Deadly Force that Used by the Police - Coursework Example

Topic: Discuss Issues Related with the Police and Use Force Policies Force or deadly force is used by the police force when there is no other alternative left. The force used is normally in proportion to the aggression of the people but the use of deadly force is a more crucial issue related to police. The discretionary power given to the policemen while on duty puts them on a different ranking from other professions. Police officers are guided to use force through policy directives, training, and secret information received. Not all indulge in random use of force; a very small percentage of them commit mistakes while dealing risky situations (Frazier). As per the City of Edmonds Police Policy Manual section 1.3.1 use of force should be reasonable and needed to either arrest a person or control a situation. Officers should follow the rules and regulations of the department while using force. The manual differentiates between the words “force”, and “deadly force”. Force is “Physical action taken by an officer to assist that officer in controlling a situation or the behavior of others”, while deadly force is “The intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious bodily injury” (MRSC). According to the Seattle Police Department Directives (2005) the use of force is applied as per the provisions of the RCW 9A. 16.010 and 9A16.020, depending on the overall situation emerging out of the circumstances. Types of situations demanding the use of force can be identified but upcoming scenarios cannot be guessed prior to their happening compelling the police officers to use force (Seattle Police Department). Police use of force, according to Engel (2008) has been an issue of research by different methods and statistical techniques that include not only official data sources but data from keen social observations, ethnographic research, officer surveys, citizen surveys and their analysis. Yet the scholarly research has not produced a comprehensive picture of the use force policies, leave alone the regular monitoring of the police use of force. Scholars like Garner, Maxwell, and Heraux, 2002; Hickman et al., 2008; Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002, have acknowledged the different parameters of monitoring the use of force. As a result it becomes difficult to explain the differences in results on the studies made on these subjects. The issue of monitoring the use of force is related to use force policies. Although these differences in the concept and monitoring of use of force have been identified by the policing authorities but they have not yet made any serious attempts to trace the most perfect parameter of measuring the use of force. The law enforcement agencies have also not shown keen interest in identifying different types of force continuums. Another important aspect of the issue of monitoring the use of force is its rare use; such events are uncommon. This makes the issue less crucial. After studying 36 such use of force cases by Hickman et al. (2008) where data from six different sources was employed with seven different base rate comparisons, we cannot expect relevancy and correlation in the results of the use force incidents. Some scholars have stressed the need for community theory of criminal justice, outlining the right type of control to be decided by a community structure. Scholars need to understand and comprehend the communities’ before researching on the social control mechanisms like police agencies. Despite the differences in the findings on the use of force, some consistencies have been noticed to reach the conclusions on the use of force (Engel, 2008). Excessive use of force is another area, which has not been given due attention by policing scholars. Reason seems to be the incapacity to bring accuracy in monitoring, as a result it has become difficult to test whether the force used was right according to the situation or it was excessive. This has been observed that police officials ignore such issues whose monitoring becomes difficult. Research scholars also follow the lead. Problem solving and community policing is not rewarded by the police agencies as results cannot be measured. This is why scholars are unaware of the qualitative difference between the use of force and excessive use of force. Only the frequency of extreme use of force raises eye-brows of social welfare agencies. Methodological hurdles come in way of tackling such serious concerns related with the police (Engel, 2008). Scholarly research has dwelt on measuring the national figures on use of force. Scholars have stressed on the need of developing a reporting mechanism on collecting national data on the use of force (e.g., Garner et al., 2002; Hickman et al., 2008; Kane, 2007). Data collected through the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS) to support the National Crime Victimization Survey, according to Hickman et al. was meant to provide stats on the use of force by police officers but because the surveys have not included the latest remands, they are not complete. PPSC data represents only 87% of the total use of force incidents. According to scholars, even the data of Supplemental Homicide Reports collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigations does not provide a correct national monitoring of deadly use of force by the police (e.g., Klinger & Smith 2008). We cannot depend on citizen surveys. Actually more demanding issue rather than measuring national estimates according to scholars is frequency and correlation between the incidents of excessive use of force with the help of other data sources at local level (e.g., Smith 2008). Research should be made on lessening the loss to human beings in the form of injuries whether they are police officers or citizens; it is more crucial to know how and why injuries occur to both during such confrontations rather than measuring the national data on the use of force by the police (Engel, 2008). Any such act of using force comes in the focus of all whether executives, politicians, investigators, judicial fraternity or social organizations. Administrative and departmental inquiries and some times criminal cases get registered against the policemen using deadly force putting a question mark on the validity of its use. As there is no national reporting system in existence to provide exact figures, correction work on the process becomes difficult. Stressing on any single area like policy, training or technologically equipping the police force won’t provide concrete results Effort should be made in the direction of organization culture, the drawbacks in the system of policing and role of politicians (Frazier). The branch of Public Safety Leadership at John Hopkins University has dwelt on ten major agents propelling police men to use force, impacting community and fixing responsibility. A review of these can help in comprehending the police department’s approach towards using force. All agents should be taken note of when a change in policy is under consideration. They are: 1. The surrounding environment the policemen work in, affects them and their take on the environment affects their behavior. If notorious criminals inhabit the area, policemen prefer to remain extra alert. If the community around is infamous for violence, officers frame their opinion, which is very difficult to change with the times, resulting in “violence begets violence”, to name it by the syndrome of “Hill Street Blues.” 2. Information related to the offenders needs to be analyzed correctly. Accurate and timely information can save any untoward incident. Information gathered from the call takers about the shady characters with analysis of their crime behavior should be conveyed to the officers at the right time; any wrong information passed can be risky to the lives of both – the policemen and the suspect. 3. Use of force policy should be discussed by supervisors besides regular review of policy by taking feedback from the community. 4. Culture in the police force can help in minimizing the incidents of force. For this a close dialog between the two at different social platforms can help the police not to use force. Depending solely on numbers and data breaks the communication, which joins the police with the community. 5. Leadership and supervision of the patrolling staff of the police can bring down the rate of using force by the policemen. 6. Selection and training of policemen is crucial; in stead of weeding out wrong candidates hiring approach should be to screening the best. Only highly motivated candidates should get entry after passing psychological screening and given proper training before performing duty. 7. Alternative sources like the electronic simulation can prepare officers for actual encounters where decisions have to be taken in split-second on the use of force. 8. Public trust helps in overcoming doubts, decreasing the level of over reaction and negative reaction by the community in case of deadly use of force. 9. Follow up after the use of force should be prompt to minimize internal bickering and fixing responsibility. A model shooting investigation process can help in satisfying the community and other stakeholders. Related policies should be evaluated in the wake of fresh use of force incidents. Community and citizens should be invited in the policy review process. 10. Fear is a powerful feeling, which when out of control like anger can ignite the environment. Fear among the police officers and the community for each other should be reduced, as fear triggers the button of using force leading to deadly encounters (Frazier). Conclusion There is urgent need to find out the actual causes of force use, which can be weak leadership, weak policy, lack of quality training or fear factor; technology cannot help in such cases. If the above factors are present in the police departments, disasters are waiting to happen. Where officers are physically and emotionally not fit to handle the situation, and have no rapport with the community, such use of force can happen more often. It is seen that people in high positions don’t value such minor things. Change has to take place by analyzing qualitatively the public response to the encounter, attitudes, policy, and readiness on the part of the police officers to manage and save the situation. Implementing a new policy initiative or training process without analyzing the situation judiciously won’t provide the desired results, resulting in “guesstimate”. Feedback from the patrol officer and the area’s detective agents should be included in the analysis. Inputs from all stakeholders on the deadly force use can save future untoward incidents from occurring. Community involvement in policy assessment on deadly force use, community review on officers’ work and shouldering with the police leaders in making policy change can definitely raise the bar. All segments of society need to come together to bring the situation under control without using force. Reference List Engel, Robin S. (2008, December). Revisiting critical issues in police use-of-force research. Criminology & Public Policy, 7(4). Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/cpp/articles/V7N4-1108/CPP413.pdf Frazier, Thomas C. Deadly force: issues, risks, dilemmas, and solutions. Paper presented at Risk Management Issues in Law Enforcement. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from https://www.riskinstitute.org/peri/images/file/DeadlyForcePERISymposiumPaper.pdf MRSC. (2000, January). Excerpt from City of Edmonds Police Policy Manual. Section 1.3.1- 1.3.8. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/PubSafe/le/E3Force.pdf Seattle Police Department. (2005, April). D 05-016. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http://www.seattle.gov/Police/Publications/Directives/Less_Lethal_Directive_05-016.pdf Read More