Police Discretion: The Ethics Of Police Deception

In this paper, I will be writing about Police Discretion. I will start by defining Police Discretion then briefly discuss the use in domestic disturbances, minor misdemeanors, and traffic enforcement. I will also discuss the application of police discretion, the provisions it uses and how it is currently practiced. At the end of these brief descriptions, I will then present the myth that exists in regards to police discretion. And finally, I will end this paper with my personal opinion as well as a brief conclusion.

Police discretion by definition is the power to make decisions of policy and practice. Police have the choice to enforce certain laws and how they will be enforced. "Some law is always or almost always enforced, some is never or almost never enforced, and some is sometimes enforced and sometimes not" (Davis, p.1). Similarly with discretion is that the law may not cover every situation a police officer encounters, so they must use their discretion wisely. Until 1956, people thought of police discretion as "taboo". According to http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/ 205/205lect09.htm, "The attitude of police administrators was that any deviation from accepted procedures was extralegal and probably a source of corruption. When it was finally

E. (2014). Criminal Law and Procedure, 7th Edition: Cengage Learning. p. 425. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from https://www.betheluniversityonline.net/cps/default.aspx?SectionID=5980&tabid=154#1

So how can an officer facilitate the process and get a suspect to talk or even better, confess? Years ago this was accomplished by police through the use of force also known as police brutality. That practice has been abandoned due to its inhumane and brutal nature and its infringement of individual rights. Police were forced to seek an alternate means of obtaining information that did not rely on inhumane practices. This turnaround came in the form of trickery and deceit; called interrogatory deception. This type of psychological coercion is taught and practiced daily by today’s law enforcement. It is based on the utilitarian standpoint by police that the means justifies the outcome. This type of interrogation is performed in a way “which elicits admissions by deceiving suspects who have waived their right to remain silent” (Skolnick & Leo, 1992). For example, an officer could say that it will be easier on the suspect if he talks. An officer could even say that the suspect’s accomplice is giving or has given officers all the information. The ethical issue then arises about coercion and deception. Should this practice be considered ethical? Should an officer

This paper explores the inequality in our criminal justice system today. Several examples were cited from movies, textbooks, court cases and articles on the topics, bringing to light the controversy that our society is dealing with every day. Our police force and court systems are being manipulated by the use of money to influence outcomes in trials, and it provides a prejudicial backdrop for many in our communities today. If we are to come together as a society, and break down these barriers, we must be diligent in our efforts to reduce racial profiling casualties, where innocent people are being persecuted for

The use of discretion, and the use of force is a major issue within the police field. The law does not cover every situation that a police officer encounters. Decisions must be made very quickly, usually without time for input from another source. The exercise of discretion is not the problem; the abuse of discretion is the problem. This use of power can open many negative possibilities such as racism, gender bias, and other forms of inequality. The amount of force an officer uses depends on the level of resistance or threat an offender may pose. Using the Graham standard, officers must apply constitutional levels of force, that’s based off the circumstances of the case. In regards to corrections, the art of communication is very vital. The

When police officers interrogate a suspect without providing a warning about the Miranda rights, any statement or confession made is considered involuntary and cannot be used against the suspect in any criminal case. The evidence uncovered as a result of

Chapman’s article explains the truth behind coerced false confessions, which involves suspects admitting to a crime they did not commit. With true examples and specific explanations and descriptions, Chapman shows just how suspects feel their only option is a fabricated confession. Through interrogations, police can involve threats, manipulation, persuasion, and several other methods to make a person confess. Factors such as stress and fear can also cause suspects to confess. In some cases, innocent suspects even come to believe they are guilty due to incorrect interrogation methods. This article is not all about police forcing people to confess though, it also explains how police are put under a tremendous amount of pressure to get a confession out of someone, any person who will confess. Therefore, they do anything they can to get the confession they so

The idea of police brutality being a major problem in the United States has many people wondering if the police are there on the streets to protect the citizens, or to abuse them. Police brutality in the United States is not the problem. “Brutality Isn’t the Problem, It’s People Who “Disrespect Our Authority” (Grigg). Many individuals in the United States have the idea that it is all right to override a police officer’s authority that’s given to them to use to enforce the laws in a justified way properly. An important rule that the people fail to recognize is the fact that when a cop tells you to do something, then better do it to avoid

I agree with your assessment of police using deception by making up fake evidence in order to acquire a confession. I think part of the motivation to be deceptive is not merely that fact the law allows it, but there can sometimes be political pressure put on an agency to quickly solve a case. This can put into action the wrong type of motivation opening up room for defense teams to criticize police tactics and potentially forcing a false confession. I think police working undercover should use all the deception needed to infiltrate a criminal organization and make a criminal case, but officers working in the capacity of a known officer of the law conducting interrogations should use the facts of the case and not create false evidence

Without being Mirandized the police can do generally whatever they want to get a person to confess. Many times, this leads to a false confession and the accused person is charged with a crime they did not commit. In an article in the academic journal "An Investigation of Implied Miranda Waivers and Powell Wording in a Mock-Crime Study,” Gillard said, “Informing suspects of their right to silence and counsel was deemed necessary by the Court to prevent coerced self-incrimination” (Gillard). If a person is coerced into a false confession they would get convicted of a crime that they did not commit. This is why Miranda warnings should always be given upon arrest.

People make decisions on a daily basis to decide what we should do in any given situation. Having the knowledge to differentiate between what is

law and making a decision based on their knowledge and expertise along with the circumstance

“Discretion has the meaning of acting on one 's own authority and judgement. In law, discretion as to legal rulings, such as whether evidence is excluded at a trial, may be exercised by a judge. Some view discretion negatively, while some view it positively. Discretion is at all levels of law enforcement.” Discretion is a ubiquitous and legitimate aspect of modern policing, though it’s scope and limits are poorly understood. Around late 1950’S during the end of professional era was the time when police discretion started playing a big roll and by the American Bar Foundation it was classified as organization that would make criminal justice system better by conducting research, studies, and investigations. Along with it came the negative and the positive side of police discretion. I personally believe the best way of discretion is following good morals and making good choices.

The United States Constitution protects for suspects right against compelled self-incrimination during a police interrogation, regardless of whether they are charged with a federal or state crime. In other words, he or she cannot be enforced to confess to an offense or any part of an offense. Also, the state constitution may protect suspects, but regardless of what protections the state constitution provides, the police must, at least, satisfy the relevant federal tests. Therefore, before they are interrogated, the police must always give them their “Miranda warnings.”