The police force is a state agency with the express purpose of maintaining public order (Reiner, 2010). In the fulfilment of this objective, police must engage in 5 main duties including that of law enforcement, conflict resolution, crime control and prevention, provision of social services and traffic management (White and Perrone, 2015). Through the application of these methods of order, the police ensure that justice is upheld and ensured. However, in the pursuit of such an ideal, police may inadvertently engage in practises that undermines the ability to access or achieve justice for the wider community and society (Wolfe and Piquero, 2011). These practises are intrinsically linked to the police culture in which officers are conditioned
…show more content…
Discretion can be described as an officer’s latitude to make decisions, such as that of whether to issue arrests, fines or warnings, that may extend beyond their traditional authoritative positions (Atkins and Pogrebin, 1982). ‘The basic nature of police work [is] dispersed surveillance’ as police resources are too diffused over the diverse number of offences and as such it necessitates the discretion of individual officers to best coordinate their efforts in the administration of public order (Reiner, 2010). Furthermore, the ambiguity of the law requires police officers to make their own judgments in what constitutes a certain offence and attempt to decide when it should be applied (Brown, 1988). However, in the course of applying discretion, police officers inadvertently employ what is known as differential policing which shapes their decisions on the basis of their social, organisational and individual circumstances (White and Perrone, 2015). As a result, police officers naturally bring their personal views and biases in the interpretation of a situation, and it is in those circumstances where officers may ultimately act in a manner that is discriminatory and impede the course of justice. Discrimination can be either direct or indirect …show more content…
Police culture may impede access to justice in that it promotes a protective environment in which corruption may flourish unimpeded and therefore undermine the very principles police officers had sworn to uphold (Prenzler, 2009). Furthermore, the inherent discretion that police officers are able to employ in encounters in turn allow for the potential for either extreme proactive techniques that infringe on individual rights (White and Perrone, 2015) or the omission of essential law enforcement that leaves victims at the mercy of their attackers (Groves and Thomas, 2013). The fundamental organisational environment in which police officers are shaped under inadvertently produces behaviour that acts as a barrier to achieving justice for victims of criminal offences and undermines the police’s standard for impartiality and
Discretion can be described as an officer’s latitude to make decisions, such as that of whether to issue arrests, fines or warnings, that may extend beyond their traditional authoritative positions (Atkins and Pogrebin, 1982). ‘The basic nature of police work [is] dispersed surveillance’ as police resources are too diffused over the diverse number of offences and as such it necessitates the discretion of individual officers to best coordinate their efforts in the administration of public order (Reiner, 2010). Furthermore, the ambiguity of the law requires police officers to make their own judgments in what constitutes a certain offence and attempt to decide when it should be applied (Brown, 1988). However, in the course of applying discretion, police officers inadvertently employ what is known as differential policing which shapes their decisions on the basis of their social, organisational and individual circumstances (White and Perrone, 2015). As a result, police officers naturally bring their personal views and biases in the interpretation of a situation, and it is in those circumstances where officers may ultimately act in a manner that is discriminatory and impede the course of justice. Discrimination can be either direct or indirect …show more content…
Police culture may impede access to justice in that it promotes a protective environment in which corruption may flourish unimpeded and therefore undermine the very principles police officers had sworn to uphold (Prenzler, 2009). Furthermore, the inherent discretion that police officers are able to employ in encounters in turn allow for the potential for either extreme proactive techniques that infringe on individual rights (White and Perrone, 2015) or the omission of essential law enforcement that leaves victims at the mercy of their attackers (Groves and Thomas, 2013). The fundamental organisational environment in which police officers are shaped under inadvertently produces behaviour that acts as a barrier to achieving justice for victims of criminal offences and undermines the police’s standard for impartiality and