Police brutality in the U.S. has been a phenomenon that has caught international attention in the last few years. As defined in thelawdictionary.org, police brutality is “the use of excessive and/or unnecessary force by police when dealing with civilians.” In many cases, civilians that were law-abiding and even unarmed were victims of police using unjustifiable force upon them. While independent organizations and activists have tried to eradicate this unacceptable behavior and phenomenon through protests and demonstrations, their efforts have not been enough. If law enforcement agencies, such as local police departments, educate their employees on the right and wrong ways to behave on the streets with civilians, the root cause of the problem will be addressed.
When an officer of the law violates the law in which it enforces it creates mayhem and they lose the trust of the people. By obeying the laws just like the rest of the United States, they gain the social legitimacy that is needed in communities.
Every day, law enforcement officers encounter danger while carrying out their duties. The foremost duty of law enforcement officers are to serve and protect citizens. Most law enforcement agencies do this successfully. However, many people view law enforcement officers as the enemy. People need to be better informed about law enforcement and why officers take specific actions in certain circumstances. In our society, police are in a very dangerous position when it comes to the amount of force they can use when dealing with an individual. Officers use discretion when deciding the best course of action for the situation, whether it be physical force, persuasion, or coercion. They must take the correct course of action, because if they are too lenient or to forceful, even when dealing with petty things, they can be reprimanded by superiors and the public. Should police use force? Which circumstances warrant use force and what are the limits of force they can use? These questions are often asked when police are compelled to use force.
United States Law Enforcement officers are constantly under pressure. Their job requires them to serve and protect mankind, under any circumstances, at all times. Because of this, officers run the risk of putting themselves in harmful situation. This may include apprehending a violent assailant, or entering harmful locations. In this study, I used books and articles such as, Criminal Justice Today, to get an understanding of the dangers Law Enforcement Officer face in the line of duty. When performing task outside the prescient, office4rs are put into dangerous situations because of their surroundings, offender’s actions, and officer mistakes. Due to the high stress of this job, it not only affects their performance, but their health as well.
In Jonah Goldberg’s article, Why Death Penalty Opponents Can’t Win, he dwells on how opponents of capital punishment may seem selective with the cases they bring up to challenge the death penalty. In his article, Goldberg expresses how he believes that abolitionists base their opinions of capital punishment, more or less, off of the fact that there is no way to be absolutely certain of a person’s guilt. He then goes on to state that these opponents cannot win because the cases they make public are more sympathetic in nature (12). While he calls this a good strategy (12), Goldberg goes on to express how he and many advocates believes that one wrongly accused person’s execution does not invalidate the need to lawfully execute the men and women who
Many prisoners in the past have been known to be killed before they were proven innocent. Many documented cases where DNA testing showed that innocent people were put to death by the government. This sometimes happens because there are defendants who are given minimal legal attention by often minor qualified individuals. The government has made many mistakes which are being wrong about convicting someone for something they didn’t do, and killing this person for the wrong reason. Putting the wrong person to death is the biggest mistake that can be made and the government cannot afford to make this mistake.
This article was written in 1998, but it gives me fantastic statistics about why the death penalty is so risky, considering that some of these people could have been wrongly tried. In the article, it explains how the 500th victim of the death penalty had just been assassinated. It also states that, out of those 500, 75 men and women of the US had been proven innocent. That is one out of every seven people who have been put on death row that actually did nothing to deserve it. The article goes into a specific case of being
In the past two decades, over half of the death penalty trials have contained constitutional errors, and five percent of those people were exonerated during retrial proving the faults of the current system. As Leahy stated, “ We have cast iron scientific proof that a significant number of people sentenced to death in America in the late twentieth century have been absolutely, undeniably innocent.” This goes to show that one out of three cases that are successful is simply not good enough. Cases in which DNA testing has proven inmates innocence shows that the system is not perfect, and when it comes to a person’s life, there is no room for constitutional violations. There is another problem in death penalty trials, the lawyers. In too many cases defendants have been assigned lawyers who were later disbarred, suspended or are fresh out of law school with little to no experience. Finding quality lawyers who can handle a death penalty trial appropriately to do it pro bono, or for little pay is hard. This is why Leahy came up with the “Innocence Protection Act” to provide funding in order to give defendants accurate representation in death penalty trials
The lack of proper resources during a trial can make the difference between the innocence and guilt of a person. The death penalty does not always show the innocence or guilt of a person. It shows how much he or she is willing to spend to help the trial go his or her way. The death penalty is an unfair system to those who cannot afford the “evidence” they need to help free them.
In law enforcement it’s great to have your outside-life and you work-life kind of balanced out because it might be a problem if the two conflict with each other. There are some ways that you can balance both out like chat away from your desk for example, when you’re at work and another coworker decides to come by your desk or come into your neighborhood where you’re patrolling at just to chit chat but you’re busy. You may have to let your coworker know that you’re working and that you have to reschedule this talk while on lunch. Don’t let your coworkers get in habit of coming to your desk, where you’re patrolling at or wherever your workspace is. Managers and supervisors might see that and think you’re just as unproductive as well. You want
The lack of moral courage within our law enforcement departments threatens our reliability in the members of the law enforcement community. In a society where we rely on law and order to protect our rights and liberties, we depend heavily on those appointed to enforce the law in a just manner. The unwillingness of a person in uniform to intervene in the name of justice undermines the expectations of its community members. It will also diminish the progress of an ever-developing and ever-changing society. It is an unjust act to allow an injustice to perpetuate when an officer is in the position to prevent it in the first place. This continued lack of moral courage only leads to distrust and civil disobedience.
Over the years there have been conflicts between law enforcement and citizens. The media has become a huge part on this topic such as reporting that citizens are being beaten on and fatal incidents are happening to unarmed citizens. This is resulting in the public being afraid, not being able of trusting law enforcement. Citizens are joining together around the world creating riots against law enforcement, even causing damages to property
Why would anybody give their consent to a law enforcer? The issue is the fact that some individuals are either too scared or trustworthy of a law enforcer. The police would never tell the individuals their right to refuse a search which in my opinion is considered cheating and lowering their integrity as another human being. Most individuals fail to see beyond the uniform, baton, handcuffs, paper sprays and guns due to pressure and nervousness. That is very problematic to every society and community.And most officer will notice that and take great advantage of the situation. The individuals need to be aware of the exclusionary rule and their rights under the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the system is not without its flaws as long they favor the
When you hear the words ‘police officer’, what is the first thing that comes to mind? The people that protect us from the bad guys, right? Well, that might be the stereotypical answer, but is that really what we all think? Most would agree that in today 's society, the words do not have the same positive correlation anymore. It is actually almost the complete opposite. Police officers and others in the criminal justice system have created a poor reputation for themselves from the actions they have taken. Crooked cops seem to be the headliners of countless news stories. Now, that is not to say there are not any stories of people of the law doing their jobs to the best of their abilities, but lately, those stories are like finding a needle in a haystack, abnormal. It is not hard to search for a story on a legal personalities questionable conduct. Now, here 's something to think of: if these are the people that know the ins and outs of the law and are put in their positions to help protect us, why does it seem like us citizens are the victims of their actions in a greater part of these stories? How are we supposed to put our trust in these so-called notable people if they are the ones putting us in danger? The people within our criminal justice system are corrupt by brutality, drugs, money, and just overall abusing their powers.
Throughout the history of law enforcement there has been numerous changes to improve the quality of the performance of Law enforcement officers to insure that the citizens’ rights are protected. However since its origins there has been a persistent problem that has been exposed drastically on social media recently. Along with the lack of communication, abuse of force, discrimination and inadequate training has been affecting the relations between the authority and the citizens they sworn to protect. It is something that has been embedded in the very core of the system. These things, abuse of force and discrimination, have become part of the police culture and with inadequate training has strain the trust within the communities.