The Duty to Protect
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Colorado State University, Fort Collins *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
465
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by ConstableElkMaster1014
The Duty to Protect: A Historical and Critical Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
The U.S. Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the understanding of law enforcement's duty to protect individuals. This paper will explore the historical philosophy of the
Court regarding the duty to protect and critically analyze one of the cases from Chapter 11 of the Samaha text. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the potential ramifications of the Court's decision on the public and the government.
Historical Philosophy of the U.S. Supreme Court Regarding the "Duty to Protect"
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently maintained that the government does not have a
constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm (Bowers v. DeVito, 1982). This philosophical stance has evolved over time, with landmark cases shaping the Supreme Court's position on the duty to protect and the relationship between citizens and law enforcement (Bowers v. DeVito, 1982; Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 2005). This stance is grounded in the notion that the primary function of law enforcement is to deter crime and protect the public as a whole rather than to ensure the safety of specific individuals (Beltran v. City of El Paso, 2004). The Court has made exceptions in cases where the government has a "special relationship" with the individual or when the state creates a danger that leads to harm (Dwares v. City of New York, 1993; Pinder v. Johnson, 1995).
Critically Analyzing Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005)
In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005), Jessica Gonzalez obtained a restraining order
against her estranged husband, who later kidnapped their three daughters. Despite Gonzalez's repeated calls to the police and her informing them of the restraining order, the officers failed to act. In Bowers v. DeVito (1982), the court ruled that there is no constitutional right to be
protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. This decision set a precedent that has influenced subsequent cases, reinforcing the limited nature of the government's duty to protect individuals. Tragically, the husband murdered the children and committed suicide. Gonzalez sued the town, claiming that the police department had a duty to protect her and her children.
The Supreme Court held that there was no "duty to protect" in this case, as the restraining
order did not create a "special relationship" between the police and Gonzalez or her children. For
example, in Beltran v. City of El Paso (2004), the plaintiff alleged that the city's failure to provide adequate police protection led to a violent assault. The court ultimately held that the city did not have a duty to protect the plaintiff in this particular situation, emphasizing the limitations of law enforcement's responsibilities. The Court reasoned that the order was intended to protect the public and deter the husband's potential criminal conduct, not to guarantee the safety of specific individuals (Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 2005).
While the outcome of this case is heartbreaking, the Court's decision aligns with its historical philosophy regarding the duty to protect. The police department's primary function is to protect the public as a whole, and the restraining order did not create a special relationship that
would necessitate a duty to protect Gonzalez and her children specifically. In the case of Dwares v. City of New York (1993), the plaintiff argued that police officers failed to intervene when they were being attacked by a group of "skinheads." The court found that the officers' inaction amounted to a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights, demonstrating that, in some circumstances, law enforcement does have a duty to protect.
Ramifications of the Court's Decision
The Court's decision in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005) has significant implications for the public and the government.
The Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005) case involved a woman whose estranged husband abducted and killed their three children, despite her repeated calls to the police for help. The Supreme Court ruled that she did not have a constitutional right to police protection in this instance, further clarifying the limits of the government's duty to protect. On one hand, the ruling reinforces the notion that individuals cannot solely rely on law enforcement for their protection, highlighting the importance of personal safety measures and community support networks. On the other hand, this decision may
lead to increased public skepticism of law enforcement's ability to protect citizens and a loss of trust in the system.
For the government, the Court's decision serves as a reminder of the need to balance the allocation of resources for law enforcement while also addressing societal issues that contribute to crime and violence.
Pinder v. Johnson (1995) dealt with a woman who was sexually assaulted in her home after the police failed to respond to her call for help. The court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect her, citing the lack of a "special relationship" between the plaintiff and the police. Additionally, the ruling may prompt law enforcement agencies to reevaluate their policies and procedures to ensure they are meeting their obligations to protect the public while respecting individual rights.
Conclusion
The U.S. Supreme Court's historical philosophy regarding the duty to protect emphasizes the importance of law enforcement's role in protecting the public as a whole rather than specific individuals. These cases highlight the complexity of defining the government's duty to protect and the need for a balance between law enforcement's responsibilities and individual rights
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
(Bowers v. DeVito, 1982; Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 2005). By examining the historical philosophy of the U.S. Supreme Court, we can better understand the implications of these decisions for both citizens and the government, as well as the ongoing debate surrounding law enforcement's duty to protect. Through a critical analysis of Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005), this paper has demonstrated how the Court's decision aligns with this philosophy and explored the potential ramifications of the ruling on the public and the government.
References
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
Beltran v. City of El Paso, 367 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2004).
Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1993).
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).
Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169 (4th Cir. 1995).