Many argue that no other profession requires higher ethical standards like the one of law enforcement. Irrespective of whether other careers that demand similar dedication prevail that require doing the appropriate thing, it is vital to note that police officers are accorded tremendous expectations. When it comes to exercising their professional discretion, however, law enforcers encounter various ethical issues. Discretion refers to the decisions that individuals make while having lawful authority as opposed to the decisions they make for illegal reasons. Additionally, people within a given institution should have lawful mandate of making decisions in line with operating under the constraints that other parties accept within the profession or organization (Roufa, 2018) . Here, the definition of discretion is essential in that it creates an avenue for perceiving discretion from a legal perspective as opposed to when law enforcers operate in illegal ways and decide to engage in illegal activities, which are not perceived as lawful discretion. Other professionals perceive certain acts by police officers as not discretion, but rather as decisions for taking part in restricted conduct. In the context of law enforcement, discretion revolves around decisions made through a legal framework. When the decisions that officers make fail to attain the anticipated positive results, but are carried out in good faith, they are still considered as under discretion. The decisions that officers make without exercising good faith care not perceived as discretionary (Eldridge, 2018) . Thus, the paper discusses when the utilization of professional discretion crosses ethical boundaries among law enforcement officers.
Discussion
When it comes to law enforcement, particularly in policing, discretion is essential in terms of allowing the police department to function in line with the relationship the police department has with the public. In the case of the paramilitary policing setting, discretion is usually unusual because of the inverse relationship that prevails between discretion that prevails at the top structure as well as the lower structure. This is unlike the case of military bodies together with several commercial enterprises. For example, when looking at officers who commenced patrolling exercises recently, they usually have more discretion as opposed to those in higher ranks within the police department or even the chief constable. When looking at a general serving the army, they have discretionary powers at significantly higher levels as opposed to soldiers in lower levels (BC Open Textbooks, 2018) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
An inevitable tension prevails between paramilitary organizations that demand members of the different ranks to ensure they follow orders and those organizations that allow members in lower ranks to have direction in order to allow them to function. When it comes to the case of the military discretion is rarely utilized at lower levels. The subordinates are required to ensure they follow the orders given irrespective of their desires or feelings. The shift toward increased discretion unavoidably directs police services away from the hierarchical structure that the military follows to an organic structure that facilitates making of decisions in the entire organization (Eldridge, 2018) . The major issue behind the argument is that several parties in law enforcement perceive professionalism as partially determined based on the extent of discretion afforded to an occupation. Thus, it is in this perspective that a shift toward increased discretion leads the services that police officers undertake to be considered as more professional (BC Open Textbooks, 2018) .
In the law enforcement service, it is also essential to understand what the concept of professionalism entails in line with the manner in which it is utilized in this context. Whereas arguments prevail concerning whether policing should be perceived as an ‘occupation’ or ‘profession,’ it is crucial to note that professionalism when deployed in the context of law enforcement is attributed to the capacity of police officers in exercising discretion while employing some degree of autonomy. Generally, what the professionalism entails in this context is attributed to the freedom that the police have in making discretionary decisions when undertaking their diverse operations. In the event of removal of discretion from the police because of accountability and managerialism, professionalism declines. In the absence of discretion, an organization ends up losing its professionalism (Eldridge, 2018) .
The shift to increased professionalism requires the management to embark on efforts aimed at promoting operational decisions in ways that reflect an organization in an organic way while at the same time having the capacity of regulating its members. The police management has the ability of controlling the discretion that operational officers have. For the discretion, it has the capacity of leading officers to fabricate evidence, search for guilt as opposed to truth, and summarize statements while deploying bias, and handle exhibits in a poor manner while at the same time failing to disclose evidence (BC Open Textbooks, 2018) . In this case, the capacity of regulating and offering effective leadership, particularly to officers possessing additional discretion as well as autonomy as opposed to the management leads to the emergence of serious implications among those responsible for managing police officers. Discretion serves as the one responsible for allowing police officers at operational levels to undertake their operations without being supervised for considerable number of hours during the day (Eldridge, 2018) . This serves as ‘discretionary paradox’ since it the one in which police officers are usually answerable to their superiors even in cases whereby they undertake their operations in high autonomy degrees and out of view by their superiors.
The irony that prevails in the area of law enforcement does so because whereas the structure of law enforcement differs from one of the military, the police still follow a quasi-military structure. In complicating issues further, especially within the policing department, sergeants play a broader role on matters related to administration, which limits their capacity in offering street supervision. Ultimately, this does not permit supervision of junior officers who are coerced to practice their discretion without realizing benefits from the experience and knowledge that the experienced supervisors have. In this case, the requirement for increased level of control via supervision is vital when it comes to permitting discretion to emerge effective. In the event of lack of such control, the officers might end up making decisions, which are self-promoting while at the same time opposing the goals of the organization. Direct control and supervision is a challenging task when it comes to front-line managers who encounter incidences of increased workload (Eldridge, 2018) .
Because of diverse discretionary mistakes that officers make inevitable, attempts have been made to facilitate in controlling operational decision making among police officers. For instance, discretion has been curtailed on matters related to domestic assaults whereby officers are needed to charge offenders as opposed to addressing the situations through informal means. For instance, in the event of British Columbia, the Violence against Women in Relationships Policy was instituted in 1993 while subjected to several changed in 2010 (BC Open Textbooks, 2018) . The policy gives clarifications to officers on the roles, protocols, responsibilities, and operational processes they should follow when investigating cases of domestic assault. When it comes to these kinds of policies, they are considered as illustrations of positive arrest policies or legislation. In this case, the intention aims at hindering discretion to facilitate in favoring arrests. Because the policy anticipates restricting discretion, it holds police officers accountable whenever they decide to refrain from arresting while at the same time allowing them to realize some form of autonomy (Roufa, 2018) .
Studies have revealed that several problems prevail when such kinds of legislations or policies are introduced whereas an assessment of such kinds of issues reveals the benefits that illustrate the advantages associated with increased discretion. In an investigation targeting the perception of the police toward cases of Domestic Violence, Crime, and Victims Bill, it revealed that officers lay emphasis on ethics associated with positive arrest in situations where they would not have considered arresting an option if the decision was left at their discretion (BC Open Textbooks, 2018) . The officers revealed that when coerced to arrest individuals in situations where they would not consider the charges, they believed that their ethical stands would be compromised. The reason for this is that they believed such kinds of charges were not just. Other incidences associated with the legislation comprised of things, such as rise in workload, minimized professionalism, as well as chances of making a situation worse because of the arrest. The Domestic, Violence, Crime, and Victims Bill of 2003 reveals that innate problems prevail in the event of curtailing discretion through an organized policy or legislation (Eldridge, 2018) . Nevertheless, it pinpoints three key advantages that might emerge through shifting to additional discretionary powers when making decisions concerning operations. These comprise of increased efficiency, reduced workload, ethics, professionalism, and leadership in the event of those in junior ranks (Roufa, 2018) .
Police officers have higher chances of identifying all forms of offences all of the time. Nonetheless, even in cases whereby the police managed to detect each crime, it might not be possible to have all the required resources for investigating all and making arrests. In this case, discretion is needed to facilitate in filtering crimes to ensure that the ones considered as most vital are subjected to investigations, even if it is possible to misuse such kind of discretion during certain times. If the police lack discretion, cases would overwhelm them, leading to displeasure among the public (Roufa, 2018) . Additionally, it is vital to note that discretion among low enforcement officers will always remain compulsory because of the inescapable absence of resources and the requirement for delivering efficient services. Decisions made through ethical means would provide room for changes being restricted to those considered of utmost importance while it would also render the service by the police as more efficient when it comes to prosecuting such kinds of offences (Eldridge, 2018) .
However, whereas efficiency is vital in the case of all public institutions, dangers emerge whereby police officers might end up losing their way in the event that efficiency is promoted past rightful and ethical decisions regarding safeguarding the public and in cases where the population is not offered justice. In this case, it is vital to note that the efficiency principle is incapable of working alone as justice’s conception. It is vital to refrain from utilizing discretion as a way of enforcing efficiency but as a means of deploying a utilitarianism counterbalance when it comes to unjust laws that characterize a system (BC Open Textbooks, 2018) . The result should not consider efficiency at the expense of ethical policing and human rights. Discretion raises the tension that prevails between public administration and management and liberal democracy. Here, the result of utilizing discretion as a way of fostering optimal efficiency results to process abuse, particularly in cases whereby the rights of people are overcome by the need for boosting results while deploying minimal resources. In this perspective, therefore, organizational goals might emerge ambiguous, whereby they might be caught in between the rights of individuals and democracy and fostering efficiency. Goal ambiguity might result to placing people’s rights at low importance levels while it would be easier to foster them via distinct subcultures that exist in the law enforcement environment (Eldridge, 2018) .
Goal ambiguity rhymes with several issues that law enforcement officers face when making decisions while undertaking their duties. For instance, officers encounter conflicts between social-engineering goals, client-oriented goals, spousal-assault policies, and organizational-centered goals (Eldridge, 2018) . When it comes to such instances, officers are required to charge areas they encounter evidence, particularly if the officers believe that charges are not ideal and go against the client’s goals, especially in the event that the victim does not want to pursue charges (Roufa, 2018) . In the same manner, officers acting with the goal of complying with the guidelines of the policy might be driven by the urge for performing in a poor manner hence compromising an investigation. In this case, they would end up subverting the charges, which they needed to make, although in a reluctant manner.
In conclusion, ideal utilization of discretion plays a critical role in allowing a state to save resources while at the same time enforcing the violations, which the public needs enforced. The police need the capacity for utilizing discretion because of their inescapable lack of resources to ensure they can enforce the different laws all the time. Whereas the services that the police offer lack resources for enforcing the laws through formal means, they are required to determine the laws they should consider enforcing at the level of operation. The kind of discretion permitted at low hierarchy levels provides police services with the opportunity of sparing resources on the front-line while emphasizing on the offences that require enforcing in line with the values on the police service and the value of the society served by the agency. Whereas discretion leads to the establishment of an efficient system, it would be vital to make ideal operational decisions through ensuring effective leadership in the entire organization.
References
BC Open Textbooks. (2018). Discretion and supervision. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/ethicsinlawenforcement/chapter/7-2-discretion-and-supervision/
Eldridge, L. (2018). Situational ethics and the moral chaos of modern policing. Retrieved from https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/3804919-Situational-ethics-and-the-moral-chaos-of-modern-policing/
Roufa, T. (2018). Ethics in Law enforcement and policing. Retrieved from https://www.thebalancecareers.com/ethics-in-law-enforcement-and-policing-974542
