In the weeks reading we learned what officer discretion is and how an
officer can exercise his or her own discretion based on the situation and
crimes committed. Based on the level of crime is what gives the officer the
power to decide if he will give a warning or cite or even take to jail. However
some law violation do not allow officer discretion I believe another way of
stating this is zero tolerance. For example driving under the influence or
domestic violence these two situation do not allow for officer discretion.
But not wearing a seat belt or running a red light these are all examples
of infractions and allow for officer digestion. I believe officer discretion is
a good thing for the officer it gives them more room to work and exercise the
spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. The choices I make as a
student in my opinion are not determined I believes in free will however the
argument for determinism is insight full it still fails to convince me
that every action ever is the result of an earlier action. Anyone is capable of
making the right choice so to say a choice made by a criminal is different than
the choice made by me is ridiculous. Unless the criminal has a mental
disability then him or she and I are equal is our own decision making.
Williams, C. R., & Arriago, B. A. (2012). Ethics, crime, and criminal
justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Just tell the bad and good of the post thanks list references