Recent orders
Police discretion takes different meanings in relation to the person defining it
Police discretion takes different meanings in relation to the person defining it. Some theorists term it as the free will to make choices according to a particular situation. Others consider it to be the opposite of routine and habitual obedience, bringing in knowledge, skills and insight to provide a solution to a particular situation (Terrill, 2008). Discretion is also taken as discernment where an individual seeks to make good, virtuous choices by habit or wisdom that comes with experience (O’Connell, 2007). It includes making autonomous and individual decisions that take courage to have personal input in situations arising in one’s place of work. Others see it as a privilege to go against the rules, disobey one’s superiors without violating the rules or eroding the trust between them and their superiors or the public (Engel, 2009). However, it does not entail doing what one pleases but is bound by the norms which range from professional norms to societal norms and the legal and moral norms. An abuse of discretion is on the other hand seen as the failure by an individual to take into proper consideration the facts and law relating to a particular situation.
The public is however dissatisfied with how the police officials are handling criminals. The way some are treated leaves a great deal of unwarranted questions on the impartiality of the police force. From research, it has been found out that individuals create an impression on the police officers who decide on what to do to you when they apprehend you. Black males have been victims of harsh treatment while those that act with deference (good demeanor) towards the police are treated more leniently (O’Connell, 2007; Engel, 2009). Serious crimes are given more attention than minor crimes while cases where more acts of resistance are witnessed cause police overreaction. These variables create varied reactions towards individual discretion. Use of force has been regarded as one of the worst abuse of discretion observed by the police force. As a matter of fact, cases of increased police harassment have increased causing a public outcry. Police are using incapacitating tools to get criminals to confess. Human rights activists have accused them of going against the law to get their job done.
The police on the other hand defend their actions by citing different cases. For instance, they claim there is a great deal of ambiguity in some of the policies created leaving them to interpret the laws as would deem fit. They further cite that communities do not fully define what criminal activities are and how they are supposed to be punished. Thus, this leaves them with no choice but to act as they see befitting (Goldstein, 2007). In other cases, they were faced with cases that warranted different causes of action. For instance, domestic violence is a very delicate issue. Female victims have been found to be uncooperative while the arrest of the breadwinner could prove to be hurtful to the family (Terrill, 2008). Thus, they look for alternatives such as mediation, counseling or social referrals. With such kind of decisions to be made, the police deem it fit to use all means to maintain law and order in a country as mandated by the law.
Some cases may however warrant use of force to quell public disorder. Such measures may be taken to dissuade another party from a particular course of action or physically intervene to stop them from going on with their activities. This use of force is however to be done according to the statutes provided (Goldstein, 2007). Force may be used when the lawbreaker refuses to desist or flees, or attempts to, from a serious scene of crime. The amount of force applied is permissible under the circumstances present. The principle of proportionality should be applied when applying force for defensive purposes to minimize the loss of life. Thus, proper utilization of powers and discretion in particular is vital for the continuity of a state. The police force should be responsible in handling the public to improve communication trust between the two entities. This will ease the rates of criminality in the locality.
References:
Engel, R. S. 2009. police supervisory styles: influence to patrol officer behavior. Research for Practice, National Institute of Justice. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Goldstein, Herman. 2007. Policing a Free Society: Categorizing and structuring discretion Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
O’Connell, Mary Ellen (2007). “Proportionality and the Use of Force in Conflict”. Jurist: Legal News and Research. Bernard J. Hibbitts. Retrieved 02nd November, 2010. HYPERLINK “http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/proportionality-and-use-of-force-in.php” http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/07/proportionality-and-use-of-force-in.php.
Terrill, William 2008. Situational-based determinants of police coercion. Justice Quarterly 19(2):215-248.
Decision analysis tree
Decision analysis tree
Doug wants to determine the possible action for an asset worth $25000 that he bought long ago, an investor is offering Doug $275000 for the asset. If the real estate market goes through a boom, he will lose $1.5 million, if the market remains high, he will gain $4 million dollars. There are two options that Doug has to go for either to develop the site or sell the site;
Options develop the sitesell the site
Bad market conditions$1.5 million0
Good market conditions$4 million$275000
3400425774700025908002108200 $4 million
3505200-127000847725381000015240039814425000
0025000
$1.5million
3571875369570007715255797550079057525590500 $1.5 million
354330027305000350520048387000 $1.5 million
$0
Therefore the overall decision is to develop the site, since there is a higher return from developing the site than disposing it to the buyer.
Problem 2:
Cutler-Hammer was offered an option (at a cost of $50,000) giving it the chance to obtain a license to produce and sell a new flight safety system. The company estimated that if it purchased the option, there was a 0.30 probability that it would not obtain the license and a 0.70 probability that it would obtain the license. If it obtained the license, it estimated there was a 0.85 probability that it would not obtain a defense contract, in which case it would lose $700,000. There was a 0.15 probability it would obtain the contract, in which case it would gain $5.25 million.
If Cutler-Hammer wants to maximize its expected return, use a decision tree to show whether or not the company should purchase the option. What is the expected payoff?
Suppose the company after purchasing the option, can sublicense the system. Suppose there was a 95% chance of zero profit and a 5% chance of a $1,000,000 profit. Would this new alternative change your decision above?
Cost = $50000, C
Probability not to obtain the license = 0.3, P(N)
Probability to obtain the license =0.7, P(O)
If the license is obtained;
Probability not to obtain a defense contract = 0.85, P(D)
Lose = $700000
Probability to obtain a defense contract = 0.15, P(NO)
5334000200660P(D)
00P(D)
Gains = $5.25 million
28384506604000Decision tree;
2295525253365P(0)
00P(0)
3009900119380054292511938000
5410200327660P(NO)
0P(NO)
26574752145665P(N)
00P(N)
54292510312400028575574040C
00C
expected pay-off = P(O) P(D)
=0.7(700000)
=$49000
Expected pay-off =P(O) P(NO)
=0.7(5.25)
=$3.675 million
No, the decision couldn’t have changed my option since there is higher returns in the first option than the later, hence, I would opt going with the probability that it would be obtained without a defense contract.
Police Demeanor
Police Demeanor
Name
Institution
Abstract
The fact that the public surrenders its right to use force to the police force means that such authority must be used with discretion. As such, a good command of one’s temper is of paramount importance, more so considering that police officers are exposed to various challenging situations. Further, the demeanor of a police officer also matters, considering that it massively influences public opinion and as a result the goodwill police officers enjoy from the public. The need for proper demeanor and self control can, therefore, not be understated and as such a number of measures can be employed to improve demeanor.
Police Demeanor
In any profession where human interaction forms a huge part of the day to day activities, effective communication and self control are very important towards maintaining what can be considered acceptable demeanor. This applies even more to police officers, as the need to obtain the goodwill of citizens is of particular importance, and proper demeanor goes a long way towards securing the goodwill necessary for a collaborative relationship necessary for effective policing to exist (Banks, 2009). Further, public opinion according to a study carried out by the United States Department of Justice (2003) is very important, as positive public opinion results in a situation whereby the community feels they share responsibility with the police when it comes to law enforcement. Positive public opinion therefore results in a safer and more orderly neighborhood, and considering the fact that demeanor plays an important role in shaping public opinion, maintaining proper demeanor through self control is very crucial.
In addition, considering the stressful and provocative nature of police work, command of temper as well as self control, are very important traits a police officer must have. This is more so considering that police officers have not only been given the power to deprive individuals of their freedom, but also the right to use force, at times even lethal force. This means that the kind of authority and power bestowed upon them must be used with utmost discretion and objective judgment, which is impossible without proper command of one’s temper or self control.
Personally, I do not think that enough has been done to develop proper demeanor amongst police officers. Even though a number of police and law enforcement agencies have tried to put in place various programs that are aimed at improving the officers’ capabilities of dealing with conflict, and therefore by extension stressful situations, these programs alone are not enough, more so considering that most training curricula do not incorporate such training. Further, the conditions within which police officers are forced to operate serve to heighten the difficulty of the tasks, putting them under greater pressure and in most cases without clear guidelines on how to approach unique and challenging situations. The amount of scrutiny they are under also makes matters worse, as the lack of clarity makes exercising discretion objectively difficult (Fyfe, 1979), creating volatile situations in which exercising self control becomes more difficult. In addition, not enough effort has been put into highlighting how important demeanor is when it comes to dealing with members of the public, not just when making arrests, but also when interacting. Demeanor is important in the sense that it fosters informal relationships with members of the public, which is an asset to law enforcement, as it leads to greater cooperation and a sharing of responsibility when it comes to maintaining an orderly and safe environment. The level of awareness amongst police officers as to how their behavior affects their potential to establish helpful relationships also needs to improve if the informal relationships are to be exploited considering the findings of the survey by the United States Department of Justice (2003).
As a police chief, the first step towards ensuring the development of good demeanor amongst police officers would be to ensure that training on observing good demeanor and the importance of having good demeanor is incorporated into the training curriculum. By training new recruits on how to deal with conflict and difficult situations, they would be better prepared for such situations and, therefore, be better prepared for environments that demand good command of their temper (Todd, 2008). In other cases where only harmless interaction with the public is taking place, the awareness of the officers to such opportunities to improve informal relationships would be heightened, as their training would highlight how beneficial such relationships can be. The second step would be to institute refresher courses as well as anger management classes aimed at instilling greater self control amongst police officers, and reducing the number of forceful arrests which were found to be lower in officers taking anger management classes (Abernerthy, 1994). Finally, establishing clear goals and guidelines on when to use force and when not to use force, would definitely go a long way towards not only guiding police discretion, but also reduce the stressfulness of having to make tough choices while worrying about the scrutiny that will undoubtedly follow such decisions (Cohen, 1986).
As a police chief, my focus when it comes to training and recruitment would be on psychology, criminology and sociology. These areas are quite important in law enforcement because they equip an individual with the skills to not only understand the reasoning behind criminal behavior as well as predict criminal behavior, but they also inform the police officers own conduct, which as seen from the results of the survey by the United States Department of Justice (2003) is very important considering that the goodwill of the public is very important in law enforcement.
References
Abernerthy, A. (1994). Anger management training for law enforcement personnel. Journal ofCriminal Justice 22(5), 459-466
Banks, C. (2009). Criminal Justice Ethics, Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
Cohen, H. (1986). Exploiting Police Authority. Criminal Justice Ethics 5, 23-31.
Fyfe, J. (1979). Administrative Interventions on Police Shooting Discretion: An EmpiricalExamination. Journal of Criminal Justice 7(4), 309-323.
Todd, C. (2008). Interpersonal Conflict Management Training for Police. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://angeronmymind.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/interpersonal-conflict-managementtraining-for-police/” http://angeronmymind.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/interpersonal-conflict-managementtraining-for-police/
U.S. Department of Justice (2003). Factors That Influence Public Opinion of the Police.Retrieved from HYPERLINK “https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197925.pdf” https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197925.pdf