Does Police Discretion Amount to a Miscarriage of Justice Literature review

Does Police Discretion Amount to a Miscarriage of Justice - Literature review Example In truth, as stated by some criminologists, when there was a dispute, public order takes precedence over enforcement of the law or policing (Maguire, Morgan, & Reiner 2007, 227). Once it is recognised as an expected aspect of law enforcement that there are instances when the law is ‘inadequately implemented’ the issue then emerges whether every sector of the society gain evenly from this. This essay reviews related literature on police work to explore whether police use of discretion could be considered as a miscarriage of justice. Police Discretion Police have the power to take away the liberty of citizens, apprehend or detain them, and even use lethal force to restrain them. An important feature of this professional duty is the ‘discretion’ the police has in performing their duties. Discretion may include discriminating/selective law enforcement (e.g. when a law enforcer decides not to apprehend a pub that is selling liquors to minors (Ogletree & Sarat 200 9, 18). Law enforcers exercise discretion when they make a decision to apprehend one offender for unruly behaviour but to let another go free. Most police officers exercise a considerable extent of personal discretion in performing everyday duties, occasionally called in criminal justice ‘low-visibility decision making’ (Siegel & Worrall 2012, 125). Such expression implies that, not like most departments of criminal justice, law enforcers are neither controlled in their everyday practices and behaviour by governmental inspection nor under judicial investigation, except when their actions undoubtedly abuses a criminal’s legal rights. The people accept the power of police to use discretion. However, recently, scholars and policymakers have publicly shown great resentment about the discretion used by the police, and there have been numerous demands to abolish, weaken, or regulate this power (Siegel & Worrall 2012, 125-126). These people believe that police use of di scretion often leads to miscarriage of justice. One justification of such demands is the widespread belief that law enforcement is ought to be ministerial, performing its tasks in rigid compliance to legislative conditions. Another justification is the widely held belief that as the police use discretion, they are predisposed to show prejudice against some individuals and/or groups, mostly resulting in wrongful convictions (Sutherland, Cressey, & Luckenbill 1992, 355). As a matter of fact, there is abundant evidence revealing that, for a particular offence, law enforcers are more inclined to apprehend men than women, young individuals than older ones, Black people than White people, etc. Thus, police discretion attracts a lot of controversies (Sutherland et al. 1992, 355). As remarked by William McDonald (1973), â€Å"It invites arbitrariness, favouritism, corruption, and injustice. Even when it is exercised even-handedly, it can create the appearance of injustice† (Sutherlan d et al.1992, 355). All the same, police discretion will continue to exist because no legislative body, absent from the street, can accurately and unmistakably specify beforehand what actions must have as its outcome a formal arrest. As emphasised by Albert Reiss, Jr. (1971) (Sutherland et al. 1992, 355): It is incumbent upon a police officer to enter upon a variety of social stages, encounter the actors, determine