Graham vs. Connor

            Excessive force as well as rationality is two common terms in the court system that is used to regard police power. Excessive force is referred to as the use of greater force than that which is sensible and practical police officers would use under a given situation.  Rationality on the other hand is used to refer to a given standard that compares the suspect in question to that of a hypothetical one who exercises typical care, skills as well, as decision in behavior that the society requires of its members for the protection of their personal and others wellbeing. Although easily ignored they are greatly used as they have power in the court of law. This was used in the ruling for the Graham vs. Connor case since deadly force was used in this case. The police officer in this case failed to listen to the fact that Graham was diabetic and did not allow him to neither take the orange juice that was offered to him nor the diabetic decal that he had carried. Graham therefore got hurt with some bruises following the incidence with the police officer. The court therefore decided and encouraged other courts to determine the reasonableness measures of the case before making any judgment. This paper therefore will present and discuss some of these measures used to determine the reasonableness standards used in the Graham vs. Connor case and the relevance of this case. 

            This is one of the cases that are relevant as it clearly shows the unfairness of our justice system. The Supreme Court therefore in their decision of this case, argued out that the calculus of the rationality must exemplify the granting for the fact that the police officers are more than usual forced to make rush decision and judgments in situations that seem to be more uptight, indecisive as well as quickly evolving (Lippman 2007). Thus they make rush decision on the amount of force that they are supposed to use in that particular situation. This is only to mean that the seriousness of the crime can cost a police officer to make an irrational decision which may result to an improper calculation. Thus the final judgment is determined on the assumption that in cases when the judgment is not carefully rationalized, Graham vs. Connor conveys the broad structure for measuring the extent of force that is legal as per the fourth amendment.

            A balancing test is thus put in place when the courts must pay notice to the facts and situations of the case integrating the seriousness of the crime committed. To agree on whether the suspect is of any threat to the safety of the people or that of the police officer, hence the officer’s actual intention does not determine the extent of the force used excessively. Another test should examine whether the suspect is resisting the arrest or whether he is attempting to avoid the arrest (Lippman 2007). Thus the police officer has to make the final judgment and decide on the action to take as per the current situation and not anyone not understanding the conditions should try to make that same judgment. However, though the decisions in this case were those of justice as they help to endorse the fourth amendment’s rights, it is clear that they do not address the issue of the police officer profiling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Lippman, M. R. (2007). Contemporary criminal law: Concepts, cases, and controversies. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.