2006-06-07 06:26:54 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
OK. to be a little more specific. Ethically, say they stopped a family member for DUI, should they jail them or would it be OK for them to call someone to come pick them up. Situations where the outcome of their actions would maybe affect them emotionally. This is for an ethics class so supportive reasons why they should or shouldn't is needed. Thanks!
2006-06-07 06:36:57 · update #1
Yes, police are given a certain amount of discretion in circumstances where it benefits the "greater good" to do so. Sometimes it just isn't worth it to use time and energy to enforce laws that are relatively less important than other, more pressing ones. For example, police in areas with high rates of violent and drug-related crimes will not waste their time arresting someone for littering.
This is used by other members of law enforcement such as Distirict Attorneys and prosecutors, who use their discretion to "grease" the wheels of justice and reduce court costs for taxpayers. For example, prosecutors are allowed to give passes to certain criminals in exchange for information and testimony leading to the conviction of larger, more dangerous criminals.
2006-06-07 06:38:27 · answer #1 · answered by Noah M 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
NO, the officer would actually be violating his oath to up hold the laws of the state. As for your example he would have to jail the person if the degree of alcohol in the system warrants it but if not he could give a citation and have someone come and pick the family member up.
2006-06-07 13:47:08 · answer #2 · answered by Miss B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Meaning what? You should explain your question some more. What types of "certain situations" do you mean? Without an explanation, a "certain situation" could be just about anything.
2006-06-07 13:31:35 · answer #3 · answered by jannabanana 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They do. I wouldn't blame them though. With politicians pulling their strings all the time with budgets and politically correct policies, they haven't much choice.
Ideally, we should get rid of antiquated laws (you can't eat peanuts in church), quit making more and more new and redundant laws and actually enforce the ones we have.
2006-06-07 13:50:55 · answer #4 · answered by RockHunter 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They do, all the time. You have never been givin a warning?
They especially turn their heads if it is one of them!
2006-06-07 13:32:11 · answer #5 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ethically..no
realistically..they do
it will always be subjective until we get a bunch of judge dredds....
2006-06-07 13:38:15 · answer #6 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
depends on the situations.
2006-06-07 13:31:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They do it all the time on Law and Order:SVU.
2006-06-07 13:31:00 · answer #8 · answered by captainjackson2004 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, if they did that then the people who commit the crimes would be tempted to try again
2006-06-07 13:30:24 · answer #9 · answered by pimp_doggy_fosho 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO THEY SHOULD JUST SHOOT ALL THE INNOCENT PEOPLE LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING.
2006-06-07 13:31:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋