Value Response to Dr. Stuart’s Arguments

Value Response to Dr. Stuart’s Arguments

Rudy Szymanski

English Composition II

Published on February 5th 2013, the article Social Media: Establishing Criteria for Law Enforcement Use was authored by Robert D. Stuart. The article delves into the ways in which social media presence has touched the lives of countless individuals, including law enforcement officers. The text further delves into the specific rewards and risks facing officers and their departments in their use of social media. Stuart posits that the missteps in social media use have the potential to compromise criminal cases and endanger officer safety resulting in criminal and civil liability and embarrassment to the department. He further explains that to fight these risks, law enforcement agencies should adapt to outlets that impact the lives of officers daily. Stuart recommends that to do so, departments need to familiarize themselves with the existing various forms of social media, the problems the pose, benefits of enforcing the law and the need to establish a governing criteria for its use by enforcement officers.

Furthermore, Stuart posits that as a means of communication, social media intentions are to reach and influence a wider audience. This is different from the traditional sources of media such as television and newspapers. The internet brought about the social aspect that implies to a two-way conversation where users interact with a media source. Stuart gives examples of social media platforms including Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace as examples of social networking sites that allow multiple individuals to share data among themselves. By putting up their information such as names, employment, location and interests, people are able to share information such as videos, pictures, and texts. This way, they form online relationship with one another and share information. Most networking sites have settings that control the kind of information shared and people that can access it.

Additionally, Stuart mentions that social media platforms have developed their own language that refers to unique definitions and common words. For instance, on Facebook the term wall is used to refer to the public section of a user’s profile where information can be accessible by anybody in the world, and on twitter, the term tweet is used to refer to text-based data shared on the website. Stuart (2003) references a survey carried out by the Institute for Criminal Justice Education (ICJE) that found that “over 78 percent of law enforcement respondents had a social media account. Of those, over 38 percent identified themselves on their profile as policing professionals” (p. 2) Stuart uses this finding to demonstrate law enforcement officers’ interest on social media as well as how they decide to showcase themselves to other people through social media.

Stuart also delves into the problems that law enforcement agencies are bound to encounter when personal and professional life converge on social media. He insists that there is a need for officers to establish the personal presence on social media and the identity they want to have as professional members of the law enforcement. For instance, posting information about feeling sleepy while on duty brings doubt about their fitness for duty in the event of serious tragedies and deadly situations. Also, sharing photos of themselves with sieved from evidence is contrary to requirements for ongoing cases as prosecutors must be consulted first. Certain delicate information when exposed to the public eye, becomes undesirable. The article also concludes that it would be impractical to expect officers to refrain from having a social media presence on the web. The author proposes that law enforcement agencies should come up with criteria for social media use for officers that protects the integrity of investigations and departments while at the same time balancing constitutional rights of officers.

Considering the Stuart’s position on matters social media use for law enforcement officers, it is safe to say that he presents some valid claims that can improve the overall operations of enforcement agencies. It is imperative for administrators to look into ways to control the social media use of their enforcement officers. However at the same time, they must be careful not to infringe on their rights as, just like other people, they are at liberty to use social media as they please. Enforcement agencies should prioritize the work and their mandate of serving the citizens to the best of their ability.

While social media is beneficial in terms of networking and helping people connect, law enforcement users ought to be careful with the kind of content they post online. When it comes to the kind of content law enforcement officers post, they should be keen so as not to contradict the values of the organizations they represent. When officers posts that they are bored at work or they feel sleepy, this is not a good image for the organization they represent especially if their profile clearly shows them in police attire of branded clothes with the organization logo. Here is no denying that such photos can spoil the reputation of a firm and hence law enforcement officers must be aware enough to filter the kind of information they display for the world to see. To some extent, such behaviors are unethical as they contradict the role they are expected to play in society. Before posting photos of themselves holding seized goods like drugs, they must first ask themselves whether such actions align with the organizations they represent. At the end of the day, it only takes one negative review to spoil a good reputation of a law enforcement agency.

References

Stuart, R. D. (2013, February 05). Social Media: Establishing Criteria for Law Enforcement use. Retrieved from https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/social-media-establishing-criteria-for-law-enforcement-use