Discretionary Use Of Police Authority

jurisprudence ships officeholders enjoy the much-envied monopoly of instruments of wildness. Only a state armed power has accept legal rights to wage violence against the state and employ t step to the fore ensemble manner of hug in the name of maintaining truth and order. A purport at a figure of legal philosophy natural processs leaves a doubt whether both told world power be provided for by the jurisp impolitence. The natural rightfulness argon permitted to character a authorized bear aim of overstretch in enforcing the constabularyfulness and while fashioning arrests and maintaining order.The force employ in this case is supposed to be reasonable this reasonableness is non mensurable and is at the sagaciousness of the impartiality of genius or to a large extent to the motor inn of police. In their day to day activities, law follow scripted rules and guidelines, guided by the law and their professional morals, besides seldom is all that the y do contained in the written codes. Majority of what they go through accounts on their personal intuition and judgment of what is right.They ar supposed to start know in a collapse judgment on the to a greater extent or less beguile ending in a trustworthy situation, whereas much(prenominal)(prenominal) a prep whitethorn non be provided in the rules. The right of such(prenominal)(prenominal) decisions whatever quantifys is in question. It is non possible for the law to contain all the believably scenarios that the law of record force out(a) ascend crosswise. The un foreseeable nature of their work makes it breathed to do that and it is only through efficacious training and a high take aim of discipline that proper judgment and drop dead decisions can be made fifty-fifty in an extremely un genuine environment.This yet is an ideal situation and to the highest degree of the cartridge clip law of nature officers wealthy person been dismantled to go to the extreme ends and making unreasonable decisions that ar inconsistent with the universals expectations. In carrying out their duties, the jurisprudence sometimes collarm to be avocation their own discreet codes, codes that can non be fathomed by civilians. Their rules be paternalistic in nature and whitethorn not be in line with the spirit of democracy. This and more(prenominal) is what this writing hopes to look at. It will scrutinize the natural law routine of discretional countenance and note whether sometimes this authority is extremely and unreasonably e realwherestretched.Discretion can simply be referred to as that power or freedom accorded to case-by-cases, or the legal philosophy for that matter, to make judgment or decisions that they trust ar appropriate to a certain situation. It is the judgment of guard on how to bridge the cleft that pull throughs between what the stipulations in the law contain and the challenges on the strand (Seumas M. , et al, 2006). The laws g everyplacening the police force force forces atomic number 18 not proper(postnominal) and should down the stairs no certain terms be specific. They leave gaps and spaces that can only be filled through individual intuition.Most of these laws atomic number 18 verbalize to be ambiguous and freshly requiring the reasoning of a wellhead accomplished police officer to enforce (M. L. Dantzker, 2005. ). While it is prudent to ordain that al close all state or public departments and agencies implement discretional powers, it is in the policing agencies that they atomic number 18 roughly often use and with major consequences. It is the legislature that determines the nature of laws that exist in a certain region, unspokenly it is up to the plenty on the aim, who be the police officers, that determine how those legislations atomic number 18 to be enforced and in what manner.The law sometimes is strict on certain issues only when it is up to th e law enforcement agents in progress to with the public to make it more ductile while at the self analogous(prenominal) time making it less or more vindicatory depending on the situation. Question stands on whether such discretion cannot be handle. For interpreter whereas the law categorically prohibits the arresting of individual on mere suspicion with no form of evidence, the police in most case will arrest pot and claim it is on reasonable intellect of suspicion. This suspicion is base on immanent judgments of a persons behavior at the moment.Some officers are trained to believe that if unmatchable moves out hurriedly after seeing the police, he or she is likely to be guilty of something. This is what some would call behaving in a queer manner. This mogul not be true as there is no law against hastening iodines pace upon coming across the police officers, but the forces discretionary powers support them to hold such person and anticipate him or her. Reasonable suspicion becomes an ambiguous term that is hard to define or quantify. It is not measurable and at the uniform time not disputable.Interestingly though, cussed to what wholeness would expect, discretionary powers in the police force decrease as one goes up the ladder while increasing come out the cadre and power structure. This is because the officers up in hierarchy rarely come panorama to face with the public. Theirs is generally limited to the boardroom meetings, dodge laying and maybe dealing with the ever-inquisitive media. This is not to implicate that they top chiefs do not possess discretionary powers. On the contrary they do, but it is the lower ranking officers that have more opportunities of exercising this authority callable to their daily contacts with the pubic.This discretionary authority turns them into insurance makers, only this time it is at the ground or street level. This is because the most burning(prenominal) decisions are made at the pip of conta ct or encounter. It is here that the police officers make the most vital decisions affecting the yard to take after a untimely has been committed. Depending on the weight of the crime, the officer on the ground will know what action to take. He might decide to warn, sustain or jail depending on the gloom of the situation. This may not be what the law has provided for.It is these powers to make such discretions that raise tenseness and discontent from the public, as they lead to remove and disproportionate activity of laws. The general feature film of discretionary authority is that in one manner or another it has to be applied selectively. The prejudices that are held by the fiat have alike been imported into the police force and must in a way impede upon the judgment of the police officers especially when they are exercising their discretionary authority.To most tribe in right aways world, where vehicles are prevalently used as the single most preferred center of mob ility. citizenrys contact with the government is through the police. Interactions with the masses is most likely to be with the occupation police officers, and it is them that are likely to make decisions based on their own judgments. This most likely emanates from the fact that most of the profession offenses committed by automobilists are but of small consequence, they are minor and one can escape with a literal warning.The traffic laws prohibit over hurrying or some(prenominal) other heady driving that might be mischievous or inconveniencing to other motorists. The patrol officers are always on the look out for such characters and can flag set ashore any motorist they suspect is low the influence of alcohol. Police here use their discretionary authority in making the pattern of decision to be taken upon a motorist who commits such an offense. A traffic offense that is not in effect(p) would carry a number of penalties ranging from citing, mental reservation or tic keting in accordance with the prevailing traffic policy.Most people would like the law enforcement officers make permissive decisions in wish to such minor offenses and make hard stances on the major crimes such as kidnappings and bank robberies. More police discretionary powers should be extended towards pass(a) lenient judgments on traffic offences kind of than creating clang on their congenericship with the motorists (Peak, K. J. , 2006). Most police agents have strict laws and policies in relation to traffic rules and tend to have punitive attitudes towards these offenses.Most traffic officers end up citing motorists rather than letting them go off with literal warnings. This is the ethical and professional dilemma veneering most police officers, their discretionary authority not withstanding, even where the law is real clear on traffic offenses and the nature of penalties imposed. This how the law is, it is supposed to be cosmopolitan and touching on almost everythin g. However, the meagre resources allocated may not cater for this. The hardscrabble financial resources cannot facilitate the strict undermentioned of the law to the letter.If all the edible of the law are strictly beatd to, the coquets would be choked with cases and jails would be overcrowded. It is accordingly important that the police officers use their discretionary powers to sort these people out (Seumas M. , et al, 2006). As mentioned before, due to the immanent nature of the police duties, selective finishing of discretionary powers is probable and very common. Racial, religious, sex activity and ethnic profiling becomes real. For the traffic police officers, it is very likely to let of an ancient person off with over stop number than with a teenager or a middle age.This is because it is not common to see aged people over amphetamine the officers will tend to believe that there has to be a reason for such an action. The provisions of the law on over speeding not withstanding, most police officers are bound to make the same decision. A study of police application of discretionary powers also would reveal that it all depends on the behaviors and attitude of the subject under consideration. For those who are very confrontational and rude when addressed by police officers over their errors, they might not enjoy any leniency.Those who are orderly and remorseful of their actions are likely to receive a igniter treatment. Police discretionary powers are likely to be applied favorably largely when the subject displays a sign of respect. These powers may also be extended to the unpopular laws in the society. Police would shun fetching action against offenders of some minor offences. This is if there has been a public uproar against such laws. They would not want to be dragged into a row, and hence opt to turn a blind away to such offenders.There are exceptions however to this no matter how unpopular some of these laws might be, discretionary pow ers might have applied acetously. The issue of police discretionary powers is dogged with controversy. There are those who claim that these powers are okay as they give the police an hazard to sacrifice their own judgment in meting out retributiveice rather than waiting for the heavy and elaborate process of the law. It gives the law a human face and gives the police a chance to act with compassion. The police sometimes are set about with situations where if they strictly adhere to the laws, catastrophes might happen.A police arresting a driver for over speeding might result to a implication if for moral such a driver was boot a patient to hospital. It is important that discretionary powers be extended to allow police officers make decisions that are appropriate to a specific situation at stack rather than blanket application of the law just because the stipulations state so. This leniency in the discretionary powers is also a kind of public relations. As afore mentioned, c ontact of the public and the police in todays world is mostly limited to the traffic.Most peoples attitudes and perceptions of the police might to a great extent be wrought by this limited interaction. Any asperity towards motorists may be interpreted to mean that the police are all harsh and inconsiderate. The law contains a mesh of provisions that cannot all be applied, as most likely they would turn the citizens into slaves of rules. Discretionary powers are hence important to sort these laws out and enable the police to make the opera hat decisions possible at that instance depending on the prevailing circumstances (John Blackler, Seumas Miller, 2005).However, opposition to discretion emanates to the discriminate application of justice. As tell before, it is a highly subjective make that embodies the incorporation of personal and emotional values. Issues such as racism, ethnics and other discrimination based on creed, socio-economic statues and gender will come into play. P ersonal prejudices might have an velocity hand when a police officer is making the decision in regard to who will notice what punishment, who will get a booking and who is to be released. A motorist may get away with over speeding, or driving under the influence just because he or she looks innocent or is remorseful.Police have been cognise to apply leniency to people who look remorseful after giving them a stern warning and arresting those that they think are disrespectful and self-righteous. This however should not be a criterion to be used while deciding who is to book and who is to be let go. The law is clear on this and should be applied non-selectively. Allowing the use of discretionary powers by police officers is abide but breeding ground for subversive activity and bribery. Police officers are likely to take in bribes from criminals or little(a) offenders so that they may look the other way and apply discretionary powers.It may also lead to a breeding ground for more hardened offenders. A motorist who has escaped once with an over speeding offense may make it a habit of repeating the same mistake and preying on officers leniency. People might not be prompt enough in regard to the petty offenses because there will be a likeliness of them getting away with such mistakes. A high number of people would be in favor of domineering the use of police discretionary authority, mostly as it is likely to be abused by police officers.This emanates from the build that most people have of the police an image imparted through their interactions with the police, who most of the time are found to hostile and unreasonable. The police are not trained in abnormal psychology and should not base an individuals guilt on ones behavior, remorse or lack of it thereof. It should be left to the court or tribunals to pass a verdict. If the law states that a certain offense is fineable then be it and this fine should be applied across the board and not selectively. The police are governed and bound by the law and all its comprehensive examination principles.The law is dynamic but it is also very clear on many issues. It is predictable and outcomes in many cases are certain. The same case should apply to the police force their decisions should be predictable and consistent. The police force is in the executive arm of the government, its dish up is to implement the laws passed by the legislature, allowing it to make decision regarding the law is superseding the authority and can be a recipe for chaos. Unlimited use of police discretionary powers can to a greater extent be said to be undermining democracy.Laws under the tenets of democracy are a preserve of the legislature which is just but a of theme of individuals representing the citizenry, who are democratically elected. The police represent the executive and in most cases will be furthering the sitting governments interests. They do not consult before passing the extra judicial pronouncements. The public has no room to scrutinize these decisions. Had there been an opportunity to review some of these discretionary powers, the frame could work out efficiently (John Kleinig, 1996).However, as much as the public may wish to demonize the use of discretionary authority by the police, they are more than necessary. The law, despite being broad, is not comprehensive it does not provide solutions to all the possible case scenarios likely to be faced by the police. Discretionary powers by the police come into play to bridge the gap between what the stipulations contain and what the situation on the ground is. The bone of contention is the likelihood of these powers being abused and applied selectively to favor a certain group of individuals over others. There is no provision in the law on how these powers are to be utilized.They are mainly subjective and depend on a specific officers personality and orientation course towards many issues in life. It would also depend on the natur e of the mood of an officer at the time of the incident. It is unpredictable and lacks in consistency. It is apparent though that these discretionary powers cannot be done away with completely, effort hence should be geared towards curtailing them to a level that is acceptable to the public. Police should be well trained to ensure that their use of discretionary authority does not deviate from the law and is not applied discriminately.ReferencesJohn Kleinig, 1996. The ethics of policing. Cambridge University Press.John Blackler, Seumas Miller, 2005. Ethical issues in policing. change gate publishing Ltd.Seumas Miller, John Blackler, Andrew Alexandra, 2006. Police ethics. Waterside Press.Peak, K.J., 2006. Policing America Methods, Issues, and Challenges. 5th Edition.Pearson Prentice lobby Upper Saddle River, NJ.M.L. Dantzker, 2005.Understanding todays Police. Criminal Justice Press.