Summary
This paper explains that the problem of discretionary police judgment, in some cases, clearly leads to abuses of police power, even among police who are academically educated and have attended structured training in discretionary decision-making. The author points out that any time a police department uses racial profiling as part of a process to decide whom to stop, that practice requires judgment and discretion on the part of the officers. The paper reveals that police officers routinely choose whom to stop for traffic violations and how to deal with them once they have been stopped because they do not have time to stop everyone who commits a traffic violation; but the departments should have clear priorities about traffic violations, so that officers can be free to deal with more serious issues, such as reckless driving and incidents of road rage. Table of Contents Public Substance Abuse Different Neighborhoods Handled Differently Racial Profiling Traffic Violations Public Soliciting Public Drunkenness Domestic Abuse Public Disturbances Police Chases.
There's a difference between the ministration and administration of justice. Nobody (except mechanical jurisprudence theorists) wants a ministerial agency of justice, one that would ritually and religiously follow every rule and regulation down to the letter in a mechanistic, repetitive, assembly-line manner. Instead, we need responsiblead ministers -- officials who show "good judgment" and exercise discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. By definition, discretion is the making of choices among a number of possible courses of action (Davis 1969). This is a modified definition of what Kenneth Culp Davis actually said was "free to make choices".
Discretion, uncertainty, and inefficiency are rampant and essential in criminal justice. Nobody expects perfection. That would neither be good nor fair. Justice is a sporting event in which playing fair is more important than winning.......
