Police and the Use of Force - Term Paper Example

Police and the use of force Police officers are provided with a considerable amount of discretion merely because of the kind of their job. Officers are faced with numerous threatening circumstances that force them to react swiftly, yet properly. They have the supremacy to infringe upon any civilian’s rights to freedom; hence, they ought to apply this power efficiently. One main concern with the quantity of discretion given to officers is their authority to decide whether to use force or not. Manning affirms that, generally, it is acceptable that police officers use force, he further argues that most people never agree on what ought to constitute the use of force (Manning, 1997). The line between what may be necessary and what may be extreme is hard to see and also fragile. Use of force may without a doubt be one of the vital aspects of police work; nevertheless, force ought to be applied with great discretion and due diligence. Discussion David Allender defines community policing as a style defined by a philosophy of personalized policing in which an officer patrols and works in, on a permanent basis in the same area( full-service) or an officer works in a proactive cooperation with citizens to recognize and resolve problems (working from a decentralized place). The most vital aspects to community policing include; problem-solving, personalization and partnership (Allender, 2004). The idea may be to create a connection with citizens that are both honest and trustworthy. When police officers begin the use of force while controlling the community, the citizens start to view them as authority figures as opposed to service officers that are there to guard and serve them. This results in a collapse of the connection between the community and police officers. The use of force ought only to be used only when other attempts of policing are deemed unproductive. The use of force may include various actions by police officers that range from merely verbal commands, to the treacherous application of lethal force. Police officers need to have discretion while using force to defend themselves or while protecting the community. Guidelines ought to be set so that police officers continue to maintain and incorporating community policing. For that reason, the public ought to be informed that police discretion encompasses responses to domestic violence, choices in acceptance of gratuities, the use of police profiling and discretionary choices to use force. One concern that emerges in the use of force may be the possibility of corruption by some police officers. The probability of being corruption is high, when police officers are given that great power. Officers never start off as corrupt; however, years of work in the police force can create hostility between suspects and officers and this can lead to the use of force (McEwen, 1996). Most times, officers patrol the streets unaccompanied which creates an opening for potential abuse of authority (McEwen, 1996). Even though police officers ought to exercise some discretion, they also ought to follow guidelines and limits when using their discretion powers (Manning, 1997). The choice to use force ought not to be taken lightly since the citizen’s lives may be at stake. Police ought to be provided discretion in some decisions to use force; nevertheless, this discretion ought to be limited. In some cases in Arizona, police officers used lethal means of force and in each and every case; the officers concerned had to deal with ethical issues of whether or not to apply such force. These cases may be highly stressful and through setting guidelines to follow, the possibilities for abuse or misuse may be reduced. Use of force ought only to be used with restrictions and only after persuasions, discussions and negotiations have taken place and have been found to be unproductive. The use of force may be inevitable sometimes; nevertheless, an officer ought to take all precautions when using the force. The infliction of pain that may cause inhumane treatment may never be used. A continuum can guide the decision of whether to use or not use force (McEwen, 1996). The continuum of force is the extent of distinctive forms of force applied by police officers (Adams, et al., 1999). Minimal force may be described simply as handling a person too roughly; on the other hand, maximum force may be applied through the use of lethal force. Due to this, it may be pertinent to value the application of force on the continuum because of its ambiguous nature. The continuum of force measurement was intended to echo the Phoenix police department’s official policies to address the concerns of the misconception of whether there was use of force or not (Adams, et al., 1999). The measurement of continuum of force captures all of the significant variations of actions that police officers can take while dealing with society (Adams, et al., 1999). There are verbal commands at one end of the continuum, and deadly force at the other end, sandwiched between, are actions that may involve use of deadly force, confrontational commands, Tasers, and flaunting of weapons. One type of force that is commonly used by police officers is verbal commands that are considered as a type of non-lethal force where police officers may use their voices to be forceful. Verbal force comprises of verbal threats, conversational commands, cursing or shouting. The NIJ (National Institute of Justice) reported that the police used confrontational force on more than 50% of the suspects arrested (McEwen, 1996). The core of understanding the application of force characteristically never involves what is said, but rather the nature of verbal communication. In addition, verbal commands can escalate to even superior amounts of force. Police officers ought to understand and recognize that verbal commands are as well components of force (Adams, 1999). Another type of force used by police officers are restraints that are applied for calming a suspect and keeping the suspect out of harm when officers are carrying out their investigation. Restraints may be another aspect of force that officers commonly use. There are numerous possible types of restraints such as body cuffs, handcuffs and leg cuffs. The use of restraint is used frequently; however, it is not universally used in police work (Adams, et al., 1999). Handcuffing may not be perceived as an act of force, but it may be vital to understand that the force involved in the application of restraints may be associated to deaths or injuries of some suspects (McEwen, 1996). A good example is the case involving Abner Louima, a New York Haitian immigrant who was injured because of the use of restraints; police officers restrained Abner Louima and viciously attacked him (Banks, 2004). Even though Louima never sustained injuries from the use of restraints, the police officers used the restraints to aid them in their brutal attack on Abner Louima. Police officers have an ethical obligation to know the reasoning behind the restraining and the proper way to use the technique. Having knowledge on the use of restraints, police officers can minimize the risk of injuries inflicted to a suspect. The use of restraints needs a considerable, but not a lethal amount of force; therefore, a police officer ought to understand all features of this form of force so as to apply it properly. Another type of force used by police officers is the controversial use of Taser guns (Anglen, 2004). Many departments and people claim that Taser guns can take down suspects without infliction of pain. This method may be applied by police officers on the mentally ill, drunks and shoplifters (Anglen, 2004). In some instances, Taser guns can be a type of lethal force. According to Scottsdale, Arizona’s Taser International, a company that manufactures these weapons, the weapons are harmless and a good alternative to lethal force (Anglen, 2004). However, research shows that certain deaths have been related to the use of Taser guns (Anglen, 2004). The review of autopsies by medical examiners in the Arizona Republic found that in three Arizona cases, the suspects’ deaths were either caused by the Tasers or the Tasers must have contributed to the death of these suspects (Anglen, 2004). The Taser companies attempted to address this issue through a statement that claimed that the medical examiners’ opinions were wrong and that they had enough evidence to maintain that, Tasers never caused deaths (Anglens, 2004). Human rights groups such as Amnesty International disagree with the application of Tasers (Anglen, 2004). They argue that some deaths are caused by Tasers and insist that Tasers should not be used until more research is performed to ensure the safety of Taser guns (Anglens, 2004). Although Tasers may be said as an alternative that is safe compared to lethal force, it can be lethal to some people. As earlier stated, the use of force ought to be carried out with precautions and ought not to cause pain that may be considered inhumane. Police officers using Tasers do not take into account precautions; moreover, their practices cause severe pain or even death to suspects who may not pose a threat to the police officers. It may be inappropriate to use this type of force if the suspect at hand, does not pose a threat since it may cause pain or death. Police officers are given too much discretion in their choice to use Tasers as it may be a form, similar to that of lethal force (Anglen, 2004). Regrettably, Tasers may not be fully safe and may still cause injuries to suspects. The lack of policy guidelines and proper training in the use of such weapons may cause harm to suspects due to police officers who use full discretion with techniques that they are not acquainted with. The ethical matter at hand may be whether police officers ought to use lethal forms of force, devoid of enforcement and departmental guidelines. The choice to use Teasers ought not to be taken lightly since officers ought to consider a Taser gun as a lethal force and take similar precautions as those used when handling of a firearm. All other types of subduing a suspect ought to be exhausted first, prior to the use of a Taser gun. By permitting police officers to use Tasers, police departments might be sending a message that Tasers are a quicker and easier method of handling situations, rather than resorting to verbal methods in subduing a suspect. Physical force may be calculated on a continuum scale where the continuum’s uppermost level is the use of lethal physical force. A commonly used type of lethal force is the use of guns to stop suspects from hurting police officers and civilians. The power to use lethal force was made clear by the Supreme Court of United States in the case of Tennessee vs. Garner. There was a conclusion by the Supreme Court that the use of lethal force may be permitted when the suspect poses a threat to society or police officers, and also upheld that lethal force may be allowed to prevent a suspect from fleeing if the suspect is a threat to others (McEwen, 1996). Some critics have argued that police officers at times use unnecessary lethal force when there is no threat (McEwen, 1996). A good example is the case of Arizona’s Detective Lovelace who killed Dawn Rae Nelson through the window at a drug store while her fourteen months old son was sitting at the back seat. Bystanders stated that Nelson hit upon Lovelace’s motorcycle that was parked; nonetheless, Lovelace was never in danger as he stood outside her path (Lewinski, J. et al., 2014). Numerous questions encircle the application of lethal force by Lovelace. According to a police psychologist, one reason given for the decision made by Lovelace was that Lovelace must have been under stress and felt his life was in danger (Lewinski, J. et al., 2014). In another case in Arizona, a fifteen year old boy was shot and died following a distress call from the boy’s parent for help (Scarborough, 2003). Marion Madrigal Jr.’s parents had called police officers after their son had grabbed a knife and threatened to kill them. The police’s account and family’s account on what occurred was quite different. The police maintained that Marion was moving towards them in a dangerous manner. On the other hand, Marion’s parents claimed that their son had dropped the knife after police shot him with a Taser gun and was not a threat, and maintained that the police officers had shot Madrigal after he was already down on the ground (Scarborough, 2003). Police officers are, undoubtedly, put into intricate scenarios that may result in their death or physical injuries. Death or physical injuries are some the threats officers take daily; nevertheless, with the coercive authority they hold they must act in response with great precautions. The U.S. Constitution provides procedures for officers to follow. Even though these procedures are set, officers may not be strictly bound by these procedures. Consequently, police officers are open to using their discretion in deciding to apply more restrictive guidelines than those set by the Constitution (Hall, 1994). With these procedures in place, police officers face the ethical issue of choosing when to use lethal force. Whether or not to use lethal force may be a difficult choice since they ought to take into consideration all facts of a situation within a short period of time. They ought to reason and decide whether there is a threat and must react to it in seconds or minutes. The ethical issue is whether police officers have been sufficiently trained and ready to deal with dangerous circumstances. Had Detective Lovelace trained properly to handle stress, he may have sort for other tactics as an alternative to firing his weapon instantly. During circumstances where there is the use of force, police officers may be faced with ethical dilemmas of how to apply their discretion. Conversely, they can use force to try and secure their lives and save the situation; yet, they have an obligation to save the suspect and save the society. Moreover, they need not overstep their authority or apply force until all alternatives are exhausted. Conclusion The use of any force is characteristically reactionary in that police officers may be responding to the actions of a suspect. The police officer’s objectives may change during the responding process to the actions of the subject. The choice will usually increase from plain verbal persuasion to the use of lethally physical force. Nevertheless, police officers may instantly use any authorized alternative if it is acceptable. A verbal caution that force may be applied against the non-compliant suspect ought to precede any application of force. The warning may not be necessary if it is apparent that such a warning may endanger police officers or take away a strategic advantage towards the suspect. Detective Lovelace appears to have used this power in the wrong manner (Lewinski, J. et al., 2014). In addition, the uses of force procedures for various police departments may be somewhat vague. This leaves room for utmost discretion for the police officers who ought to decide when to use force. In most circumstances, police officers have full discretion to decide whether to use force and which form of force to use. All of the four main types of force entail police officers to examine the particular circumstances, and use their moral values and training when deciding on how to react. Police officers hold the lives of each person that they make contact with within their authority daily. There is no hesitation that police work may be difficult, and it deserves much admiration and respect. Nevertheless, police officers have the ability to harm more people than nearly any other profession in the world. Police officers ought to be trained properly so as to ensure that they are using their authority in the best interests of the society. Time and again, the use of force has been exercised without cause since police officers perceive a danger and straight away react to that danger. Certainly, it may be necessary for them to guard their lives and also the lives of innocent people in any particular situation; however, they ought also to use their discretion, diligently. In a nutshell, all other non-forceful tactics ought to be used before any decision is taken to use force. Bullets are not the only cause of brutal injuries to the suspect for instance; Taser guns may result in death and the inappropriate use of a police officer baton on the correct spot on a suspect may leave him or her permanently injured or even result in death. Police officers are thus faced with the intricate ethical dilemma on whether or not to apply force in these circumstances. So as to protect society, it may be necessary that police officers and police departments make this choice with vigilance, in every situation. Discretion may be a fundamental characteristic of policing; though certain police discretion ought to be limited. Officers ought to have a good and respectable association with the community. Once police officers abuse their discretion and power, this relationship deteriorates. Police officers, who use force when it is not required or use too much force, create a depressing image for the police department and themselves. Procedures ought to be established and followed so as to prevent a collapse in police officer’s relationship with the community. References Adams, K. et al. (1999). Use of Force By Police: Overview of National and Local Data. National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington D.C. 1-76. Allender, D. (2004). Community Policing Exploring the Philosophy. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 73,(3), 18. Anglen, R. (2004). Taser safety claim questioned. The Arizona Republic. Banks, C. (2004). Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications. Cory, B. (1981). The New Politics of Deadly Force. Police Magazine New York, 4, 6-22. Hall, J. (1994). Use of Deadly Force to Prevent Escape. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63, 27-63. Kleinig, J. (1996). Handled with Discretion: ethical issues in police decision-making. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Manning, P. (1997). Police Work: The Social Organization of Policing. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. McEwen, T. (1996). ‘Police Use of Force: Collection of National Data’. Washington DC. Retrieved from, http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndcopuof.pdf Scarborough, S. (2003). Plea for Help turns Deadly. The Arizona Republic. Smith, M. and Petrocelli, M. (2002). The Effectiveness of Force used by Police in Making Arrest. Police Practice and Research an International Journal, 3, 201-15. Lewinski, J. et al. (2014). Police officers’ actual vs. recalled path of travel in response to a threatening traffic stop scenario, Police Practice and Research: An International Journal. Routledge. DOI:10.1080/15614263.2014.959950 Read More