Excessive Force

Lack of force shows a lack of spirit, the ability to understand the results of the use of force are important in understanding if it should be used. There have been many televised and very public cases of "police brutality" are these abnormal and are they illegal? Obviously, the important thing to do is to understand the cases in which excessive force is used, there are times for the use of force and times where the use of force must be abstained. According to the Eighth Amendment in our Bill of Rights "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed or cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Interestingly the use of cruel and unusual punishment as wording was in reference to abnormal punishments at that time. A normal punishment at the time this was written could have been one of the following, ducking (or placing a prisoner or law breaker under water), use of the stocks (where a prisoner is placed in a public square in wooden bindings- and subject to ridicule etc.), lashings (or public whipping by a leather strop or other device), and another great punishment was tarring and feathering. Therefore, with reference to cruel and unusual we must look at the potential for repeat offenders than and now. Obviously, in modern American Justice the repeat offender is in the top percentage for total crimes committed, why is this case? Why do the offenders repeat the same or different offenses against society as a whole? At the time the Constitution was penned there was crime; however was the repeat offender a smaller percentage versus current times?

What is wrong with enabling a well-trained officer of the law to administer a sound whipping should a juvenile or adult need it? What is wrong with allowing criminals to in effect "pay for their crime" should they be caught in the middle of, or resist lawful arrest? It can be argued that allowing this would simply give license to those law enforcement officers with a "mean" streak to get away with "murder." In all fairness however, what has occurred is the complete opposite, the average law enforcement officer (L.E.O.) is hampered from fulfilling his duties by threat of lawsuit for racial discrimination, or use of Excessive Force. There has to be a balance struck between the two sides. Obviously, we must allow for a proper trial and not allow L.E.O. has to judge the potential criminal. However, at the same time we have to allow for the occasional use of force. Unfortunately, the current court rulings and case law's do not allow for complete enforcement up and to including defense of ones life in many areas. According to Ellen Scrivner "For periodically evaluating incumbents, psychologists supported using methods other than routine psychological tests. They recommend increasing behavioral monitoring and better training." It can be agreed that increased training must be mandated and regulated using generally accepted guidelines that are equal for every Law Enforcement Agency nation wide. Is there a way to do this without dismembering individual States rights?

For me, it is apparent that we need to have some risk attached to committing a crime; however, we also must have guidelines that preclude abuse of that ability to mete out appropriate justice. So do I feel that excessive force is a systematic problem? No, I do however feel that we must look again at our current laws and interpretations to approach from a way that allows for proper defense and legal procedure, as well as allowing for proper defense of victims and themselves as L.E.O.'s.

Congress of the United States (1789) Charters of Freedom-Bill of Rights. Retrieved October 14, 2008, from Archives.Gov, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Scrivner, Ellen (1994) Controlling Police Use of Excessive Force: The Role of the Police Psychologist. NIJ Research in Brief Retrieved October 14, 2008, NCJ 150063

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/ppsyc.txt