Posted: April 26th, 2022

The Use of Force and Discretion in Criminal Investigation

The Use of Force and Discretion in Criminal Investigation
Research paper topics must be based upon one of the six course learning objectives. When submitting the selected research topic by the end of Week 2, students must identify not only the topic of their research paper but also the course learning objective with which it is aligned.

Choose between these six and message me your choice:

Examine the organizational structure and the administration process of the U.S. justice system.

Differentiate among the various components that influence the administration of the criminal justice system.

Describe the use of force and the use of discretion in criminal investigation.

Examine the administration of the courts when addressing sentence alternatives.

Analyze the American correctional system and its use of alternative programs when administering justice.

Identify common ethical issues that occur in the criminal justice system.

When writing your research paper be sure to focus upon the aspect of criminal justice that you are addressing from the perspective of the course learning objective with which it is associated. You must support points made in the research paper with scholarly resources. Your personal opinion must be limited and will not be a determining factor in the final grade. Instead, your grade is determined by how well you support your argument utilizing the materials discussed in this course and research and reference material you locate.

What I do not want is a regurgitation of what is in the text. Expand on the text; do not repeat it. Direct quotes should be used sparingly and limited to instances where the original meaning would be lost if not directly quoted. Document your facts utilizing standard APA style 7th edition.

This paper is to be submitted to me as indicated on the Course Schedule and Grading Policy Summary Table. The paper is to be in APA format 7th edition and the body of the paper is to be between 7 and 10 pages. The body of the paper does not include the title page, table of contents, appendix or references. Abstracts should not be included and will not count as part of the body of the paper if included.
The Use of Force and Discretion in Criminal Investigation
In a criminal investigation, the use of force or discretion is an important and key element of policing, but it is also very controversial. Within law enforcement, police officers’ use occurs when police officers attempt to compel individuals who are unwilling to comply with specific orders. Different officers apply different physical controls like handcuffing and shooting using rubber bullets to achieve this objective. According to Harmon (2012), the key concerns regarding this use of force is based on the fact that the policy doesn’t give a clear definition of the amount and situation when this force should be applied. In simple terms, discretion is often described as the ability and authority to develop independent decisions. In law enforcement, discretion allows police officers to decide on their subjects’ right course when problems arise. Among the common discretionary powers that police officers possess include making decisions on whether they should arrest individuals, search, and carry out investigations or not. To some extent, discretion within law enforcement often involves the use of force. In most cases, police officers are often accused or scrutinized by the public for using too much force or misusing the discretionary powers given to them. However, although these allegations exist, Hickman (2013) argues that the use of discretion or force in policing is important because it simplifies policing while also enhancing security. This discussion gives a detailed analysis of how force and discretion are used in criminal investigations.
Use of Force
The use of force and discretion in criminal investigations has often been a topical issue affecting societies everywhere. Some people have often expressed concerns that although police officers are empowered to use force where necessary, there have been growing concerns among the public about law enforcement officers misusing this authority. These growing concerns have led to open examinations towards policing by community members, heading towards keeping these police officers fair to the public and exposing those who undertake unfair practices. With this high level of increased scrutiny, Hickman (2013) explains that law enforcement officers have had to make tremendous advances in policing technology. Additionally, criminal justice agencies and the courts have developed rules to help law enforcement officers develop trustworthy and fair choices regarding how or when they should use force. Despite such advancements within policing strategies, there has to be a distinction between the society’s observation, expectation, and comprehension regarding law requirement practices and how criminal investigation officers prepare to respond to specific control circumstances.
In most cases, when the general public questions a law enforcement officer regarding the use of force, they have first to inquire whether this use of force is important or contributed to realizing the expected objective. Similarly, Hollywood et al. (2019) explain that courts first determine applying any force in criminal investigations before introducing the concept of excessive force. To understand this inquiry’s legitimacy, the initial comprehension should develop a definitive objective on when law enforcement officers should use force. In most cases, police officers apply force intending to arrest a specific criminal or bring to an end a potentially threatening situation within the shortest time possible without causing any harm to the general public or officers involved in such an arrest. An ideal situation would be for the individual’s resisting arrest to comply with the officers by agreeing to be arrested calmly. However, when this fails to happen, law enforcement officers have to make a swift decision on the type of force to apply.
Given that law enforcement officers are often faced with situations where they have to make swift decisions on whether to apply force or not, sometimes, they lack the right information regarding a given suspect’s risk levels before deciding to make any move. In the case, Graham vs. Connor, the court established the “objective reasonableness standard” as a measure to determine whether sensible individuals who had similar training to a police officer’s experience or education would act similarly when under comparable conditions. According to Mastrofski (2007), three variables have to be considered: whether a subject represents any urgent danger or not, seriousness associated with a suspect’s wrongdoing, and whether a suspect is attempting to escape resisting arrest. As such, based on these factors, it must be verifiable that a law enforcement officer was reasonable in their use of force during any arrests or criminal investigation process.
According to the objective reasonableness standard concept, the key emphasis is on law enforcement officers’ need to think and act swiftly. Under such circumstances, Mastrofski (2007) explains that information accessible to an officer when they decided to settle on a given choice that led to their application of force represents what an officer should be criticized for and not what might have been established afterward. For example, when a police officer decided to shoot any suspect who might be threatening him by pointing a gun at them, it doesn’t make any difference when it established later that the guy was just a toy. Additionally, if a police officer can demonstrate that during this incident, the perception was that his life and that of any other person at the scene were in danger, it was justifiable to use force. However, when a law enforcement officer later finds out that the weapon they thought was a gun was only a toy, the judgment under such circumstances can only be based on their initial knowledge (Mastrofski, 2007). Additionally, criminal investigation officers should never delay their decision or action until the suspect attempts to injure them or pull the trigger before making any response. Instead, they should evaluate the situation before making the right choice based on reality at the time.
Another suggestion regarding objective reasonableness is that criminal investigating officers should not be restricted to applying the conceivable minimal measure of force. Instead, these officers should apply reasonable force. This is a key qualification that has to be considered given that most of the time, the alternative force accessible maybe a suitable reaction. For example, CRS (2016) explain that if a suspect is violently resisting arrest, a criminal investigating officer can apply reasonable force using a pepper spray or electronic control gadgets that might make them comply. These decisions are sensible, although the public is likely to consider using pepper spray or Taser too much force or inhuman. Under such circumstances, CRS (2016) argue that investigating officer’s actions are assessed based on what they considered reasonable at the time and not what ought to have been done.
Finally, CRS (2016) argues that objective reasonableness is important, particularly when considering the circumstances that led to investigating officers applying force. Moreover, police officers are usually educated at police training schools to meet fierce power with maximum lethal force. In other words, they have been prepared and equipped with the right strategies or methodology to make sure that they can protect themselves during their duty by using their gun or any other protective gear given to them. Although investigating officers are allowed to use lethal during their investigations, this approach’s normal outcome or effect should not always lead to death. Instead, lethal force refers to any activity that is likely to result in a suspect submitting to an arrest without necessarily leading to death.
The Use of Discretion
Discretion is a critical aspect of law enforcement. According to CRS (2016), the key concept of discretion is that the law should generally be flexible and adaptable to guarantee that this law’s significance is fulfilled. Dismissing discretionally authority within law enforcement by making arbitrary arrest offenses is likely to result in many unnecessary arrests while disregarding the existing legislation, such as who takes the responsibility of choosing the violations that fall under the must or can’t capture category. A key reason why criminal investigation officers are given the freedom to make independent choices while on their duty is because it provides them with an opportunity to evaluate their situation’s exact context while making Assessments on a specific episode to Help decide the most appropriate requirements to make an arrest (Harmon, 2012). Although numerous violations could be genuinely clear, some of these examinations require evaluating other factors. In most cases, police officers are alone at work, and situations arise where discretion has to be considered the most significant factor. Under these circumstances, the officer has to make decisions individually regarding the most appropriate action to undertake during such times.
In policing, the general principle of discretion implies that police officers have some space to depend on when settling on decisions that influence the society they are policing. Some policing departments accord their officers some more discretion because they believe that employing great personnel would allow giving them more space for such individuals that ensure that public safety objectives are realized. However, some policing departments also accord their officers with fewer discretion powers by requesting that they submit to a specific structural norm. A common feature among the key areas where police officers adopt discretion is choosing the individual to stop. Harmon (2012) explains that most officers report some infringement during their daily duties. As such, these incidents often justify the need for criminal investigation officers to be accorded discretion in their overall decision making.
Another key important aspect to consider regarding discretion in a criminal investigation is that it would be unrealistic to arrest everyone violating the law. Moreover, it wouldn’t be appropriate for law enforcement officers to adopt such an approach. This concept implies that they should make the right choices on whether individuals breaking the law represent any risks to some form of open safety. Moreover, officers are likely to use discretion genuinely by issuing traffic tickers or other references that might be considered non-genuine. This type of discretion is often bound by several requirements involving implicit and delicate amounts. Under such circumstances, these officers can consider the few people to alert when deciding to secure the general society. In some cases, relying on discretion in criminal investigations can result in various forms of injustice and violations that are often based on religion, sexual orientation, and race, among other factors (Harmon, 2012). However, despite these shortcomings, some have defended the need for discretion in criminal investigations because it ensures that the law is not too stiff towards law enforcement officers and offers some level of flexibility.
Similarly, criminal investigating officers also have to exercise discretion regarding the arrest and how it should be done. When arrest warrants are issued, no alternatives are often given. However, under such circumstances, Hollywood et al. (2019) argue that criminal investigation officers working without arrest warrants have to establish whether the crime committed threshold is sufficient to warrant an arrest. For instance, a person who could be drunk driving could be arrested, but police officers also have the option of deciding to send him home in a Taxi. Similarly, discretion has to be applied when determining the amount of force necessary to subdue a suspect resisting arrest.
Conclusion
Using force and discretion in criminal investigations is an important tool to help law enforcement officers conduct their mandate from the preceding. Although public members’ general perception is that law enforcement officers often use too much force when making arrests or undertaking any other law enforcement practices, these officers are professionals trained on using the right force depending on specific situations. The use of force in criminal investigations is justifiable because, on numerous occasions, law enforcement officers often encounter situations where swift decisions are required on whether to apply force or not. Sometimes, under such circumstances, officers lack the right information regarding the risk levels a given suspect presents before deciding to make any move. A key reason why criminal investigation officers are given the freedom to make independent choices while on their duty is because it provides them with an opportunity to evaluate their situation’s exact context while making Assessments on a specific episode to Help decide the most appropriate requirements to make an arrest. For example, a police officer may be compelled to use a Taser or handcuffs to subdue a suspect resisting arrest. Moreover, in situations where law enforcement officers are under serious threat, they have the discretion to use guns and other weapons to enhance their protection and that of the general public. As such, discretion in criminal investigation plays a key role in enhancing the rule of law and ensuring that policing is quite easy for law enforcement officers.

References
CRS. (2016). Guide to Critical Issues in Policing. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/crs/file/836416/download
Harmon, R. A. (2012). The Problem of Policing. Michigan Law Review, 10(5), 716-818. Retrieved from https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol110/iss5/2
Hickman, M. J. (2013). Review of policing issues: Challenges and Controversies20131By Jeffrey Ian Ross. Review of policing issues: Challenges and controversies. Jones and Bartlett learning, 2012. 338 pp. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36(2), 467-468. doi:10.1108/13639511311329796
Hollywood, John S., Sean E. Goodison, Dulani Woods, Michael J. D. Vermeer, and Brian A. Jackson. (2019). Fostering Innovation to Respond to Top Challenges in Law Enforcement. Proceedings of the National Institute of Justice’s 2018 Chiefs’ Panel on Priority Law Enforcement Issues and Needs.
Mastrofski, S. D. (2007). Police Organization and Management Issues for the Next Decade. Center for Justice Leadership and Management.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: best dissertation writing services, best research paper writing services, college paper writing service, dissertation writing services cost, dissertation writing services near me, dissertation writing services reviews