The Social Construction Of Street Level Bureaucracy

In dealing largely with disorderly elements of the society, some people working in law enforcement may gradually develop an attitude or sense of authority over society, particularly under traditional reaction-based policing models; in some cases the police believe that they are above the law. In other cases, police corruption and misconduct may be explained by individuals and individual faults- behavioral, psychological, background factors, and so on.

In “A Sketch of the Policeman’s Working Personality,” Jerome Skolnick discusses and analyzes how a police officer’s personal outlook is affected by his or her involvement in police work, creating an “us versus them” mind-set, as well as the frequent inability to “turn off” the police mentality outside of a work environment. While he states that a person’s work has an impact on his or her outlook of the world according to a recurring theme in the sociology of occupations, police work has a particularly strong impact on those cognitive lenses (Skolnick, 1966, p. 2). Because of the nature of their job, police have a tendency to look at the world in a way that makes it

There are three sociological perspectives on police bureaucracy. The sociological perspectives on police bureaucracy are functionalism, conflict, and interactionism. The police bureaucracy is an efficient way for the society to carry out the three functions that are typically associated with policing which includes crime fighting, order maintenance, and service. (Palmiotto & Unnithan, 2011) Each of these sociological perspectives are different from each other. They all focus on different things.

As a police officer, the major objectives are to maintain order, enforce the law, protect one’s property, and to save lives. In addition, police are divided into two roles based on how they perform their duties. The two roles of a police officer are a public servant and a crime fighter. A police officer whose role as a public servant is to serve all types of people, as well as criminals. Public servants regularly provide advice and make judgments as to the degree of risk they should take with the public. Many decisions involving risk are relatively easy to make, but others are complex and significant consequences (Kernaghan and Langford, 2016). These risks may involve using force and the consequences could be media backlash or a potential termination. Public servants abide by the oath and uphold the integrity and honor of the organization as an officer. Also, public servant officers like to play it safe because they like to be known as ordinary citizens who like to go home to their

With such a broad volume of discretion apparently in nearly every aspect of police decision making what strengths does this level of discretion have? Police work and the work environment require the use of discretion. Decisions must be made very quickly, usually without time for input from another source. This is despite the fact that a bureaucratic structure exists for the department as a whole. Moreover, communities cannot agree on what constitutes criminal behavior or the level to which criminal behavior should be sanctioned or ignored. A prime example is that of the skid-rows areas. The approach taken by most police in dealing with the skid-row “problem” or

Lack of training and policing standards are closely linked to the myriad problems bedeviling police work, especially in small departments (Brodeur, 2010). All over the country, police departments report cases of officers being caught in uncompromising and unprofessional situations, resulting in disciplinary actions such as redeployment, suspension or sacking. These cases of unprofessionalism have led to questions being asked about policing, occasioned by recurring series of questionable and controversial encounters with police officers (Brodeur, 2010). The consequence of such encounters is increasing public distrust in law enforcement agencies.

Discretion in policing and the court system is a necessary and unavoidable facet of criminal justice work, yet it is still very controversial. Discretion exists when courtroom actors (police officers, attorneys, judges) have the flexibility to choose an appropriate response to a situation. Police discretion is defined as “The opportunity of law enforcement officers to exercise choice in their daily activities” (Nowacki, 2015). This means that actors with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision-making. These decisions lead to important implications throughout the criminal justice process, especially in the courtroom. The process begins with the decision to arrest by a law enforcement officer in the field. Once the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, multifarious avenues of discretionary decisions are available to resolve a case. Potential issues that could arise and that are ever-present in everyday policing include racism, sexism and socialism (Miller, 2015). These issues ultimately have a negative affect on the criminal justice process, leading civilians to not trust the one process and actors that are there to help them. While discretion should play a role in the actions a courtroom actor takes and cannot be eliminated entirely, instead it should be limited and controlled throughout the criminal justice environment so that citizens can once again trust the process and so that there will be no disparities.

Police officers in a crime prone region and in areas with extreme rowdy criminal behavior may develop some degree of dislike for the law breakers and their approach to dealing with the criminals may be brutal. In such situations, the police officers enforcing law and order act based on their emotions rather than their professional expectations.

As each new member of a police department officially becomes a sworn member, friends, family and other members of the public gather as they speak an oath. The oath these officers take, promises their commitment to ensure the safety of the public they serve. This means more than protecting civilians from individuals who may stray from the law, but to also ensure the protection of basic human rights. Police and other public servants are given a great deal of trust and power, what they do with it is based on the ethics they choose to uphold. In this paper we will look at why it is important for these justice professionals to study ethics.

There are two demanding issues within the fields of policing, one is amassed inhabitant trust in the constabularies and fostering United States conglomerates amid constabularies and areas they serve. Civivillians in the United States in general to have sympathetic views of constabularies, conversely the less contact individuals have with constabularies, the more likely they are to have optimistic slants of the constabularies. Given the impression that run-ins with the constabularies interpose towards discouraging views of them and critiques of their services. On behalf of the constables procedural justice, which emphasis on the nature of the relations of constabularies and the communities, has caught the interest from scholars and specialists. “”The procedural justice approach holds that citizens’ perceived fairness in interactions with police is positive and related to favorable attitudes.”” (Gau, 2010; Harvell, 2008; Resig at al., 2007; Tyler, 2006 and Huo, 2002). Not amazed by how many numerous findings that show procedural justice influences civilians discernment about the constabularies but not only inclination to liaise with them. Its universally accepted that the irrefutable attitudes regarding disposition to help in the law-enforcement investigation and have a wide-range implications for the legitimacy of constabularies and communal control. “” According to Tyler (1997) the primary impact of experience on views about the overall legitimacy of authorities innovative judgements about how one is treated. People value a respectful treatment by authorities and view those authorities who treat them with respect as more entitled to be obeyed.”” (pp.

This essay discusses the effects of the police organizational culture on a Police officer’s ability to make independent decisions.

One important work which highlighted some of the shortcomings of officer discretion was a survey sponsored by the American Bar Foundation. Among other things that survey noted in the 1960’s a national crisis arose with certain problems relating to law enforcement. The survey noted that the possibility existed that discretionary decision making could represent a pattern of discrimination, it did say, on the other hand, the survey was unable to say definitively rather discrimination existed in

Discretion, uncertainly, and inefficiently 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. Law enactment, enforcement, and administration all involve trading off the possibility of perfect outcomes for security against the worst outcomes. Policing is the most visible part of this: employees on the bottom have more discretion than employees on the top.

Police tend to become much more bureaucratic when witnesses, an audience, or the media are present” (http://faculty.ncwc .edu/toconnor/205/205lect09.htm). The final cause of discretion is system variables. This cause deals with how “police tend to become lenient when the court and correctional systems are clogged; how police tend to become strict when the city needs revenue; the size and structure of the department controls individual discretion; how communities that have sufficient social service resources, like de-tox and mental health facilities, allow officers to use more non-arrest options; and the way in which officers are summoned plays a role in how they will act when they get there” (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect09.htm).

The fifth narrative “Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Critical Role of Street-Level Bureaucrats written by Michael Lipsky in 1980 whose ideas can be observed in the Reforming the Government School of though. The reading analyzed the significance of the actions of public workers to determine discretionary judgement when delivering services to the public. Government workers are the face of the government and the representation of the conditions of policy to the people. The problem that government workers face is the constant changed in policies and procedures that tend to directly affect the demands of citizens and services. Lipsky argued, “They are constantly torn by the demands of service recipients to improve effectiveness and responsiveness to improve effectiveness and responsiveness and by the demands of citizen groups to improve the efficacy and efficiency of government services” (p. 402). The function of government workers is usually questioned by citizens since they feel that any decision of street-level bureaucrats scan affect the stability of the people’s lives. In addition to the problems in relationships with clients, the increased in administrative cost for the government’s services was questioned and placed under scrutiny.