Police Discretion
INTRODUCTION
I.
Police discretion is a part and parcel of police’s duty. It is a fact that police officers have to
exercise discretion because this is a part of their job. But use of discretion has both its positive and
negative effects. Though police is provided with discretionary powers, it is not always the case such
power has been used legitimately. But it can be erroneous to state that police always use discretionary
power for the wrong purpose.
Thesis: Police officers, on a routine basis, exercise discretion as a part of their job, but such use of
discretion has the potential to affect the lives of the populace.
BODY
I. Police discretion can be considered as an involuntary aspect.
A. It must be noted that, “Scholars of policing have pointed out, however, that police work by its
very nature is discretionary in the sense that it involves the exercise of choice of judgment”
(Bronitt & Stenning, 2011).
1. Police officers are provided with choices at almost every level of police work, and
particularly at the micro level the choice becomes distinguishable (Bronitt & Stenning,
2011). It is at such levels that police action becomes discretionary.
2. Police are provided with an extensive range of decision-making situations, and this initiates
their use of discretion (Bronitt & Stenning, 2011).
3. Stenning notes (as cited in Bronitt & Stenning, 2011) that, “discretion pervades common
law systems of criminal justice at every stage (through arrest, prosecution, trial and
sentencing), and may be contrasted with ‘principle of legality” that ostensibly seeks to
limit discretionary justice, more or less, in many continental European civil law systems.”
(Transition: But it has to be noted that even though discretion is often usual, there are both positive and
negative impacts of police discretion on the citizenry)
II.
It is a fact that, “The use of police discretion in the profession of law enforcement has become
regarded as a necessary positive and inevitability” (Halliday, n.d.).
A. Police discretion has been proved to be rendering positive impact on the lives of individual
members of the society through some specific practices.
1 Police use discretion in stopping, searching, arresting, or charging suspects, and this
ensures that the society is protected from potential criminals (Halliday, n.d.). Hence, police
discretion should be considered to have positive impact on the populace.
2 Police discretion renders positive impact on the populace because such discretion allows
for “greater freedom and flexibility of enforcement to deal with a wide-array of social
problems not always clearly defined by law” (Halliday, n.d.).
3 Police discretion impacts positively on the populace because such discretion allows
police officer to deal with different types of criminals differently, ensuring the safety and
security of the populace from different types of criminal acts (Halliday, n.d.). In this respect it
is noteworthy that, “Every offender police encounter is different, thus police officers have to
consider the contextual and mitigating factors as well as the offender themselves and not just
the illegality of the offence” (Halliday, n.d.).
(Transition: Though police discretion renders some positive impacts, such discretion also may affect the
populace negatively)
III. Police discretion can render negative impact on the citizenry.
A. The abuse of discretionary power by the police has been observed in several cases including
the case of Rodney King (Young, 2011).
1. It is noteworthy that, “The present system allows police officers the discretion to decide
each case on their own, which causes unnecessary disparity” (Young, 2011).
2. Undue disparity caused by unnecessary use of discretion can bring about discriminatory
actions against victims (Young, 2011), and discrimination in any form is harmful for the
populace and the entire society.
3. Undue use of police discretion can “result in conflict between police reality and the
public’s misconception about police procedures” (Young, 2011), and this can again result
in loss of public trust on the police, and such a phenomenon is harmful both for the
populace and the law enforcement.
CONCLUSION
Though police is provided with discretionary powers, it is not always the case such power has been
used legitimately. But it can be erroneous to state that police always use discretionary power for the
wrong purpose. Police officers, on a routine basis, exercise discretion as a part of their job, but such
use of discretion has the potential to affect the lives of the populace.
References
Bronitt, S. & Stenning, P. (2011). Understanding discretion in modern policing. Criminal Law Journal,
319-332. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/44249/76896_1.pdf?sequence=1
Halliday, G. (n.d.). LEJA 518 – Issues paper: Police discretion. Western Illinois University, 2-11.
Retrieved February 27, 2016, from
http://www.wiu.edu/coehs/leja/cacj/research/documents/past/haliday.doc
Young, B.B. (2011). POLICE DISCRETION IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA. A Thesis submitted to
the Faculty of The School of Continuing Studies and of The Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts In Liberal
Studies. Georgetown University, 1-82. Retrieved February 27, 2016, from
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553420/youngBerniceBrooks.p
df
