Police officers are limited to their discretion while on duty because their choices and actions depend on good reasoning, choice-making and behavior as their respect will help shape their ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving with their set of rules on patrol. As Williams & Arrigo (2008-2012) proclaim, even though the influence of such circumstances and conditions may not suggest that free will is illuminated, it perhaps does suggest that we should pay more than passing attention to the ways in which choices and actions can be shaped and constrained, as well as the implications of such constraints for moral and legal responsibility.
Police officers choices are committed while they work, however, in situations as controlling particular criminal behavior while considering different approaches can eliminate potential criminal acts. For example, through a combination of rational choice, routine activities, and environmental criminology, a theory arises that making changes to an environment can have a significant impact on a potential criminal’s decision to commit crimes in that area. Therefore, the foot patrol strategy followed from the premise that increasing officer visibility in high-crime locations would render such locations less optimal for criminal offending, leading to a deterrent effect and a reduction in violent crime (Crime Solutions, n. d.).
In this instance, police are not determined within their professionalism to act accordingly since any situation can occur differently, though, strategies at this case in point help with each police officer taking part of the action to reduce crime. In other words, in this point of view it is said that free will in the human world has laws and just because of those laws everyone is limited by making their own choice in how things are accomplished or recognized.
As a result, the lack of freedom is what people choose to do and how they decide what is moral or immoral to shape their capacity of morality. On the other hand, the choices as a student, employee, spouse, mother or father are not determined since every individual has a different status of operation in a certain mode. Their personalities, character, conduct, and responsibilities will hold a separate matter of interest; therefore, their choices will support a diverse concept of what is determined.
Indeed, people who choose to break the law as far as determinism versus indeterminism have a distinct meaning in their position from my own how I rationalize justice. People give reasons for their own actions as considering their moral obligations, however, people overall think differently and carry out in their own way as well, therefore, recognizing that our decisions and actions have consequences or effects does not necessarily imply that they directly and by themselves caused those consequences. The emergence of any given effect or consequence requires the “coming together” (p. 30), of a number of factors – each of which contributes to the eventual manifestation of that consequence (Williams & Arrigo, 2008-2012).
Reference:Crime Solutions. (n. d.). Philadelphia Foot Patrol: Program Theory. Retrieved from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=234
Williams, C. & Arrigo, B. (2008-2012). Ethics, Crime, and Criminal Justice. (2nd Ed.). Pearson Education. Retrieved from http://content.ashford.edu
need to tell the good and bad of post list references thanks