Criminology

Police officers in the United States are entitled to discretion whose authority enhances their ability to exercise bias, violation or even abuse of individual’s right. Under the color of law as indicated by the American legal provision police officers might exercise authority which the indication that their actions are legitimized by their role as part of the government especially when dealing with a legal violation. The authority that comes with the discretion is one that is accounted as responsible for the increasing rate of racial profiling and police brutality in the United States as there lacks accountability to their personal actions (Burke, 2012). For instance in the case of Whren clearly demonstrates that even though there was no probable cause for a traffic stop and search the legal authorities indicated that the action was not in desecration of the Fourth amendment because when driving in such a high crime area the action was warranted.

According to Acker & Brody (2013) with respect to Terry’s doctrine in the case of Terry V. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) court asserted that the exclusion by the fourth amendment for any unjustified searches and arrests are not infringed in the case that a police officer stops and frisks an individual with no reasonable cause as long as there is justified suspicion that a crime might be taking place or one is armed. In other words, the search should be grounded in facts that can be proven when the need arises. However, the authority, therefore, increases the probability of infringement by police particularly based on biased views for conducting searches. In that police officers are likely to search black individuals more when compared to whites even though there is no probable cause but on the suspicion that blacks are highly involved in criminalities.

Police officers have the authority of initiating arrest after determining that an individual was conducting or wanted to carry out a crime. However, just arrest should not be discriminated given that reasonable facts for each arrest should be raised. Consequently, the discretionary authority that the officers own tends to disassociate them from acting within the legal provision as most of them are guided by discriminative rational which are in turn categorized as warranted by the law. I do believe that a police officer can utilize their legal crime fighting equipment’s to enforce an arrest on the basis of bias or discrimination. For instance, most of those arrested are individuals of color which means that some of the actions are fueled by discrimination. Some of the encounters are not desirable as people feel that police officers act as a threat to the community rather than offering safety (PBS, 2016). In other words, they normally utilize their authority to create wellness without respecting the rights of individuals particularly the most vulnerable persons living in disadvantaged areas.

In conclusion, it is without a doubt that the main objective of the American law is to ensure that safety is emphasized across the nation without the violation of people’s right. However, policing appears to be infringing this objective because discrimination and unreasonable searches and arrests are the order of the day. As demonstrated by main cases such as that of Whren it is evident that most of the stops and frisks are unwarranted by the authority that is given to the officers leads to a violation. Suspicions are raised when colored persons of those from low socio-economic backgrounds are involved which therefore demonstrate that such actions will continue to support racial profiling and police brutality.

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Acker, J. R., & Brody, D. C. (2013). Criminal procedure: A contemporary perspective.    Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Burke, A. (2012). Policing, Protestors, and Discretion. Fordham Urb. LJ, 40, 999.

PBS. (2016). One Encounter, Two Perspectives Policing the Police. Frontline PBS. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbghtzOr2vo&feature=youtu.be