Policing and Discretion

Abstract.  Discretion, in correlation with police work, could be defined as the opposite of protocol; an informal formality.  The cause or need for discretion stems from human nature and individualization of both officers and civilians, coupled by a lack of funding and resources.  Police officers are professionals expected to exercise sound judgment and decision making skills while upholding the law of the land.  However, no two cases are entirely the same in nature and circumstance, making the establishment of a strict protocol or strict adherence to policy, impossible to implement.  With the above statement in mind, many departments claim to adhere to policy, procedure, and protocol in direct alignment with the law; what Dantzker (2003) refers to as the myth of full enforcement.  The application full enforcement would not be able to coexist with the existence of discretion, in the event that both applications were true; yet officers continue to practice discretion while departments claim to practice full enforcement.  Discretion is a necessity while in direct conflict with the necessity to maintain a forceful and authoritative image of the police in the eyes of the public.         

Police and Discretion

The use of discretion became publicly apparent during the 1960s, until then the myth of full enforcement was largely endorsed to the public by police agencies (Scott, 2005).  During this period the need and application of discretion came to the surface, bringing about an inevitable truth in that discretion was and is being used at every level of policing (Scott, 2005).    Discretion, “… is the action an officer takes based on personal judgment, conscience, morals, attitude, and/or beliefs, as well as training, experience, and education” (Dantzker, 2003).  The following examples attempt to document the truth pertaining to the use of discretion in policing by citing specific situations in which discretion is acceptable, which simultaneously breaks down the myth of full enforcement.

Force

The most “…profound” area pertaining to the use of discretion is the decision to use or not to use force (Scott, 2005).  When a potentially dangerous situation arises officers must make a hasty yet intellegent decision to drawl their weapons or use other means of force to control or subdue an offender.  While one officer may feel the use of force to be an extreme and unecessary measure, another officer given a similar situation may feel the use of force is necessary.

Deadly Force

Though possibly the most controlled and sanctioned use of discretion, officers exercise their discretionary authority when opting to employ the use of deadly force in dealing with potentially lethal situations.  This particular use of discretion has been the center of conflict in relation to the use of discretion and ethical arrgument (Dantzker, 2003).