Law enforcement officers Essay

Law Enforcement and Discretion

Law enforcement personnel work in a setting that requires a high degree of discretion and finding a balance with the established ethical standards. This happens primarily because the public is paying attention and has such high expectations of the behavior and judgment of the police personnel. The distinction between decisions made for illegal motives and those made with legal power can be seen as discretion. The laws governing the profession of law enforcement set the required limits within which to carry out policing operations. An official lacks discretion if they choose to take a course of action that deviates from the law. Evidently, in professional caution, the reason behind the action is just as crucial as the action itself. For instance, when an officer acts in good faith but the desired positive outcome is not realized then those decisions would be considered as discrete (Evans, 2016). Professional discretion demands that police officers be able to at all time act by the professional and legal requirements no matter the price.

Ethics and Discretion in Law Enforcement

Ethical boundaries would be seen as actions that are regarded right or wrong by the society. In the situation of duty or off duty, the law enforcement officer is expected to uphold professional discretion and act in line with the ethical standards. However, there are instances that the ethical boundaries seem to contravene the professional discretion and at other times the two seem to find an incredible balance. This paper will provide a comprehensive explanation considering the two situations where ethics and discretion agree and others where discretion crosses ethical boundaries for a law enforcement officer.

Obeying Orders and Professional Discretion

One of the critical professional discretion requirements of the law enforcers is to obey orders from a higher ranking officer. That means that the discretionary power keeps reducing as one goes down the ranks. However, the lower ranking officers are the ones that have the mandate to operationalize activities related to crime. For instance, the law enforcement officers are the people who need to get evidence of a crime conducted in a place, rush to emergency security areas, and act accordingly. As such, when the ethical requirements seem different from the orders of a high-ranking officer, then the law enforcement officer then is with no option but to disregard the ethics and follow his superior. Sanders, Young, and Burton (2010) argue that discretion causes law enforcement officers to act unethically in several situations. For instance, because of discretion officers are forced to fabricate evidence, seek for guilt instead of truth, and fail to disclose evidence and handle proof poorly and also summarize statement with biases (Sanders et al., 2010). Moreover, it is unethical for a person to fabricate evidence when it is non-existent, then the officer’s ethical requirement should be to let go the case given that no evidence is available to proceed. Additionally, fabricating evidence may place the victim in an awkward position and suffer unjustly for something that they did not do. Law enforcement officers are also expected to exhibit the highest level of objectivity to promote justice, equality, and fairness. However, when discretion denies them such opportunity, it becomes apparent that people will continue suffering in the hands of them that should protect time. As a result, such a scenario crosses the ethical boundaries.

Supervisory Measures and Discretion

The primary challenge exists since it would be challenging to offer leadership to low-ranking officers who have more autonomy and discretion than the management. As such, supervisory measures must be in place to guard against misuse of this independence at the expense of the profession. Williamson (2000) suggests that it is increasingly becoming a paradox in the line of operational law enforcers who are supposed to act discretionally and report to their superiors who most of the time is away from them while on duty. For instance, a police officer is supposed to report to the sergeant who mostly spent his time in the office, while the officer carried out his duties with autonomy the whole time. This paradox at times presents various ethical implications given that should anything go wrong in the field, the high-ranking officer has no option but to believe the officer in the field. It would be expected that the police will uphold the highest level of integrity and professionalism like honesty even when such autonomy is allowed. As a result, the paradoxical situation remains given that there is a possibility of the operational police officers to misuse their autonomy. Such possibilities leave the high-ranking officer at a challenging position since accountability rests with the high ranking officer.

Quasi-Military Structure and Ethical Dilemma

The ethical dilemma that faces the law enforcement officers is because of the quasi-military structure given that they are in military and law enforcement such that their actions should reflect both professionals. Thus, when law enforcement officers use their power, there are times it will incline to military and others to the law depending on the occurrence. For instance, as a military officer, use guns to calm the situation something that may be regarded unethical by the public, but the common good would be to ensure the security of the most of the people. To complicate the situation is the fact that since sergeant roles are more administrative and the law enforcement officers may lack appropriate leadership while on the streets to decide on the most ethical action to take. To properly exercise discretion, it is essential that the wisdom of experienced supervisors be used to assist the junior officers who in most scenarios are absent as highlighted by Butterfield, Edwards, and Woodall (2005). In fact, discretion is most effective and efficient when it occurs under supervision as suggested by Gerstein and Prescott (2015). Without such supervision, discretion is likely to result in many unethical occurrences that continue to tarnish the name of the policing profession.

Using Discretion Within Ethical Boundaries

In addition, it is within the discretionary power of the law enforcement officers to use guns and shoot or stop an over speeding motorist, but that should always be done within ethical boundaries. Unfortunately, that is not the case always since issues of power misuse have hit the headlines especially in the United States where the shooting of the young Black American men is higher than that of the Native Americans like in Canada where anti-Black racism thrives as noted by Mullings, Morgan, and Quelleng (2016). Notably, all human beings are equal and have the right to protected by the law from inequality, poor treatment, and racism. As human equals, the law enforcers should apply objectivity such that both the Blacks and the Whites be treated equally even in a scenario where criminal activities have occurred. Ethically, police officers should shun profiling as it minimizes their ability to act in good faith at all times. The ethical challenge that exists is that it is not always possible to prove that such inequality happened as noted by Katznelson (2005).

Discretion Off Duty and Ethical Responsibility

Further, the ethical and discretionary challenge occurs given that law enforcement officers live in a neighborhood, have family and friends who expect them to behave differently when off duty or be a bit lenient. The society may expect the officer to uphold values that are common to the civilians and not hold on to the stringent discretionary requirements of the policing profession. When an officer is off duty and chooses to attend social functions, he/she still have the responsibility of acting as discreetly and ethically. For instance, the officer’s friends may expect loyalty and trust in their relationship which would be impossible in certain circumstances. For example, if an officer has been invited by his friend to a party and he realized that some individuals are taking drugs; two options can be taken with serious consequences for either choice. He can choose to ignore the situation and not take a legal action as that would be a betrayal of the friend. Professional discretion requires that the law enforcement officer take up the matter and carry the drugs as evidence and prosecution of the individuals to ensue. In such a scenario, professionally and ethically, the law enforcement officer should take the legal route although the friend may feel betrayed and that may terminate a friendship that was built over a long time. It is ethical and within professional discretion to take the legal route although that may be tough. Doing what is ethical and discrete may be a tough road that only the strong with personal values will be able to uphold in this time and age.

Finding Balance Between Discretion and Ethics

Professional discretion in law enforcement aims at efficiency but that should not supersede ethics or justice offered the citizens. As such, the professional discretion should be in line with ethical boundaries, and there are many situations that such has been made possible by the police officers. Nonetheless, the media and the society we live in seem to take consider and magnify the unethical practices and not take notice of situations that are just, fair and professional making the law enforcement to be termed as one that promotes injustice, inequality, and error. Discretion and ethics find common ground when the officer judges matters in such a way that the ultimate good for all is attained in the least harmful ways (Delattre, 2011). For example, when a criminal activity happens and investigations are scheduled to start, the law enforcement officer should treat every person in that locality as a potential culprit to the crime without judging based on the ethnic grounds of a person. In a situation where the bombing occurred by Arab man of the Muslim religion, other subsequent bombings should be treated without biases against Arab men but against other people as potential criminals. When such an approach becomes the practice of the law-enforcers, discretion and ethics fit perfectly. Professionally also, the law enforcement officers should be the hallmark of justice and the rule of law and mirrors of what is acceptable and right as noted by Bradford, Murphy, and Jackson (2014). In that scenario, the proper judgment to act accordingly based on the character of the officer find a leveled ground with the moral and ethical requirements. It is such situations, and responses that are discrete and ethical that promotes mutual trust between the law enforcers and the general public. If the law enforcers allowed discretion coupled with ethical boundaries to guide their decision, the police integrity would be preserved, and the deviance in behavior would reduce significantly.

Conclusion

In conclusion, since the law enforcement officers are faced with different situations every day with various expectations from the society and their superiors, it becomes apparent that they familiarize themselves with the ethical boundaries and professional discretion to promote the ultimate good for all the players. There are scenarios that professional discretion crosses the ethical boundaries maybe because of the professional structure of low moral values on the side of the law enforcement. It becomes challenging mainly because the junior level officers are sent to the streets without sufficient supervisory services and increased autonomy such that what may be judged as appropriate maybe unethical given that the experience of the officer is not adequate. Also, the ethical boundaries cross with the professional discretion when the structural goals of efficiency and respect to higher authority supersede the ethical and moral requirements of a functional society. Alternatively, there are scenarios that ethics and discretion find common ground especially when the character and personal values that are line with the ethics become central in the officer’s life when in operation. That balance requires an ethical person who goes beyond the law to evaluate matters in such ways that critical thinking is applied and justice and fairness are crucial.

References

Bradford, B., Murphy, K., & Jackson, J. (2014). Officers as mirrors: Policing, procedural justice and the (re) production of social identity. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 527-550.

Butterfield, R., Edwards, C., & Woodall, J. (2005). The new public management and managerial roles: The case of the police sergeant. British Journal of Management, 16(4), 329-341.

Delattre, E. J. (2011). Ethics in policing: Character and cops. Sixth Edition. The American Enterprise Institute Press. Washington, D.C.

Evans, T. (2016). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. Routledge.

Gerstein, C., & Prescott, J. J. (2015). Process costs and police discretion. Harv. L. Rev. F., 128, 268-288.

Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was white: An untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century America. WW Norton & Company.

Mullings, D. V., Morgan, A., & Quelleng, H. K. (2016). Canada the great white north where anti-black racism thrives: Kicking down the doors and exposing the realities. Phylon, 53(1), 20.

Sanders, A., Young, R., & Burton, M. (2010). Criminal justice. Oxford University Press.

Williamson, T. (2000). Policing: The changing criminal justice context—twenty-five years of missed opportunities. In F. Leishman, B. Loveday and S. Savage (eds) Core Issues in Policing, 2nd ed., pp. 9—29. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.