Police Discretion, Diversity and Prejudice
Crystal L. McCann
Salt Lake Community College
When thinking about Police Discretion, one might feel a sense of comfort and safety. Imagine at any point we find ourselves in a compromising situation that leads to a call to the police; a fender bender; a home invasion; a sexual assault or any number of other situations leading up to a request for help. When a civilian calls the police for assistance, they are expecting kindness and courtesy and someone to help resolve the issue.
However, since the existence of racial discrimination exists, we must consider how each individual police officer will utilize their personal judgment when dealing with those of different race, gender, sexual orientation, class and so-forth. This paper will address information based on a collection of research regarding police discretion with a focus on people of diversity and how it may influence police officials while using their personal judgment.
The existence of discrimination is the main reason I don’t believe officers should exercise their personal discretion. No one person is alike; we are raised with different beliefs, religions, experiences, thoughts about people of different race, gender and sexual orientation which shapes us into who we become. As a result, there will always be Police officers who base judgments off of race, gender, and sexual orientation. This will provide an atmosphere of unjust character and social order. For example, a study was done in California, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, and New York. In this study, civilians have been victims of racial profiling by their local police force. In San Jose and Sand Diego, officers of all races disproportionately stopped, searched and arrested African Americans and Hispanics more so than Caucasians (Ridgeway)
However, that is not to say that there is an absolute on either end; In other words, not all police officers who exercise discretion are going to racially profile based on their personal prejudices. Just as not all police officers will use their best judgment in a just and moral way. Philosopher (John Stuart Mill), an advocate for Moral Situationalism, defined as moral judgment being viewed on an autonomous situation by situation basis. Typically I agree with his philosophy, taking into consideration that there are too many shades of gray for a black and white outlook. Consequently, given that there is even one percent of an issue with the abuse of personal judgment, it places us in an unjust position; thus, providing ground for other police officers to habitually abuse their discretion in a manner that promotes injustices for minorities.
The use of discretion does help the practice of law enforcement and public safety to an extent, for example; to what degree is someone hurt in a domestic dispute? Was it self-defense? How to deal with Public drunkenness is this person causing other severe harm, do they have a prior record for violence? These are important decisions police officers make on a day-to-day basis. This can definitely help with public safety and the practice of law enforcement and even save peoples lives depending on the degree of the situation. Despite the positives, the use of personal judgment does more harm than good. For example; when one Police officer abuses his or her right to use their personal discretion this influence will trickle downward onto their partner or others, up to and including the general public. Civilians tend to mimic those in “power” what kind of message are we sending to the public, if our law enforcement is leading us to believe it is ‘ok’ to discriminate against minorities? The message we are sending is this; hate crimes, vicious murders based on a persons race, sexual orientation, or their gender; hate breeds hate. We cannot afford the expense of promoting prejudice through those we are supposed to trust the most. Police officers must have laws set before them, just as anyone else at any other level in the workforce. This will exhibit a positive example for the public to abide by as well as maintaining social order and justice “for all”
The use of discretion can assist the criminal justice system to a degree. However, because there is an existence of prejudice within the police force, these helpful situations are revoked. Justice for both the officer and criminal/civilian can be obtained through formal rules and laws without the persecution of minorities. The effectiveness of discretion, once useful to assist civilians has proved faulty on many levels. According to Philosopher, (John Stuart Mill), also an advocate for Utilitarianism, said “The interests of some groups in society cannot be sacrificed for the sake and well-being of society in general”
A system of justice cannot function on a morally effective level if the Police officers
within it are favorable towards one group of people. As a society of different backgrounds we
cannot sacrifice the freedom and justice one ethnic group of people for the benefit or another, by
allowing favoritism. We are creating an unjust society, which will reflect and trickle down into
the general public, presenting a surge of hatred, violence and excessive criminal behavior of all
realms as a result. This proves that the criminal justice system is not running as effectively as it
could by allowing for police officers to use discretion. Discretion raises many ethical issues, the
mere definition of discretion should be pinned “an ethical issue” The few bad ruin it for the
many. Discretion supplies an opportunity for those police officers who are corrupt to abuse it,
by means of ticketing and arresting up to the use of lethal force and how much lethal force is
necessary, which could result in unjustified murder of minorities based on prejudice. However,
to play devils advocate, let’s consider the circumstances are reversed. I did a little research on
the opposite end to see if discretion can be swayed both ways and they can according to (Maynard-Moody
and Mushino) who explain “Officers whose identity includes certain subject positions (eg, LGBT,
minority, female, etc) might define citizens who share these subject positions in starkly different
ways from those officers who do not occupy these subject positions eg, heterosexual, Caucasian,
male, etc” As a result discretion doesn’t work on either end of the fence. If we have for example, a Homosexual
African American female police officer, pulls over a straight white male because she
just doesn’t like that he’s white or a heterosexual man and assumes he must have stolen property,
then searches his vehicle and ends up shooting and killing him, and later claims that man tried to
shoot at her. Obviously, this would be an extreme example, however it provides some insight in regards to
prejudice directed toward different groups of people proves that allowing
someone the opportunity to use their “personal judgment” regarding others, releases a world
of ethical issues that are sometimes irrevocable.
In New York City, a higher number of African Americans were held accountable for the majority of violent crimes while the Caucasian population was arrested for property crimes. (Lantham) It seems as though societies need for racial placement is reflecting upon how we have associate African Americans with violent crimes and Caucasians with property crimes. In San Diego and San Jose California, a study was done which stated both Caucasian and African American Police Officers pulled over, ticketed and arrested more minorities than Caucasian civilians. (Tammy Rinehart) Provided these circumstances occur in more states than California, is it then too far fetched to presume perhaps there is an existence of racial prejudice within the Police force in the United States, which assumes a person of minority is a criminal without probably cause, leading to an arrest of a minority group as a result of the abuse of discretion.
In my opinion, discretion should be eliminated. If there were an ethical way around it, where everyone of every race, gender, class, sexual orientation or other bias reasoning were to be treated equally according to their crime, as opposed to prejudice I would believe discretion to be a an extremely useful, ethical, helpful manner in which to evaluate criminal situations. In conclusion, it seems that either way we are losing out on something very ethically and morally important. On one-end, the police officers who are complying with the laws are being places in compromising situations that add more paper work and more hassle than necessary and other the other hand some civilians are being pulled over, arrested, ticketed, beaten and sometimes killed due to excessive force because we live in a world of diversity where we still cant treat each other equally. However, it is worth it to me to abolish police discretion and come up with a new method if it means that ethics and morals within the police force are restored and racial profiling and unjust prejudice is done away with. That in the future, if someone is punished, or shot and killed for breaking the law, that the person was a criminal brought to justice, not an innocent civilian punished unjustly.
Citations
Effects of suspect race on officers arrest decisions – Tammy Rinehart (Ebsco Host/ peer reviewed journal)
Journal of quantitative criminology Vol. 22, No.1 March, 2006 - Lantham (Ebsco host/ peer- reviewed journal)
Targeting Discretion: An exploration on organizational communication on rank levels in medium-sized Southern US Police Department (Constraints on personal discretion, Personal values) pg. 159
Utilitarianism and the 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment, John Stewart Mill – pgs. 32, 51.
Accessing the effect of race bias and traffic stops, Ridgeway – pg, 24 (Ebsco host/ peer reviewed journal)
Crystal L. McCann
Salt Lake Community College
When thinking about Police Discretion, one might feel a sense of comfort and safety. Imagine at any point we find ourselves in a compromising situation that leads to a call to the police; a fender bender; a home invasion; a sexual assault or any number of other situations leading up to a request for help. When a civilian calls the police for assistance, they are expecting kindness and courtesy and someone to help resolve the issue.
However, since the existence of racial discrimination exists, we must consider how each individual police officer will utilize their personal judgment when dealing with those of different race, gender, sexual orientation, class and so-forth. This paper will address information based on a collection of research regarding police discretion with a focus on people of diversity and how it may influence police officials while using their personal judgment.
The existence of discrimination is the main reason I don’t believe officers should exercise their personal discretion. No one person is alike; we are raised with different beliefs, religions, experiences, thoughts about people of different race, gender and sexual orientation which shapes us into who we become. As a result, there will always be Police officers who base judgments off of race, gender, and sexual orientation. This will provide an atmosphere of unjust character and social order. For example, a study was done in California, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, and New York. In this study, civilians have been victims of racial profiling by their local police force. In San Jose and Sand Diego, officers of all races disproportionately stopped, searched and arrested African Americans and Hispanics more so than Caucasians (Ridgeway)
However, that is not to say that there is an absolute on either end; In other words, not all police officers who exercise discretion are going to racially profile based on their personal prejudices. Just as not all police officers will use their best judgment in a just and moral way. Philosopher (John Stuart Mill), an advocate for Moral Situationalism, defined as moral judgment being viewed on an autonomous situation by situation basis. Typically I agree with his philosophy, taking into consideration that there are too many shades of gray for a black and white outlook. Consequently, given that there is even one percent of an issue with the abuse of personal judgment, it places us in an unjust position; thus, providing ground for other police officers to habitually abuse their discretion in a manner that promotes injustices for minorities.
The use of discretion does help the practice of law enforcement and public safety to an extent, for example; to what degree is someone hurt in a domestic dispute? Was it self-defense? How to deal with Public drunkenness is this person causing other severe harm, do they have a prior record for violence? These are important decisions police officers make on a day-to-day basis. This can definitely help with public safety and the practice of law enforcement and even save peoples lives depending on the degree of the situation. Despite the positives, the use of personal judgment does more harm than good. For example; when one Police officer abuses his or her right to use their personal discretion this influence will trickle downward onto their partner or others, up to and including the general public. Civilians tend to mimic those in “power” what kind of message are we sending to the public, if our law enforcement is leading us to believe it is ‘ok’ to discriminate against minorities? The message we are sending is this; hate crimes, vicious murders based on a persons race, sexual orientation, or their gender; hate breeds hate. We cannot afford the expense of promoting prejudice through those we are supposed to trust the most. Police officers must have laws set before them, just as anyone else at any other level in the workforce. This will exhibit a positive example for the public to abide by as well as maintaining social order and justice “for all”
The use of discretion can assist the criminal justice system to a degree. However, because there is an existence of prejudice within the police force, these helpful situations are revoked. Justice for both the officer and criminal/civilian can be obtained through formal rules and laws without the persecution of minorities. The effectiveness of discretion, once useful to assist civilians has proved faulty on many levels. According to Philosopher, (John Stuart Mill), also an advocate for Utilitarianism, said “The interests of some groups in society cannot be sacrificed for the sake and well-being of society in general”
A system of justice cannot function on a morally effective level if the Police officers
within it are favorable towards one group of people. As a society of different backgrounds we
cannot sacrifice the freedom and justice one ethnic group of people for the benefit or another, by
allowing favoritism. We are creating an unjust society, which will reflect and trickle down into
the general public, presenting a surge of hatred, violence and excessive criminal behavior of all
realms as a result. This proves that the criminal justice system is not running as effectively as it
could by allowing for police officers to use discretion. Discretion raises many ethical issues, the
mere definition of discretion should be pinned “an ethical issue” The few bad ruin it for the
many. Discretion supplies an opportunity for those police officers who are corrupt to abuse it,
by means of ticketing and arresting up to the use of lethal force and how much lethal force is
necessary, which could result in unjustified murder of minorities based on prejudice. However,
to play devils advocate, let’s consider the circumstances are reversed. I did a little research on
the opposite end to see if discretion can be swayed both ways and they can according to (Maynard-Moody
and Mushino) who explain “Officers whose identity includes certain subject positions (eg, LGBT,
minority, female, etc) might define citizens who share these subject positions in starkly different
ways from those officers who do not occupy these subject positions eg, heterosexual, Caucasian,
male, etc” As a result discretion doesn’t work on either end of the fence. If we have for example, a Homosexual
African American female police officer, pulls over a straight white male because she
just doesn’t like that he’s white or a heterosexual man and assumes he must have stolen property,
then searches his vehicle and ends up shooting and killing him, and later claims that man tried to
shoot at her. Obviously, this would be an extreme example, however it provides some insight in regards to
prejudice directed toward different groups of people proves that allowing
someone the opportunity to use their “personal judgment” regarding others, releases a world
of ethical issues that are sometimes irrevocable.
In New York City, a higher number of African Americans were held accountable for the majority of violent crimes while the Caucasian population was arrested for property crimes. (Lantham) It seems as though societies need for racial placement is reflecting upon how we have associate African Americans with violent crimes and Caucasians with property crimes. In San Diego and San Jose California, a study was done which stated both Caucasian and African American Police Officers pulled over, ticketed and arrested more minorities than Caucasian civilians. (Tammy Rinehart) Provided these circumstances occur in more states than California, is it then too far fetched to presume perhaps there is an existence of racial prejudice within the Police force in the United States, which assumes a person of minority is a criminal without probably cause, leading to an arrest of a minority group as a result of the abuse of discretion.
In my opinion, discretion should be eliminated. If there were an ethical way around it, where everyone of every race, gender, class, sexual orientation or other bias reasoning were to be treated equally according to their crime, as opposed to prejudice I would believe discretion to be a an extremely useful, ethical, helpful manner in which to evaluate criminal situations. In conclusion, it seems that either way we are losing out on something very ethically and morally important. On one-end, the police officers who are complying with the laws are being places in compromising situations that add more paper work and more hassle than necessary and other the other hand some civilians are being pulled over, arrested, ticketed, beaten and sometimes killed due to excessive force because we live in a world of diversity where we still cant treat each other equally. However, it is worth it to me to abolish police discretion and come up with a new method if it means that ethics and morals within the police force are restored and racial profiling and unjust prejudice is done away with. That in the future, if someone is punished, or shot and killed for breaking the law, that the person was a criminal brought to justice, not an innocent civilian punished unjustly.
Citations
Effects of suspect race on officers arrest decisions – Tammy Rinehart (Ebsco Host/ peer reviewed journal)
Journal of quantitative criminology Vol. 22, No.1 March, 2006 - Lantham (Ebsco host/ peer- reviewed journal)
Targeting Discretion: An exploration on organizational communication on rank levels in medium-sized Southern US Police Department (Constraints on personal discretion, Personal values) pg. 159
Utilitarianism and the 1868 Speech on Capital Punishment, John Stewart Mill – pgs. 32, 51.
Accessing the effect of race bias and traffic stops, Ridgeway – pg, 24 (Ebsco host/ peer reviewed journal)