Module 5
Reading Content
I found the readings for Module Five to be very interesting. These readings gave a very interesting outlook on laws and how every person can interpret them differently. For instance, in Vago’s article we are told how law can be used to change society. I somewhat agree with him. I do believe that laws can be used to change society, but I believe that the law has to reinforce what many people already hold true. For instance, we all know that murdering people is wrong, so when a law was made which says that you cannot kill people, it wasn’t a big deal. I will also use the example of slavery. Although a lot of people believed that it was okay to own other human beings and treat them atrociously, more people believed that these practices were wrong. Since then, black people are no longer considered three-fifths of a man and they have been afforded the same rights as white people. These laws changed society. In the Walker reading, we are confronted with the belief that police discretion is actually beneficial. I would agree with this statement if we did not have bias. I am not trying to say that all police officers are racist, but I believe that all people have their biases, and when these biases affect who gets arrested and who doesn’t, I see it as a major problem. There is this one incident where my now-husband and I were traveling to Alamogordo for my father’s birthday. Because my husband had to go to work the next day and I didn’t, we drove separate vehicles. We both pulled into the Border Patrol Checkpoint Station. The officer smiled at me, told me to have a nice day, and waved me through; however, my husband (who is Hispanic) was told to pull over. The officer had the nerve to say that my husband’s car smelt of marijuana and put the drug dog to work. The officer pulled all of the clothes from my husband’s overnight bag and proceeded to make a mess of everything in the car. When he found nothing, he told my husband that he was lucky that they didn’t find anything and then told him to leave – the guy didn’t even help my husband put anything back, nor did he apologize for his rudeness. It is instances like these which really question police discretion.
Internet Content
The opinion of the article, Police Discretion, states that “we need responsible administers -- officials who show "good judgment" and exercise discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. By definition, discretion is the making of choices among a number of possible courses of action (Davis 1969). This is a modified definition of what Kenneth Culp Davis actually said was "free to make choices". The article talks about how nobody expects perfection (we are human) and then compares our justice system to a game – a game in which playing fairly is more important than winning. It states the fact that there isn’t a law for everything, and police officers encounter so many things when they are out in the field – many of which laws haven’t been created to give a clear way of handling a situation. This is where discretion comes into play.
So What?
I am not completely discounting what this article, Police Discretion, talks about, but it seems that this article is making it seem like our police officers have no prejudices. We are all human and we all have our biases – we would be lying if we said we had none. It is not wrong to have biases, it is wrong to act upon those biases. This is when I have a problem with police officers and discretion. I know our police cannot arrest each and every person who breaks the law – our courts are overwhelmed as it is. However, when an officer acts on his or her biases and only arrests certain people, this is where I have a problem. Only in a perfect world would everyone be considered equal, but I consider it a problem when the people who have the majority of power (police officers) use their power against those people in which the officer is prejudiced – it is even worse when others try to condone it.
I found the readings for Module Five to be very interesting. These readings gave a very interesting outlook on laws and how every person can interpret them differently. For instance, in Vago’s article we are told how law can be used to change society. I somewhat agree with him. I do believe that laws can be used to change society, but I believe that the law has to reinforce what many people already hold true. For instance, we all know that murdering people is wrong, so when a law was made which says that you cannot kill people, it wasn’t a big deal. I will also use the example of slavery. Although a lot of people believed that it was okay to own other human beings and treat them atrociously, more people believed that these practices were wrong. Since then, black people are no longer considered three-fifths of a man and they have been afforded the same rights as white people. These laws changed society. In the Walker reading, we are confronted with the belief that police discretion is actually beneficial. I would agree with this statement if we did not have bias. I am not trying to say that all police officers are racist, but I believe that all people have their biases, and when these biases affect who gets arrested and who doesn’t, I see it as a major problem. There is this one incident where my now-husband and I were traveling to Alamogordo for my father’s birthday. Because my husband had to go to work the next day and I didn’t, we drove separate vehicles. We both pulled into the Border Patrol Checkpoint Station. The officer smiled at me, told me to have a nice day, and waved me through; however, my husband (who is Hispanic) was told to pull over. The officer had the nerve to say that my husband’s car smelt of marijuana and put the drug dog to work. The officer pulled all of the clothes from my husband’s overnight bag and proceeded to make a mess of everything in the car. When he found nothing, he told my husband that he was lucky that they didn’t find anything and then told him to leave – the guy didn’t even help my husband put anything back, nor did he apologize for his rudeness. It is instances like these which really question police discretion.
Internet Content
The opinion of the article, Police Discretion, states that “we need responsible administers -- officials who show "good judgment" and exercise discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. By definition, discretion is the making of choices among a number of possible courses of action (Davis 1969). This is a modified definition of what Kenneth Culp Davis actually said was "free to make choices". The article talks about how nobody expects perfection (we are human) and then compares our justice system to a game – a game in which playing fairly is more important than winning. It states the fact that there isn’t a law for everything, and police officers encounter so many things when they are out in the field – many of which laws haven’t been created to give a clear way of handling a situation. This is where discretion comes into play.
So What?
I am not completely discounting what this article, Police Discretion, talks about, but it seems that this article is making it seem like our police officers have no prejudices. We are all human and we all have our biases – we would be lying if we said we had none. It is not wrong to have biases, it is wrong to act upon those biases. This is when I have a problem with police officers and discretion. I know our police cannot arrest each and every person who breaks the law – our courts are overwhelmed as it is. However, when an officer acts on his or her biases and only arrests certain people, this is where I have a problem. Only in a perfect world would everyone be considered equal, but I consider it a problem when the people who have the majority of power (police officers) use their power against those people in which the officer is prejudiced – it is even worse when others try to condone it.
