Officers of the law have viewed the twenty-first century as a time for some of the most sophisticated judicial controls, including full oversight of all acts taken. In an age where police departments in the United States have become heavily militarized, police discretion has become a contentious issue. Police discretion gives officers the authority to determine or prioritize courses of action for dealing with a certain situation based solely on moral policy. There are two schools of thought on the degree of discretion that police officers can have. Police discretion should be limited to foster textbook approaches rather than reliance on everyday experiences to make decisions.
The United States presents a classical example of a system that heavily relies on moral reasoning. Banks (15) attributes the current situations to the high religious adherence in the US, heterogeneous ethnicities and political inclinations. Public opinion about the issue of punishment has always been a lead factor in the formulation of polices. In fact, it can be argued that media coverage and political intentions are the key promoters and creators of moral panics; veiling them as ‘wishes of the public’. The ignorance of the public in this aspect has allowed for the continuity of unethical decision making in the society thus slowly crippling the justice system. For instance, a stereotypical understanding of the compact majority is that harsh punishment is the key to eliminating criminal activities in the society. There is the need to use robust systems in policing to have appropriate solutions for situations rather than relying on discretionary behavior.
Police often misuse their powers of discretion in many ways. In proactive investigations, it is considered a vital element in conducting detective work. This is because many cases present numerous hurdles in getting the real story. However, to mark the boundary between deception and the truth, there are three categories of lies namely accepted lies, tolerated lies and deviant lies (Braswell, McCarthy and McCarthy 45). The first two are governed by a system of rules in which one must adhere to for one to be on the safe side. However, deviant lies are primarily made up for the motive of covering up wrongdoings. Police may abuse discretionary privileges by lying for their own benefit at the expense of truth and justice. Use of informants may also be considered as misuse of discretion. This method of gathering information every so often involves the bending of rule or obstruction of justice (Pollock, 2013). Furthermore, the validity of information from informants is highly questionable and may end up locking up an innocent person.
The use of force unfairly is considered as the epitome of abuse of discretionary powers. It is considered unethical and illegal. Police officers may unnecessarily manhandle one for their mere enjoyment or individual biases, causing harm to the victim. Such acts of exercising such discretionary power on the basis of a victim ‘deserving it’ are not within the ethical framework that goes with the policing duty (Banks 69). Individual prejudices in the line of duty have the ability to interfere with decision-making. Officers relying on their own ‘moral’ thoughts may also not offer the same quality of service offered to a normal group to those groups he/she loathes or considers abnormal. In this regard, discretionary measures often turn out illegal and unethical at the same time.
Further, stereotypes also reinforce the issue of discrimination, giving the citizens the view that the law is acting differentially over the inhabitants. Racial stereotyping is a known issue in the US, where a year rarely passes before such an incident happens. For instance, African Americans are the highest number of victims of police abuse (Pollock 129). Officers often perceive them as gangsters and ‘anti-police’, therefore taking different modes of law enforcement on them. There are also other populations, largely comprising of Mexicans, in the United States constantly complaining about the constant discrimination by the police forces (Banks 51). More specifically, the case of border patrols who instigate a rhetoric of fear to discourage illegal immigration is well known. Excessive police discretionary behavior would lead to the severance of societal cohesion and consequently lead to myriad conflicts among the police and the citizens.
Finally, unscrupulous individuals may utilize discretionary powers to taint the name of the police force. Several several factors such as the existence of unclear laws that may tend to have loopholes, lack of resources to facilitate proper decision-making, lack of community involvement, existence of standardized laws and presence of petty situations, may promote the abuse of discretionary powers (Banks 50 ). Additionally, officers using discretion may meddle with due processes, misuse laws due to the unreviewable attribute of discretionary decisions, and have limitations in applying crime-deterrent effects.
In conclusion, excessive police discretion in militarized police forces is unsuitable as it allows opportunities to disorient the justice system. More specifically, police may infringe on people’s rights based on ‘moral’ policies, which may be contrary to already guidelines to which the forces are supposed to adhere. Moreover, there may be an increase in crime and social injustices within the community. In this regard, there is the need to limit police discretion to allow only very little leeway for police to follow their way.
Works Cited
Banks, Cyndi. Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publishers, 2013.
Braswell, Michael C., Belinda R. McCarthy and Bernard J. McCarthy. Justice, Crime, and Ethics. London: Routledge, 2011.
Pollock, Joycelyn. Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning: Boston, 2013.
We will email this sample to you with pleasure!
Type your email