Boring Politics

The fact that “police discretion” exists means that police officers are not required to follow a specific set of policies for any particular instance. For example, if you do not stop at a stop sign, the police officer may give you a ticket, or just a warning. In theory, this is the only real way that police officers can operate. If they were legally obligated to pull over everyone that went 66 mph in a 65 zone, it would seem counterproductive. However, the problem is that this discretion gives police a power that they should not have; the power to interpret the law.

The police force operates in the executive branch of the law. This is the same branch as the president. It is not the police’s responsibility to decide the fate of alleged criminals. (I do say alleged here, because even if you are under arrest, you are still innocent until proven guilty in the court of law). This is where the judge, a member of the interpretive branch, comes in. According to the way our system of checks and balances work, the courts should (and in theory, do) determine whether or not someone has violated the law; and, if so, how they will be punished. Giving police officers discretion to interpret the laws themselves is dangerous to the foundation of our government.

The truth is, laws are going to broken. If they would never be broken, there would be no need for the law in the first place. It is difficult to conjure up a human that will never break any laws (think about jaywalking, trespassing, littering, etc.). When these infractions occur, it should not be up to the police officer to decide whether to “do things the easy way, or the hard way.” I am not suggesting that at some point or another, everyone should be subject to prosecution: rather, I am suggesting quite the opposite. Our legal system needs to reflect on the fact that certain laws are either outdated or need to be only enforced in certain situations. These “amendments” should be enforced in a specific, predictable manner. For example, if you litter a napkin on the ground, you should either be forced to pick it up or pay a small fine. The police officer should not have the power to determine the severity of your punishment (or whether you will not be punished at all). This can transform decent human beings into power-hungry vigilantes, and force the public to fear police officers.

I consider myself to be a moral person. I try not to harm or endanger others. Though the legal system is designed to reflect good moral standing, there are always situations where normal citizens can find themselves in the gray area of the law. In these situations, police officers should “execute” the law according to a pre-determined code (AKA “the law”), so that the outcome of the incident is not reflective of the citizen’s legal prowess or the current mood of the officer, but the severity of the crime, as determined by the legislative branch of the law, not the police. I do not want to fear police officers. I want to respect them for protecting and serving the public. However, it often seems that police discretion morphs into police oppression because of the excessive powers that they are given.