Key

PLEASE REPLY TO BOTH

 

 

1)Few studies have examined the impact of discretion on the work behavior of street-level bureaucrats, such as taking charge behavior (TCB), which is crucial for governmental reforms, especially in developing and transitional countries (Yuan et al., 2022). Most of the literature on discretion has focused on its impact on policy implementation and the delivery of public services. In the delivery of public services and the implementation of policies, street-level bureaucrats serve as both clientele agents and state agents (Yuan et al., 2022). They are the face of public administration. One of the characteristics that distinguishes them from other workers in the public sector is their discretion. Street-level bureaucrats implementing public policies have a certain degree of autonomy or discretion in their work. In short, discretion gets street-level bureaucrats to believe that they can autonomously and effectively deal with specific public affairs and respond to citizens’ requirements, which contributes to satisfying their basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence.

Police are only allowed to enforce the law; they are not allowed to use judgment in other situations. However, discretion cannot be completely eliminated and is neither desired nor practical. The official permission of discretion is also not the best course of action because this would necessitate the difficult and troublesome process of recording and analyzing the use of discretion ( Cohen, 1985). The use of authority resulting from knowledge and experience applicable to the solution of a specific issue can be an alternative to a formal authorization of police discretion. Cohen (1985) further asserts that discretion among police officers will always be mandatory due to the inevitable lack of resources and the need for an efficient service. Decisions, ethically made, will allow for charges to be limited to only those that matter and will render the police service more efficient in prosecuting only such offences.

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the idea that prosecutors have the authority to decide what cases to prosecute and/or what penalties to seek. Basically, even though some behaviors may technically be considered crimes, not all of them call for punishment or legal action, especially when mitigating factors are taken into account. This idea is one that we at Longwell Lawyers frequently employ to persuade prosecutors that justice does not call for the filing of charges or the pursuit of a specific mandated penalty. For example, unless all participants to the call are aware that the call is being recorded, it is technically illegal to record a telephone conversation in Florida. However, there are times when prosecutors decide not to pursue that case after learning that the crime was committed to show that someone was being falsely accused, extorted, etc.

A law enforcement officer may make decisions that are productive while on the job even though there aren’t always obvious answers. This means that each officer is free to respond to a situation in a way that they believe best serves the needs of the involved parties and the community at large. It is now feasible to serve and protect in ways that the law may not have intended based on the way it was written, as opposed to applying a particular statute in a uniform manner. Reducing discretion and replacing it with prescriptive guidance would have a two-fold effect. This would eliminate certain biases however, it would create even more work. The situations that police officers could run across while on the job are not always covered by statutes and common laws. This means that depending on the scenario, an offender might occasionally avoid receiving a ticket or being detained. Limiting or eliminating discretion would both increase crime rates as well as create even more work for understaffed departments.

References

Cohen. (1985). Authority – the limits of discretion (from moral issues in police work, P 27-40, 1985, Fredrick a Elliston and Michael Feldberg, ed. – see NCJ-99027). Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/authority-limits-discretion-moral-issues-police-work-p-27-40-1985

Yuan, S., Chen, Z., & Sun, M. (2022, April 14). Discretion: Whether and how does it promote street-level bureaucrats’ taking charge behavior? Frontiers. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.805872/fullLinks to an external site..

 

 

 

 

2)Should we do something about our high rates of incarceration?

The enhanced laws discussed in the reading have produced adverse effects in increasing sentencing. Many argue that crime rates are lowered due to these enhanced laws like the three strike laws keeping offenders in prisons which inherently reduces crime rates. which punishment doesn’t fit the crime. Legal processes known as sentence enhancements raise the harshness of a sentence for specific offences based on specific criteria. Sentence enhancements are legislative regulations that raise the penalty for repeat offenders who commit the same or a comparable offense after being convicted of it once before (Wessler, 2022). Sentence enhancements for repeat criminals are intended to prevent them from committing new crimes and to safeguard society from their criminal activity. Mandatory minimum terms, three-strikes laws, and chronic offender statutes are a few examples of sentence enhancements for repeat offenders.

Regardless of the particulars of the offense, these rules often call on judges to impose lengthier prison terms or harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Sentence enhancement statutes, or criminal enhancement statutes, apply in specific circumstances when certain factors are present. These statutes are designed to increase the punishment for a criminal offense based on specific aggravating factors. For example, repeat offenses: Criminal enhancement statutes often apply to individuals who have committed the same or similar offenses multiple times (Wessler, 2022). For example, a person convicted of DUI multiple times may face increased penalties for subsequent offenses. Despite its widespread use, research shows that the effect of incarceration as a deterrent to crime is minimal at best and has been diminishing for several years. Indeed, increased rates of incarceration have no demonstrated effect on violent crime and in some instances may increase crime.

From arrest to sentencing, racial and ethnic disparities are a defining characteristic of our country’s criminal legal system. These polices discussed inherently increase this inequality since it aims to deter crime by increasing sentencing. As well as establishing policies which create even more serious sentencing for repeat offenders. For my experience the only thing that can be done to address the disproportionality in these incarcerations is by creating polices which seek to fund programs which teach and rehabilitate instead of increasing punishment. Our elected officials should obviously be concerned by this topic however, the conversation often becomes muddy when politics and funding is concerned.

References

Wessler, M. (2022). Updated charts provide insights on racial disparities, correctional control, jail suicides, and more. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved May 5, 2023, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2022/05/19/updated_charts/.