Peak (2003) has pointed to the fact that the law is simply unable to cover every situation a police officer faces and that, given this fact, there are numerous times when police must make choices about the enforcement level required of a given situation. This option of personal choice is commonly referred to as "police discretion. The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of police discretion. Discretion is defined and discussed. Further, ten situations are evaluated as to whether they are reasonable uses of police discretion or an abuse of power. The paper ends with the formulation of conclusions about police discretion based on the material covered.
O'Connor (2005) states that police discretion is informed choice in which a police officer exercises autonomy in terms of discerning whether or not a given situation is, in fact, a violation of the law that requires standard procedures such as arrest, booking, and so forth. He points out that these choices are not made blindly by police officers but are based on the judgements of their professional knowledge of the law, skills, experience, and insight into a host of relevant factors.
Concerning police discretion, Calderon (2005) points out that it is a myth to believe that police officers enforce the law in all incidents which they encounter that is commonly referred to as "the full enforcement myth." The fact is that police offers do have considerable discretion in whether to enforce the law by issuing an arrest and so forth in a given situation. In fact, Calderon asserts, the police have great freedom in terms of action as free agents up to and including violation of rules, and even in very rare instances, disobedience of superiors.
However, O'Connor (2005) also points out that discretion is not license which is to say that the choices police officers make must involve a sense of accountability and be limited by professional, community, legal and moral norms. If...