Justice

Discretion refers to the power of decision that police officers have as part of their job (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). Police discretion has some key features that make it necessary part of police work. Police have the power to choose what action they wish to take when finding an offender who has committed a crime. A small crime like a traffic infringement gives the police power to give the offender a warning instead of arresting the offender for something that is not too serious (Dempsey & Forst 2008). Police discretion also deals with some negative aspect including corruption, arability and unethical behaviour; for example an officer being racist. Racism is an unfortunate negative on police discretion with some police; predominantly in America abusing their power and taking more serious action against people of African- American decent (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). Police are more prepared and flexible than ever before with policies and guidelines to map out exactly what they should be doing in terms of using discretion in their day to day police activities. Police discretion means the availability of a choice of options or actions in a situation. It involves making a decision on how to best handle a situation from a group of options (Dempsey & Forst 2008). For example a police officer who stops a car because of a minor traffic violation (not stopping at a stop sign) has the choice to give you a fine or a warning (written or verbal). Police need to have this discretion because there is far too much crime to take the ultimate action for. Most crimes that are committed are minor and do not require full enforcement. The complete enforcement of all the laws would take up too much time and ultimately mean the police are on the street less protecting the people and maintaining order. It would also mean it would overwhelm the courts, jails and prisons if everyone who broke a law was caught and prosecuted. (Dempsey & Forst 2008). Police do not have discretion in all circumstances, if an officer witnesses a major felony like murder or breaking and entering they are required to arrest the offender and charge them with the offence. Police discretion is an inevitable part of policing; without it there would be more crime than there is in normal circumstances because the police officers will be overloaded and busy dealing with small petty crimes. Police have wide latitude in self- initiated situations, such as traffic or drug violations, because there is usually no complaint or victim demanding police action (Dempsey & Forst 2008). However in situations where an innocent citizen has been involved the police officer will have less discretion, and the preference of the citizen will often influence the officers decision on whether to arrest or not to arrest (Dempsey & Forst 2008). There are both advantages and disadvantages when it comes to police discretion. There are many positives that come with the use of police discretion. Police discretion gives the police officers a good range of flexibility when it comes to dealing with different sorts of crime. Officers have the power to handle small and overall insignificant crime problems with giving out warnings instead of wasting their time arresting the person. This leaves the police to be able to give their time dealing with the bigger issues and more serious crimes. For example being drunk in public; a police officer can and is legally able to give the person a fine for public drunkenness but rarely happens because it is considered a “victimless” crime and they usually are not a danger to anyone unless they are being violet towards other citizens. This is a positive for policing because it enables the police officers to deal with more serious crimes rather than small incidents. Another advantage in concern of crime prevention in police discretion is the police being able to patrol which areas they want too. For example if a police officer had an ordered route each night it would become easy for criminals to map out and commit crime at the times the police officers would not be around. Police discretion in this area gives the officers the freedom to mix up their routes and avoid leaving an area unprotected for a long period of time (Dempsey & Forst 2008). Despite the advantages of police discretion; there is also a range of disadvantages. While police discretion is seen as inevitable and essential, there is still an underlying fear that too much discretion can lead to arbitrary, corruption and unethical behaviour (Bronnitt, Stenning, 2011). One of the key aspects to police discretion is entrusting power to the individual officer; this can become a dangerous thing and can spiral out of control if the officer becomes unethical. (Bronnitt, Stenning, 2011). For example if an officer gives out a fine to a person because of their race or ethnicity; where they normally would not if the person was of white descent. Senior officers and the government have to keep to a strict formula when giving police officers the power to choose what laws they implement and which ones they let go. Domestic violence is one the largest areas of police discretion that is used most frequently. On many occasions police encounter female victims that will be uncooperative and don’t tell the police the true story of what happened. The problem this causes is that more often than not the police arrest no one and hence the offender gets away with the crime. Discretion is also used not just out in the streets; but in the police station as well. When a alleged victim comes forward the make an accusation the police have the discretion on whether there is enough evidence to officially make it an “incident” (Carcach & Makkai, 2002). This is a weakness because it doesn’t give the public and the police an accurate amount of crimes committed each year. If the police officer deems there to be not enough evidence to have the report investigated it means that the report will be thrown out meaning there will be a lot of unreported crime each year (Carcach & Makkai, 2002). Another problem with police discretion is that too much discretion can cause misconduct and can disrupt the relationship between the community and the police (Nowacki, 2011). Many people believe that police discretion is a “soft” option and it allows perpetrators to break the law. Therefore it is important that departments have a clear policy when it comes down to officer discretion. The use of deadly force by the police is the ultimate use of discretion. In police shooting officers are forced to make split second decisions on whether to use deadly force (Dempsey & Forst 2008). If they hesitate, they run the risk of becoming seriously injured, hurting an innocent citizen; or in the worst case scenario being killed. The discretion of using deadly force has a lasting impact for many reasons. If their decision is found to be wrong and that misused their discretion, they face public criticism and scrutiny from inside the police itself. Police are always going to be questioned on the amount of force they use in any situation. Especially with deadly force because the public will be more involved and the police officer will get harshly scrutinised on why they used deadly force ( Nowacki, 2011). As far back as the 1970s, many police departments established written policies and guidelines that assured the correct administration of the law to help control police discretion in terms of using deadly force. These policies reduced the number of shootings of civilians by the police and in turn reduced the amount of officers shot by civilians (Dempsey & Forst 2008). Most departments around the world have established a formal procedure for dealing with emotionally disturbed persons, police pursuits and critical issues. This is so police discretion in terms of deadly force in controlled and the police are aware of the right amounts of discretion they are empowered with. Much attention in recent years has been given to the need to prepare police for the appropriate amounts of discretion. Most researchers believe that discretion should be narrowed down to the point where all officers in the same agency are dealing with similar issues in similar ways (Dempsey & Forst 2008). They feel that police should have limits on discretion that reflects the objectives, priorities and operating philosophy of the department (Dempsey & Forst 2008). For example if a police officer gives a driver a warning for a drink driving offence instead of a fine and court summons; he is letting the offender avoid conviction in an area which the police are very strict about. The police should have no discretion for offences like this (drink driving) because the consequences of letting someone like that go can lead to citizen casualties and then leave the officer to face criticism over their decision. One common way to control improper use of discretion is to implement warning systems for police officers. These automatic systems detect the officer’s statistics with their involvement in crime every day. A high number of force incidents, vehicle pursuits, sick days and a high number of involvement in significant arrest; can result in he officers supervisor investigating and then giving the officer a warning( Dempsey & Forst 2008). The Phoenix police department in America was the first to bring in the system and it has been in place for many years now (Dempsey & Forst 2008). The geographical location of where you live and your race have a determining factor on police discretion. Relevant studies have found that African American people are over-represented in cases off deadly forces and crime in general (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). Research in America shows that a police officer was more likely to take formal action when the victim was white rather than black (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). Another deciding factor in term of race was if that the race of the officer determines how seriously some crime are taken. If the officer is of white descent then they were more likely to arrest black offenders (Dempsey & Forst 2008). In terms of gender discretion it was found that though males are more often arrested; females were given no extra discretion and were arrested if the offence they committed was bad enough to warrant an arrest (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). There are many different arguments for and against police discretion. It is proven fact that police discretion is a necessary ingredient to keep the streets safe and crime at a minimum. Police discretion gives the police a needed flexibility to enforce crime when needed. Whilst police always to the best of their ability try to enforce crime; they also need to have the flexibility to control crime and that means to not always arrest an offender but to also have options to warn them, give out a fine, investigate or report a crime. There are also negatives that come with police discretion. There is still a underlying fear that the use of police discretion will need to corruption, arbitrary and unethical behaviour (Bronitt & Stenning, 2011). Departments have to keep a strict eye on how their police officers use discretion and they don’t abuse their power. One of the major factors of police discretion is the option to use deadly force. The use of deadly force in the police is one of the most serious offences and has a lasting effect on everybody involved. For this reason it is important that it is being controlled correctly and all police departments have policies and guidelines so that they can control the use of deadly force. Your race has a factor on how you are treated with police distraction. Research shows that police are more likely to take action if you are of African- American decent. (Boivin & Cordeau, 2011). Despite having some flaws police Discretion is a necessary ingredient and can be controlled so we can continue having a safe and crime reduced environment.