Introduction
In their daily work daily work, police officers are faced with numerous situations which they must handle. In such situations, no two incidents can ever be the same even if one was to analyze numerous situations over a long period of time. In some situations, the law does not cover each and every situation which a police officer can faces, with respect to this fact there are occasions where the officer has to decide on the level of enforcement required in a specific situation. The police officers are placed in a position whereby the have to decide on how to handle a given matter individually, with no supervision or with no additional advice. In these instances therefore the police have to use discretion.
Police discretion refers to the informed decision which police officers independently make in terms of judging whether or not a given instance translated to the violation of law. Police discretion also involves the determination of whether that situation needs standard procedures like booking or arrest. The course of actions that the police officer takes are not blindly made, they are founded on the officer’s judgment of their experiences, skills, professional knowledge of the law and a number of other relevant factors.
In the enforcement of law there are certain myths that are associated with police discretion on such myth is full enforcement myth. According to this myth it is believed that police officers usually enforce the law in each and every instance or situation. In counteracting this myth, one can use selective enforcement, actual full enforcement or judgmental policies. In the actual full enforcement option, it specifies that all suspects caught or involved in crime should be arrested. This policy is restrictive as it lays down the rules that are to be applied in as many instances as possible with severe restrictions on the judgment of the officer. Under the selective option, is more realistic and involves being open about the practice of enforcement, it specifies the critical or most extreme situations which the police can face. The other policy that can be used is the judgmental policies; under this policy general guidelines which are standard to all circumstances are given only.
Sources of discretion
The causes of discretion can be based on three decision elements that can be summarized and categorized as:
-Situation variables; in this case the police generally attend to more serious situations as compared to the minor issues. In case where there is resistance or the presence of weapons, police will overreact. For instance police tend to follow up activities which they have initiated in comparison to those activities which have been initiated by public complaints. Police also tend to be more bureaucratic in case where the media, an audience or the witnesses are present
– Offender variables; in general police will give more attention to those complaints that have been made by adults as compared to the ones made by juveniles. Citizens who portray good demeanor towards the police get more lenient treatment. People in upper and middle income classes usually get better service from the officers. Mental status and gender also influence how the police deal with certain situations.
– System variables; in general officers are likely to become relaxed when the correctional systems or the courts are clogged and the tendency to become strict when a city wants to generate more revenue. In addition, the structure and size of the departments influences the individual discretion. In societies with enough social service resources, such as metal and detoxification health centers, gives the police officers the chance to apply non-arrest options.
Areas of discretion
- In cases Domestic violence; in this case police are faced with a dilemma and have always asked academicians, social scientists and social workers for help. As opposed to locking up offenders in domestic violence, the police have always been reluctant in arresting such offenders. The reason for their dilemma can be associated to a number of factors; the case of domestic violence has always been considered to be a private matter, female victims of such violence are in most cases uncooperative, in some instances male officers are sympathetic to male assailants, if the assailant is the bread winner this can have an impact on the family, and there is the possibility that arrest will increase violence among the poor and unemployed. (Dantzer, 2003)
The failure to make some arrests in some cases of domestic violence is reasonable, however in some cases it is an abuse of the law
- Drunk driving; historically this issue was not severely dealt with though presently cases of dunk driving are now more serious. There are three kinds of officers who make driving under influence arrests. They are moralists who hate drunkards, rate busters and bounty hunters who are police officers who wish to be paid overtime. The reasons as to why a police officer might not wish to make an arrest under this cases are; due to laziness as the officer wants to avoid court dates, work, visibility and paperwork, the view that driving under influence of alcohol is not a serious crime and therefore it should be given a lower priority, the other reason is that officers see no utility of arrests and see no point of arresting, some officers accept bribes, there is also the view that social services like detoxification centers justify non-arrest. (Dantzer, 2003)
However the driving under the influence of alcohol is a cause of death and failure to arrest such offenders is not reasonable and unacceptable as it is an abuse of the law.
- Hate crimes; presently the societal phase we are in is where the principal law enforcement action on the subject of hate crime is documentation. The concept behind hate crime proposes that even the minor transgression weakens the community’s heart; however officers have extensive discretion in determining which individuals, groups and acts in the community are threats or minor nuisances.
In practicing their discretion the police are required to protect the rights of every group regardless of ideology or belief. (Dantzer, 2003)
- Mental illness; mental illness, drug abuse and alcohol and homelessness are connected. About 11% of all calls are placed by the mentally ill and the poor people who cannot access private care. If care facilities are not available the police may practice their discretion and forcibly relocating the mentally ill or allowing them to wander on the streets.
The practice of such discretion may be reasonable however certain problems are bound to arise on the right use of the public facilities available and the demand by the public on actions which are only marginally criminal.
- The use of force; together with high speed chases, the use of force is one of the areas that require structuring and administrative control of discretion. Police manuals describe the amount of force that can be used as reasonable to the given instance and not more than necessary. In such instances the following should be considered; the right of the officers to protect themselves, the precedent set in previous instances and the need to create access to security in future.
The use of force should be confined and controlled to guard the police department against civil liability. (Dantzer, 2003)
- Vice crimes; these are crimes against morality and public order, such as pornography, gambling, prostitution, narcotics and nude dancing. As these crimes willing and consensual participants, the use of discretion by an officer is required. This is because; the enforcement of vice crimes promotes illegal activities such as corruption entrapment, there is also the lack of enough funds to support such units which are time consuming and vice crime laws are unenforceable.
- Traffic enforcement; under such a case the police can issue a citation, warning, arrest or ignore the offence. This will normally depend on the transgression, type of citation, attitude and mood of the officer.
In this case an abuse of power will arise where some offenders are given preferential treatment.
- High speed pursuits. The police have the discretion to decide whether to be drawn in a dangerous pursuit, this is because it is difficult to end such a pursuit and the use of force in stopping a chase is dangerous. However the police should realize the danger to other people and can lead to major injuries or death which involves lawsuits.
- The use of a gun; this requires the discretion of an officer depending on how well he/she is trained. Each person differs in the way they react to a dangerous situation, however shooting from the back or overshooting of suspects is an abuse of power and is unacceptable.
- Equality in the provision of services; the structure and size of department and government subsidies determine the discretion of an individual. This can be associated to a number of reasons; the police might believe that some duties are less important, some statutes are ambiguous and some penalties extremely severe. In as much as the law should be enforced, the policies have numerous duties that require urgency in some instances, fair treatment and consistency of the application of the law should become their priority. Errors in judgment and lack adherence to duties constitute an abuse of power.
Conclusion
In conclusion the use of discretion is two way, it can be used for bad or good purposes. Discretion is restricted by norms with efficiency relying upon whether a given choice can be put into good use. The complexity is promoted by the fact that society at times wants strict enforcement and at times non-enforcement. Definitely if discretion was left to the officer’s prejudice it will be completely unacceptable. In practicing his discretion an officer should consider a variety of factors.
Reference:
Dantzer, M., L. (2003): Understanding today’s Police. Pg. 223-228. Prentice hall, New Jersey.
