Explanation and Use of Police Discretion

Police discretion is defined as "the power to act in an official capacity in a manner which appears to be just and proper under the circumstances" (Dantzker, 2003, pp. 3, ¶ 3). In layman's terms, police discretion is the decision that an officer makes about a situation which is based upon the officer's "education, training, attitude, and beliefs" (Dantzker, 2003, pp.4, ¶ 3). The most importantly the decisions they make also depend upon the circumstances of the incident that is taking place.

Police officers encounter different situations daily to which they have to make decisions. The environment, administration, and individuality of the officers who are using the discretion greatly affect the way they enforce the law. The environment that the officer is in can affect the officer's decision greatly because they have the ability to make decisions on their own because of the lack of supervision (Dantzker, 2003).

The only regulations that an officer is held to when they are policing in the community is policy and law. How they apply it is where concern sets in. Determinants to whether the police will enforce the law to the fullest or whether they choose to administer their own form of justice depends upon the outcome (ex: whether there was an injury) and whether the victim wants to prosecute (Dantzker, 2003).

Administration also has a reflection upon the actions of an officer. Criminal law is ever evolving; the laws and regulations that are enforced are based upon the laws. The laws are written in a way that they are really guidelines on what to do in a situation involving a crime of that type and don't specify the totality of a circumstance (Dantzker, 2003).

Another way that administration has an effect on the justice system is through other criminal justice entities such as prosecutors and the courts. Case loads can cause all entities not to work together on cases due to everyone's priorities being more important than the next person. Although all entities have the same goals, not working with the other officials can cause severe miscommunication that could result in operations, giving the officer's the thinking process of knowing better what not to do next time. If they receive no cooperation, get attitude, and give no cooperation it hinders the ability to use the courts to prosecute offenders (Dantzker, 2003).

The environment and administration are both sources of police discretion that can be fixed. However, one that will never be able to be controlled is the individuality factor. Every person is different. Even though they may share the same interests and traits, there is not one person in the world who feels and reacts the same to every situation. The result of using police discretion through this source is the basis for discrimination suits and causes major concern within for society because of the belief that it isn't possible for every person to act and respond in a fair and equal manner (Dantzker, 2003).

Everyone in society has different morals, values, biases, experience, training, and education. Therefore, everyone is going to react different to situations no matter who they are and what field of work they are in which leads further to the critics claims that the police should not be allowed to have discretion, or at least not in some cases. Usually those cases are the ones that result in the injury or death of a member of the society (Dantzker, 2003).

While most all police actions need discretion as a process, there are a few instances that need to be decided at a judicial level. Such actions involve driving under the Influence, Mental Illness and high speed pursuits. 16,885 United States citizens lost their lives in alcohol-related incidents, in 2005, totaling an alarming 39% (Alcohol Alert, n.d.).

Breaking laws that can result in permanent injury or the death of a person should require the decision of a judicial member. Alcoholism is considered a disease to which a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle becomes impaired and there are severe consequences because of their choice to drive; and most of the consequence falls upon the victims. There needs to be a clear message stated and in addition by making a mandatory arrest in these situations may save someone's life rather than not taking care of the problem due to laziness, or lack of faith that the punishment will work (Dantzker, 2003).

High-speed pursuits cause a variety of issues to come to the forefront of an officer's mind when pursuing a criminal. They must think about the decision thoroughly from the best way to approach the situation, considering things such as if society could be harmed, along with a variety of decisions, in addition to maintaining control of their vehicle and watching the road; only they have to think about it all in a split second. The lack of time does not allow the officer to call a supervisor so they must make a decision. However, the question on whether to continue to pursue should lie on conditions and issues relative to that area. At which case, this needs to be done at a supervisory level to which the supervisor can allocate teams to help make a decision (ex: helicopters).

Mentally ill individuals that are in our society need individual help. The kind of help that law enforcement is not trained to attend to. In having to deal with a mentally ill person, it should be mandatory to have a person in question evaluated and referred for services; and the same should go for homeless individuals.

Too frequently society steps over and looks away from those who are homeless. Citizens get tired of seeing this occur and rather than help fix the problem, they want it to just go away which accounts for "25%-35%" of police service calls. However, because of the lack of services available, finding a placement can be very time consuming at which time the officer just moves the homeless person from the premises but allows them to remain in the public. This could have dire consequences if nature is cruel that night. It is a real abuse to leave this discretion upon an officer (Dantzker, 2003)..

While DUI, high-speed chases, and mentally ill actions should not be left to the discretion of officers; domestic violence, and use of force need to be highly regulated because it to can result in death. In domestic abuse situations and officer needs to be able to exercise discretion in cases that can be resolved through simple mediation. However, they need to stay aware of patterns that can occur. These types of actions need to require action after intervention took place once. Situations can get out of hand too quickly to leave a residence two and three times after arguments (Dantzker, 2003).

Use of force is one of the biggest issues in the society. How much force is too much? This action can also result in death and is often the basis for discrimination suits within police departments. It should be highly regulated also because in the heat of the moment, in a chase or fight, adrenalin is high, and hard for any human to control; even a cop. Especially if it involves an emotional element in the case.

Other police actions should allow discretion and are reasonable. In cases involving minor misdemeanors, traffic incidents, juvenile contact, vice and hate crime discretion needs to be used. While hate crime can also result in death, as with all the other actions, the escalation of most hate crimes can be alleviated through education and understanding. It is only when the police chose not to address the issue with education, counceling, and aide that the crime will escalate.

All other police actions result in fines and court costs; possibly even community service and probation depending upon the crime. Each requires discretion depending upon the situation of the incident, the specific attitude of the suspect and police, and services that are available at the time. All these factors contribute to the mythical aspects that society believes in.

Society believes that law enforcement is a full enforcement agency because that is what they preach in their missions. However, police do not admit to using discretion for this very reason. In addition because every states law is different, a legality issue comes in to play. In essence, an officer is supposed to arrest everyone for violation of law and in using discretion they are putting themselves at risk for blatantly disregarding their order. One other mythical aspect is that police have a closed door system that limits the availability of information and internal happenings of the department. Being a public entity, and being there for the service of the public, they really do not have a closed door system (Dantzker, 2003).

The current practice for discretion is selective enforcement, which needs to remain in place. Although some of the issues need to be amended to include provisions to protect certain individuals at certain times, we do not want to become a society that is imprisoned for every little thing and in addition would cause backlog in the court systems and in the corrections departments((Dantzker, 2003).

The only way to control selective enforcement is by first admitting that police use discretion. We cannot continue the do as I say, not as I do policy. Show the society truth and justice and they will return the gesture. In saying to society that yes, the police are protecting you through law enforcement and mediation, the public's outlook on the services offer may be greater.

In addition, officers need to be offered training classes and real-time information on how to deal with issues and actions involving discretion. By learning and co-sharing information with the public, they will work better together to alleviate and deter crime.