Case Study Of Police Discretion

In the scenario, there are three types of people or things involved the police, the courts and corrections. Now with each one of these things someone who works as a correctional officer, a police officer or a judge can use discretion in order to do their job to the best of their ability. However, it is stated that discretion is the power or right to decide or act according to one’s own judgment; freedom of judgment or choice (dictionary.com. n.d.). Therefore, when it comes to a police officer using his or her discretion in order to get consent to search the house versus an actual search warrant would have really changed the outcome of the scenario. The reason for this is because if he or she had search the house with the consent of the suspect …show more content…
Hopkins and Mr. Chapman with murder because they were both there when the crime happen. Furthermore, it was a violent crime were a weapon was used in the act of threatening or actually cause bodily harm to the victim. Therefore, both suspects according to Utah law could face the same sentencing but the state’s attorney could decide to only charge the actual killer which is Mr. Chapman because he or she does have that right. They could also just charge Mr. Chapman with murder because Mr. Hopkins was cooperating with the police as well as the state’s attorney plus he showed remorse for his part in the crime. Fortunately, the state’s attorney has the power to do this and it would be only fair to charge Mr. Chapman with murder and not Mr. Hopkins because once again it up to their discretion to do so and they can make this happened given the fact that Mr. Hopkins has tried to help in the case. Therefore, the state’s attorney does not have to charge Mr. Hopkins with murder but can still charge him with robbery in the first degree which can still carry of sentence of five years to life but murder is a capital offense which carries a life sentence. Therefore, by just charging Mr. Hopkins with First Degree robbery which is a felony in Utah he could still receive a lesser sentence than Mr. Chapman for his cooperation in the …show more content…
The reason I feel this way is because they were in the car the entire time therefore they don’t truly know exactly what happened inside of the house. Furthermore, the only information they could truly give the investigators or the state’s attorney is what time they pick the two men up and what was the plan that the two men told them. They could also only tell what was discussed in the car once the two men got back in the car but that would fall under the law of hearsay because it’s considered the words of one person to another which does not truly mean that the other person said it. Therefore, by trying to use discretion as leverage against them would truly be a waste of time because they only have a little bit of information in the case. However, the getaway driver is a part of the case so the state’s attorney would want to know everything that they know but in this case I feel that they would not truly know enough information for the state’s attorney in order for them to bargain with in order to get a lesser sentence. Therefore, he or she should not use discretion in this situation because it will not truly help