Discretion in law enforcement is the evaluations that are formulated using a legitimate authority in preference to making choices for illegitimate purposes. Also, law enforcers are required to have lawful authority in the process of decision making and abiding by the set rules and regulations (Ariel et al., 2016). This description is very significant as it facilitates the valuation of discretion in the legal context always and not only when the law enforcement bodies illegally operate and abuse their power. The illegal actions of the police and other law enforcement bodies should not be considered as a discretion, but instead, as a choice to become involved in unlawful activities ( Landström et al ., 2019). Police discretion is involved with decision making in the legal context. It explores the choices that are made by policemen that do not give the expected definite results despite being made in honesty. The actions performed due to prejudice are not categorized as discretionary (Ariel et al., 2016). Discretion is an essential element for the proper functioning of the law enforcement department and how they interact with the public they serve. It is, however, a challenging task to enforce the discretion policy in policing du to the varying rank structures in the department (Ariel et al., 2016). There are structures put in place to limit the amount of discretion awarded to individuals in the occupation. The services provided by police and other law enforcement agencies will become more proficient if more respect is awarded to discretion. In order to fully comprehend discretion first, the psychological, political and social contexts implemented in modern policing have to be understood ( Nowacki, 2015) . The police officers are the appointed law enforcers who are given the responsibility of drawing the line between legal and illegal activities or actions. The role of enforcing the law is challenging as the line between lawful and unlawful can become thin very fast ( Landström et al ., 2019). Discipline is, therefore, an essential element of any law enforcer, and the task needs to be taken earnestly. The government grants the police officers the power to perform their duties using discretion. This means that they have the power to arrest individuals, issue tickets for various violations, draw their guns or other issued weapons, search individuals or their vehicles or premises and shoot suspects ( Landström et al ., 2019). The power of discretion usually works in favour of or against the individual, depending on the violation. For instance, if an individual is pulled over due to over speeding, the police officer has the power to decide if they will give you a traffic violation ticket, or they will let you with a warning ( Nowacki, 2015). Several theories have been established to highlight the importance of policing and discretion in performing their duties. The theories argue that police officers should not be given the power of discretion, because they will use it to the advantage of the dominant in society while oppressing the minority in the society ( Landström et al ., 2019). When discretion power is in the hands of the policemen, they are bound to become inconsistent and unpredictable in the manner in which they perform their duties. Many events in the past have led the public to believe that police officers use their discretionary powers to victimize a specific section of the population. More often than not, discretion is exercised based on elements such as gender, age, race, social class, demeanour and attitude of the individual towards the law enforcers (Ariel et al., 2016). Police officers should, therefore, not be given discretion powers, but if they are, they should be closely monitored. Limitations and restrictions should be put in place to control how the police officers perform their duties. Police officers have the tendency to perform their law enforcement duties based on the culture and the existing attitudes in the department rather than from a new evaluation of a situation. The attitude of law enforcement bodies needs to be changed and transformed before they can be granted the powers of discretion ( Landström et al ., 2019). Police discretion needs to be accompanied by a precise framework directing individuals on how to operate, the restrictions and governing mechanisms ( Landström et al ., 2019). Racial profiling has been a controversial topic of discussion for many decades now, and no solution of conclusive argument has been drawn. Racial profiling happens every day lives of minorities. This destroys the concept of equality and dignity due to the individual's subjected to detrimental stereotyping. There are numerous contemporary topics of discussion, especially regarding immigration and terrorism, which continue to burden the police officers. In their attempts to solve these two issues, they often end up using injudicious methods like racial profiling in their endeavours of pursuing the security and safety of the public (Ariel et al., 2016).
Conclusion
If I were in charge of determining if discretion should be allowed in law enforcement, I would advocate for the abolition of discretion. There have been drawn legal frameworks over the decades that are supposed to protect all citizens from the illegitimate use of discretion, but the law is always in favour of the law enforcers. If the discretion privilege is abolished, the law enforcers would be more careful about their actions as every action will be accounted for. The police officers would be more accountable and implement critical thinking and analysis in assessing very situation afresh. This would protect the public from being stereotyped based on their race, region, ancestry, social status or nationality (Ariel et al., 2016). If the law was fairly enforced on both civilians and police officers, the rate of racial profiling and police officers being representatives of the dominant portion of the population would significantly reduce. As much as discretion assists them in performing their duties effectively, the harm it does outweighs the good. The current innovations in technology like biometrics, retina scanning and facial recognition can efficiently assist law enforcers in crime reduction and eradication instead of discretion (Ariel et al., 2016).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., ... & Henderson, R. (2016). Report: Increases in police use of force in the presence of body-worn cameras are driven by officer discretion: A protocol-based subgroup analysis of ten randomized experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology , 12 (3), 453-463.
Landström, L., Eklund, N., & Naarttijärvi, M. (2019). Legal limits to prioritization in policing–challenging the impact of centralization. Policing and Society , 1- 20.
Nowacki, J. S. (2015). Organizational-level police discretion: An application for police use of lethal force. Crime & delinquency , 61 (5), 643-668.
