civil rights. In addition, many localities and states have begun setting up their individual non-discrimination laws. Despite the initiation of such measures, absolute protection can only be realized through explicit nondiscriminatory federal laws, which could foster consistency and clarity in the protection of all workers in the country. References Brooks, R, W. (2011). Covenants without Courts: Enforcing Residential Segregation with Legally Unenforceable Agreements. American Economic Review, 101(3), 360-365. Johnson, E, M. (2014). Buyers Without Remorse: Ending the Discriminatory Enforcement of Prostitution Laws. Texas Law Review, 92(3), 717-748. McCormick, M, L. (2009). The Truth Is Out There: Revamping Federal Antidiscrimination Enforcement for the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 30(1), 193-231 Melnick, R, S. (2014). The odd evolution of the civil rights state. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 37(1), 113-134. Miller, A, R., & Segal, C. (2012). Does Temporary Affirmative Action Produce Persistent Effects? A Study of Black and Female Employment in Law Enforcement. Review of Economics & Statistics, 94(4), Special section, 1-53. Patterson, L., & Walcutt, B. (2014). Explanations for continued gender discrimination in South Korean workplaces. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20(1), 18-41. Peruche, B. M., & Plant, E. A. (2006). The Correlates of Law Enforcement Officers Automatic and Controlled Race-Based Responses to Criminal Suspects. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 193-199. Rudyk, A. (2010). A rising tide: the transformation of sex discrimination into gender discrimination and its impact on law enforcement. International Journal of Human Rights, 14(2), 189-214. Seabrook, N, R., Wilk, E, M., & Lamb, C, M. (2013). Administrative Law Judges in Fair Housing Enforcement: Attitudes, Case Facts, and Political Control Administrative Law Judges in Fair Housing Enforcement: Attitudes, Case Facts, and Political Control. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 94(2), 362-378. Read More