NCJ Number
25798
Date Published
1972
Length
22 pages
Annotation
DESPITE THE FACT THAT LEGISLATURES WRITE CRIMINAL LAWS AS IF THEY WERE COMMANDS TO BE ENFORCED BY THE POLICE, THERE IS WIDE LATITUDE FOR OFFICERS TO DETERMINE HOW THE LAWS ARE ENFORCED.
Abstract
THE MANDATE OF FULL ENFORCEMENT, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH COMPEL SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, HAS PLACED THE MUNICIPAL POLICE IN AN INTOLERABLE POSITION. AS A RESULT NONENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS HAVE DEVELOPED UNDERCOVER, IN A HIT-OR-MISS FASHION, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO IMPACT ON THE OVERALL ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OR THE BASIC OBJECTIVES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. LEGISLATURES, OUGHT TO RECONSIDER WHAT DISCRETION, IF ANY, THE POLICE MUST OR SHOULD HAVE IN INVOKING THE CRIMINAL PROCESS, AND WHAT DEVICES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO INCREASE VISIBILITY AND HENCE REVIEWABILITY OF THESE POLICE DECISIONS. POLICE DECISIONS NOT TO INVOKE THE CRIMINAL PROCESS LARGELY DETERMINE THE OUTER LIMITS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. BY SUCH DECISIONS, THE POLICE DEFINE THE AMBIT OF DISCRETION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF OTHER DECISION-MAKERS - PROSECUTOR, GRAND AND PETIT JURY, JUDGE, PROBATION OFFICER, CORRECTION AUTHORITY, AND PAROLE AND PARDON BOARDS. THESE POLICE DECISIONS, UNLIKE THEIR DECISIONS TO INVOKE THE LAW, ARE GENERALLY OF EXTREMELY LOW VISIBILITY AND CONSEQUENTLY ARE SELDOM THE SUBJECT OF REVIEW. YET AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REVIEW AND APPRAISAL OF NON-ENFORCEMENT DECISIONS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE RULE OF LAW IN OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS ARTICLE THEREFORE ATTEMPTS TO DETERMINE HOW THE VISIBILITY OF SUCH POLICE DECISIONS MAY BE INCREASED AND WHAT PROCEDURES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED TO EVALUATE THEM ON A CONTINUING BASIS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPLEX OF OBJECTIVES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW AND OF THE PARADOXES TOWARD WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INCLINES. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT A POLICE POLICY APPRAISAL AND REVIEW BOARD WILL HELP TO REMEDY THIS PROBLEM. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)