Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Police in a Democratic Society Essay
Police operation in a democratic society is characterized by several features, such as the allowance of the exercise of discretion while in the performance of official duties (Fairchild). Indeed, the use of discretion is a common feature in the exercise of powers by different practitioners in the field of criminal justice (Fairchild). The role of discretion in the criminal justice system is more critical than in any other discipline because it is here that the power of the state is aligned against the individual (Fairchild). For example, individuals face the possibility of loss of life, liberty and property as a consequence of conviction or mere accusation of the commission of a crime (Fairchild). Among the practitioners who are given discretion in the criminal justice system are correctional staff, police officers, and court-related personnel (Jones & Kerbs, 2007).            In particular, police discretion as a concept and a policy has developed largely because of the realization that the administration of justice is far from perfect (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). The imperfection lies in the failure of the criminal justice system to meet four necessary elements in the dispensation of perfect justice (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). These elements concern the absolute ability to apprehend law violators, identify law violators, identify the intent of law violators, and punish law violators (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). The dispensation of justice depends primarily on the actions of those individuals to whom it was entrusted, such as police officers, prosecutors and judges (Jones & Kerbs, 2007).            Discretion in the criminal justice system is not being employed by police officers alone. Other officers, such as court-related personnel, probation and parole officers, and correctional staff are also allowed to exercise discretion in the performance of their duties (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). The exercise of discretion by officers from different departments and jurisdictions of the law enforcement community all interrelate to the effective administration of justice.            Among court-related personnel, prosecutors and judges are the ones who use discretion the most (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). For example, prosecutorial discretion is exercised during plea negotiations or plea-bargaining (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). Prosecutors also exercise discretion in choosing the cases that should be presented before a grand jury (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). On the other hand, judges exercise discretion in handing down their decisions and rulings (Jones & Kerbs, 2007). Meanwhile, correctional personnel exercise discretion in coordinating programs in the supervision of offenders. In particular, discretion is exercised in the treatment of certain infractions and the decision to write disciplinary reports (Jones & Kerbs, 2007).            Police discretion, while it is very helpful in maintaining balance in the enforcement of laws, should be controlled in order to remove issues such as racism and discrimination that have been controversial in the past decades (Pepinsky, 1984). One example of a problem involving the exercise of police discretion is the perceived difference in police treatment of women vis-à -vis men, and whites vis-à -vis blacks (The New York Times Company, 2004). According to a Boston Globe study of police records, it is posited that women and whites are more likely to receive earnings rather than tickets, compared to their men and black counterparts, when they get stopped for identical traffic offenses (The New York Times Company, 2004). However, some police officers justify their decision to simply issue warnings on their belief that they are effective teaching tools to the public, compared to the issuance of tickets (The New York Times Company, 2004).            Discrepancies in the treatment of offenders, such as the one reported above, and consequently the negative perception on the abuse of discretion by police officers, can be accomplished by having clear rules that would identify good from bad discretion (Pepinsky, 1984). References Fairchild, E. S. Enforcement of Police and Law Enforcement Policy. Organiational        Structure and Control of Discretion in Police Operations, 442-449. Jones, M. & Kerbs, J. J. (2007). Probation and Parole Officers and Discretionary          Decision-Making: Responses to Technical and Criminal Violations. [Electronic        version]. Federal Probation 71(1), 9-16. Pepinsky, H. E. (1984). Better Living through Police Discretion. Law and Contemporary            Problems 47(4), 249-267. The New York Times Company. (2004). Retrieved November 11, 2007, from            http://www.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/tickets/072103.shtml
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.