Police force tasks

The police force is tasked with monitoring states and human behaviors in order to promote crime management and peacekeeping. However, only a thin line separates what the police are supposed to do based on the law and what many consider a breach of the law. According to Cihan and Wells (2011), police officers do the majority of their responsibilities alone, with little to no supervision. When confronted with such issues, the police force may exercise police discretion. In such cases, officers are expected to make the correct and ethical judgment on their own. Similarly, several levels of choice are required. The purpose of this paper is to describe the nature, levels, and purpose of discretion to the police and identify the control mechanisms for the same.

Police Discretion

According to Hough and Tyler (2011), police discretion is a purpose-driven decision-making authority that the law enforcers have allowing them to devise decisions on whether to follow the defined police procedures or tone down depending on the current situation. However, when in practice, police discretion may vary from different circumstances. As such, the police have the liberty to decide whether or not they will arrest a person, issue a warning, draw out their weapons and fire them or draw out the weapons to apprehend their suspects and whether or not to perform searches on suspects. However, in most cases, appealing to the police discretion is tantamount, to avoiding substantial legal charges and ramifications (Jackson, Huq, Bradford, & Tyler, 2013).

A good case in which the police have to decide on their own is when a person over-speeds by accident. When police stop the driver and finds that the individual is not drunk, the officers will have to rely upon the driver’s information. Cihan and Wells (2011) claim that depending on the explanation of the offender, the police may understand the situation and let them off without apprehending the culprits, or use the laid legal procedures and arrest the criminal. Police discretion has various advantages and disadvantages. The benefits of police discretion lie on the benefits that the community obtains through the activities and decisions that the police make. However, the disadvantages are primarily of the impact of some of the decisions the police make in the course of their duty.

Advantages of Police Discretion

First, maintaining order in streets is achieved. Moreover, the decisions protect both life and property. For instance, when a driver has a stench of liquor from their mouth, and the officer stops and identifies the smell, the most obvious decision is to apprehend the offender. Through arresting the drunk driver, the police will have protected both the life of the driver and those of other civilians while at the same time preventing the property damage in the event the driver causes any accident. Cihan and Wells (2011) assert that police have the authority and mandate to decide which decision to enact and if it is ethical in the situation on the police caution levels. The approach is helpful to both the police and the departments of the officers in ensuring that they engage their mind in thinking and reasoning.

Disadvantages of Police Discretion

However, one of the problems of police discretion is the clouding of the cops’ judgement by the personal beliefs and interests. According to Cihan and Wells (2011), police officers may use the situation at hand for their benefits through either bribe or another form of concern. Moreover, the officers may judge and apprehend persons based on their past criminal records and interactions with the particular officer even though they may not have engaged in any unlawful activity at the given time. Another disadvantage is the misuse of power. Cihan and Wells (2011) argue that some police officers, following the power vested in them, may opt to apprehend civilians even if they are innocent in some circumstances, just to prove that they have the authority to arrest persons with their reasons.

Effectiveness of Police Discretion

The police must have a form of authority and control over the citizens to enforce laws. The level to which they use this power and for what purpose defines how effective they are in their jobs. According to Phillips (2016), police discretion is helpful and efficient in deterring crime and fostering peace. However, some factors affect and control the choices and decisions of the police. The factors are the control mechanisms, which include internal and external control mechanisms, citizens, legal, and court control mechanisms.

Control Mechanisms

Internal Control Mechanisms

According to Hough and Tyler, (2011), internal control mechanisms are the factors within the police force that directly impact and monitor the level of police discretion. These factors are important and include the regulations by the police departments, professional conducts, considerations, and the codes of police conduct. The police force rules and regulations define and control the professional reactions and behaviors of police officers. According to Talai (2014), some set performance standards that must be measured and monitored within the internal police structure.

Failure to execute internal control mechanisms effectively in the police structure, may spur confusion leading to unethical and wrong use of authority by the force. In this regard, it would be of vital importance for the law enforcement policymakers to consider the development of more reliable and efficient strategies to control police discretion. According to Jackson et al., (2013), monitoring of the police behaviours, activities, and operations assist in understanding the degree of law conformity during enforcement.

It is important to train the cops through professional and experienced personnel to control the cops discretion. According to Hough and Tyler, (2011), training of the police officers would instil comprehension regarding law enforcement rather than using the choice to break and go against the law. For instance, the Youth Offenders Act developed to control police discretion, comprises of many articles describing the standards expected by the police through highlighting the lawful and unlawful events and procedures that law enforces must understand (Cihan, & Wells, 2011). Thus, police officers may be trained and educated on the procedures described and emphasis made on the proper use of police discretion in law enforcement.

External Control Mechanisms

Police officers, apart from advocating for the law, have their own families and communities. According to Mastrofski, Jonathan-Zamir, Moyal and Willis, (2016), the police officers, without their uniforms, are ordinary civilians and have relatives to whom they are accountable. As such, these people directly or indirectly influence how they police practice their discretion professionally. According to Phillips, (2016), these external factors, including the relatives, friends, and acquaintances, who directly and indirectly influence the cops discretion, are termed as external control mechanisms.

Through the daily interactions of the police, friends and relatives, a room may surface where the police misuse or fail to apply the cops discretion, thereby allowing various activities that are unlawful to go by unpunished. Some of the activities engaged in by the police family members such as corruption and selective justice go unpunished since the offenders are, in a way, related to the police officer (Cihan & Wells, 2011). Due to the relationship, the officers fail to use the cops discretion and thus ignore their offenses. However, if the same actions are to be perpetrated by other civilians, the most probable action that the police would take is apprehension of the offenders or issue warnings to them since they have no relation in any way. Cihan and Wells (2011) claim that the officers may also harbour a negative attitude towards these law offenders.

Following the existence of the outside relationships that render the force unfair in law administration enforcement and justice, it is important for the law enforcers to understand the expectations of the communities they serve. According to Brucato (2015), the city expects that the police will not consider their relationships first but will factor out the potential harm of activities that offenders engage in, and undertake the necessary measures. The public expects that the behavior of the police officers, interventions, and practices should be unbiased. Therefore, family relations should not bias police discretion.

Control by the Citizens

Hough and Tyler (2011) explain that citizens, despite many of the law offenders emanating from the lot, play a significant role in the management and monitoring of police discretion. The policy decisions involving the citizens have two categories, that is, the law offenders who behave in a way that police officers must intervene, and the civilians who require assistance from police officers on various matters. According to Cihan and Wells, (2011), citizens, therefore, have the power and ability to appeal to the police discretion and hence influence the police behavior in their workplaces. The public can only appeal to the practice of policies through the provision of valid and lawful genuine reasons. However, appealing through deceitful actions and bribes aimed at influencing the decisions of the police to favor the civilians is regarded as unlawful (Cihan & Wells, 2011).

If the legal and genuine reasons convince the law enforcers to excuse their behaviors, take situations as less severe or give warnings instead of apprehending the law offenders, the public will have controlled the police discretion (Brucato, 2015). For instance, if a police officer stops a driver for overspending and the victim gives a genuine and valid reason for over speeding, the officer may excuse the culprit’s behavior and issue a warning instead of effecting apprehension. Moreover, the offender may provide a detailed account of their adherence to the law and admit to committing an offense by over speeding, and otherwise request the officer to pardon their behavior. According to Talai (2014), the police can decide to have a lighter punishment to the law offenders through examining their profile and understanding the genuine response from the offender. In this regard, it is evident that the citizens have the power to define the police discretion through proper means and legitimate reasons (Hough & Tyler, 2011).

Legislative Control

Various legal procedures and policies are established to monitor and maintain the extreme force that the police officers have when handling criminals and law offenders. For instance, the New York City Police Department has implemented the ‘defines of life’ which is responsible for maintaining the practice of the police. According to Mastrofski et al., (2016), the policy has been adopted by other police departments, thereby resulting in a drop of 50% in the total number of cases involving civilian death especially through shooting within 1972 and 1986. These statistics show that legislative regulations controls the police discretion. However, domestic violence, drug-related crimes, terrorism, robbery with violence, and police threatening are among the criminal activities with which the police have to follow the regulations and have zero tolerance (Cihan & Wells, 2011).

Control by the Courts

The courts of law have the final ruling regarding cases involving any citizen in any given country. According to Brucato, (2015), the courts have the ability, mandate to determine and measure the police discretion through proper and fair ruling. The courts of law judges have the responsibility to rule justly and provide a fair trial regarding cases that involve misuse of authority by the police. Through the fair trial, the court discourages the police from misusing their power on the civilians and from making wrong choices. Moreover, the court’s fair ruling bar the police from engaging in selective judgment and discrimination, thus improving the level of fairness in justice administration to the police (Cihan & Wells, 2011).

The court ruling concerning the police as either innocent or guilty has important implications for the conduct of these law enforcers. The cases of the police being guilty incur hefty fines and consequences that most people would not want. According to Jackson et al., (2013), the court uses the police law conduct and the expected standards in providing a judgment on their actions. If under these legal regulations, the police officer is found to have misused their power and authority, legal actions are undertaken to deter the same from the offenders and other police officers who might have engaged in the same either knowingly or unknowingly (Cihan & Wells, 2011).

Conclusion

Police discretion is essential to law enforcement since it determines the decisions, behaviors, and conduct of the police under different situations while enforcing the law. However, the choices made by police officers while on duty regarding criminal activities could either be within the legal boundaries or against the law. Misusing police discretion for personal or family-related benefits is against the law. Hefty penalties are charged to the law enforcer following violation. Governing police discretion is enacted through control mechanisms entailing internal controls, external controls, the citizen’s control, legislative monitoring and court’s control mechanisms. The said control mechanisms govern the techniques and procedures used by the police in different situations. In this regard, police discretion and their ability to enforce laws is controlled by these factors. The aforementioned guides the police officer’s conduct, their behaviors and practices.

References

Brucato, B. (2015). Policing made visible: Mobile technologies and the importance of point of view. Surveillance & Society, 13(3/4), 455. From http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.960.388&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Cihan, A., & Wells, W. (2011). Citizens’ opinions about police discretion in criminal investigations. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 34(2), 347-362. From https://doi.org/10.1108/13639511111131120

Hough, M., & Tyler, T. R. (2011). Why Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions. From http://www.academia.edu/download/41970924/SSRN_why_do_people_comply_with_the_law_F20160203-9602-jp4fm1.pdf

Jackson, J., Huq, A. Z., Bradford, B., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Monopolizing force? Police legitimacy and public attitudes toward the acceptability of violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 479. From http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/50262/1/Jackson_Monopolizing_force_2013.pdf

Mastrofski, S. D., Jonathan-Zamir, T., Moyal, S., & Willis, J. J. (2016). Predicting procedural justice in police–citizen encounters. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 119-139. From http://americanuniversitylawreview.com/pdfs/64/64.5/Stumpf.pdf

Phillips, S. W. (2016). Police Discretion and Boredom: What Officers Do When There Is Nothing to Do. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 45(5), 580-601. From http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0891241615587385

Talai, A. B. (2014). Drones and jones: The fourth amendment and police discretion in the digital age. Cal. L. Rev., 102, 729. From http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4244&context=californialawreview