Kaelee Stringham

Term Paper
Police discretion is a vague term that has an appropriately vague definition. It is defined
as the decision-making power afforded to police officers that allows them to decide if they want
to pursue police procedure or simply let someone off with a warning A classic example of this
happens when you get pulled over for speeding. Sometimes you might get a ticket, while other
times you might just be let off with a warning. (www.thelawdictionary.org)
Discretion was thought as a taboo topic for years. That was up until 1956 when an
American Bar Foundation study discovered it. But up until then nobody would admit that it
even existed. The reason being is that the public didnt want the law enforcement to get out of
hand, or in other words they wanted the law enforcement to be more black and white.
American Friend Service Committee (1971) called for its abolishment.
(www.caught.net) People, such as the American Friend Service Committee, thought that if law
enforcement had more of a freedom then the right work wouldnt get done, and the officers will
tend to over react to non-dangerous situations. In 1971 police administrators sought a clamp
down on discretion. Also known as Administrative Rule Making. But the law simply does not
cover every situation that a police officer encounters in the field It might be more prudent for
the officer to ignore strict letter-of-the-law interpretations. (www.caught.net)
There are four most common incidents where discretion is used these are: Domestic
violence, Traffic violations, Potential hate crimes, and Crimes involving mentally ill individuals.
Their reasoning is listed below:

o Domestic Violence- verbal abuse is alleged, and no obvious bruises or signs of

physical violence. The officer will need to use his or her personal judgment.
o Traffic Violations- because everybody speeds by accident on occasion, an officer
may decide that it is more worth the states time simply to give a warning rather
than to file the paper work for someone who is likely to never commit a traffic
violation again.
o Potential Hate Crimes- the officer must judge the perpetrators character, and
determine if the crime has hate crime elements.
o Crimes Involving Mentally Ill Individuals- if someone is mentally ill they cannot
be charged as heavily because it could be determined that they were not in full
possession of their faculties.
No two situations are alike, and the law does not cover all situations. The idea of giving
police officers more freedom to judge for themselves whether or not a situation just needs a
warning, is a great opportunity. But, discretion is also known as a necessary evil The exercise
of discretion is not the problem: the abuse of discretion is. (www.caught.net) There are officers
who use this power to get out of having to file paper work or even get overzealous and over react
to a situation that is not dangerous.
There are many reports about officers who shoot people who are unarmed and not
dangerous. A man who was carrying a toy gun, that he was going to buy, through a Walmart was
shot buy an officer because the officer thought it was a real gun. The officer thought that the
situation was dangerous for the people in the store and acted on impulse. On July 10, 2014 an
article was posted on www.policestateusa.com stating that a police officer shot and killed a dog

that was in a parked car waiting for its owner, the officer shot through the window and into the
dogs chest. The officer claims that the dog, a black lab, lunged at him.
Along with all the negative reactions by police there are sympathetic and understanding
reactions as well. For example, when an officer pulls a car over late at night and walks to the
window and sees a distressed, tired and aggravated mother trying to get home with two wailing
children in the car seats in the back and lets her off with a warning. He understands her
frustration and tells her to drive safely but lets her go. Its those little moments that restores faith
in the police force.
Of course those moments of understanding are not always put out to the public and go
unnoticed, because in our society we focus on the bad things so often and it makes all the good
things seem inferior and unimportant. We would like to think justice is more about being fair
than winning. Law enactment, enforcement, and administration all involve trading off
possibility of one outcome against a worst outcome. (www.caught.net) there are all sorts of
examples in movies where police ignore the smaller dealer to get the bigger dealer.
Officers have to make that decision every day when they pull someone over or get a call
from someones house. Police need to not let that power go to their heads, because when it odes
thats when people or animals get hurt. They think that because they hold a gun and have a badge
that they can make the rules and that the people and families involved just have to go with it, but
all that thinking will just turn around and bite them in the butts. The owners of that dog that was
shot sued the officer. The officer that shot the man in Walmart was arrested and found guilty.
The fact that they were given the ability to decide the results of these situations went to their
head and now they are in the wrong.

My opinion about police discretion is; I feel that it is all well and good that police can be
sympathetic in situations and let people e off with a warning but at the same time I feel that they
need to control their urges to whip out their guns. Case that can only end in tears and frustration
and maybe a lawsuit. And nobody wants that.