The Use of Deadly Force is a Very Conflicting Issue
The Use of Deadly Force is a Very Conflicting Issue
One of the objectives of governments in every nation is law enforcement, and the establishment of law enforcement agencies, due to the existence of crimes and violence everywhere. Law enforces or policemen and policewomen perform duties, which include maintaining regular patrols, responding to calls for service, directing traffic at the scene of an accident, investigating a burglary, giving first aid to an accident victim, or even community policing ( 2006), and these duties expose them to dangerous situations, which need serious actions. Law enforcers need to show their toughness to be able to reinforce discipline and harmony, to the point of displaying violence and instill in the minds of citizens that they are capable of doing it. However, this becomes a conflicting issue, for law enforcers are also capable of using deadly force, which threatens many individuals. Because of this, the use of deadly force for law enforcement should be abolished or lessened, as it gives many abusive law enforcers that opportunity to abuse their power and resort to extreme violence. Apart from this argument, this paper also discusses the differences and the similarities of police deadly force in different states of the United States.
Law Enforcement and Consequences of Using Deadly Force
It has been reported that in order for police officers to do their job well, they are vested by the state with a monopoly in the use of certain powers, and these include the powers to arrest, search, seize, interrogate, and if needed, use lethal or deadly force (“2006). According to the code of the (2006), law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force only when it is reasonable and necessary to protect the officer or others from an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person, and this danger includes the escape of prisoners, unauthorized use of firearms, and other actions that may threaten the lives of individuals in the community. It is true that the law enforcers’ ability to use deadly force presents a myriad of benefits in the community and society, such as maintaining discipline of the citizens, decrease in the incidence of heinous and minor crimes, improving the ability and skills of law enforcers for public control, and the increase in the confidence of the citizens in the community for protection against intruders or law violators. Despite the several and evident advantages of using deadly or lethal force, however, using it is also regarded as a violation of the law, and as a violation, many individuals suffer in the hands of abusive law enforcers. The following discussion presents the evidences in showing that the use of deadly force is a form of violation.
Primarily, the use of deadly force violates all three definitions of the Rule of Law, which is (1) the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power; (2) equality before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary courts; and (3) the law of the constitution is a consequence of the rights of individuals as defined and enforced by the courts (“Nov/Dec 2006 ,2006). In addition, allowing the use of deadly force displaces the law, as according to Harm’s Principle, all liberties and freedoms are controlled, for the legal system is the most appropriate method of influencing the punishment for the violator of the law. For this, allowing an individual or a law enforcer to use deadly force demoralizes procedural justice, thus opposing the resolution (“Nov/Dec 2006 , 2006). In essence, the law enforcers’ immediate use of deadly force prohibits the law violator to undergo a normal process of trial and jurisdiction, which would allow the individual to be sanctioned properly under the law. If deadly force will be used right away, then, the person will not be given the chance to justify his or her crime or speak for him or herself, for everyone is entitled to undergo proper trial and jurisdiction under the law.
Secondly, allowing law enforcers and policemen to use lethal force may entitle them to abuse that power and resort to police brutality, despite their rule regarding the use of force. There were several accounts of police brutality cases in different states in the United States, which have left its victims in a state of emotional and physical stress, or even death, and these cases occur during the course of arrest, disputes or other incidents in the street or public places (2006). One account happened in New York City in 1999, wherein a man, who had no criminal record and carried only a beeper and a wallet, was shot 19 times and killed by four white officers. The officers were looking for a rape suspect, and the man did not even fit the profile except for the fact that he was a black man (as cited in Mangan, 2006). Another case happened in April 1997, wherein students at the University of California engaged in a non-violent occupation of a university building in Berkeley were beaten by police, who struck the students with batons as they were lying on the ground. The police also sprayed pepper spray at close ranges. From this, at least two students suffered asthma attacks and other injuries (2006). From these cases or accounts, it can be seen that in granting the law enforcers with the power of using deadly force, there are instances that they will be abusing that power and resort to violence. The mentioned cases are clear evidences of the law enforcers’ abuse of their use of deadly force ( 2001), for they apply their use of deadly force ( 2004;1999) even in situations where it is not needed. It is evident that despite the law given to law enforcers regarding their use of deadly or lethal force, they still have the tendency to use it in several occasions, which depend on the emotions or mood of the law enforcers. Sometimes, because they are persons in authority, it gives them the right to become brutal and inconsiderate. For this instance, another concrete example that can be cited is that during rallies, although police officers implement maximum tolerance, they also engage into the use of deadly force, beating and hurting rallyists on the streets with their weapons. This happened during the People Power Revolution in the Philippines with the impeachment case of ex-president Joseph Estrada. In this case, the use of deadly force must be abolished or must be lessened to give justice to the victims of police brutality and injustice caused by the use of lethal force of law enforcers. If this will be abolished then serious violations such as mentioned above will be prevented, thus, protecting citizens from abuse and harm caused by abusive law enforcers.
Deadly Force in Different US States
Despite the cases and the negative notion associated with the use of deadly force, many more states in the United States have implemented laws sanctioning the use of deadly force to defend citizens against muggers, carjackers or other assailants outside the home (2006). Along with Florida, states that adopted the law include Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Dakota, while Arizona and Idaho have adopted slightly less strict versions of the law, and similar bills are still pending in 16 other states including Michigan (2006). Differences only rely on the fact that in some states, there are higher incidence of crimes than in other states, which are not too crowded and sophisticated than states like New York, Florida, and Texas. Moreover, the law enforcers’ use of lethal force are legal in all states of the United States, as each state follows a common law that allows law enforcement officers, persons acting under the authority of law enforcement officers and lay citizens acting on their own to use force, to arrest suspected criminals (2002), which includes felons or other individuals posing deadly threats to another individual or to the community. All the states follow the common law regarding the use of deadly force in law enforcement, which is only necessary or needed, to make or assist an arrest, to prevent escape of a criminal and to protect the welfare of citizens from suspected criminal or other individuals that may cause threat to many. Aside from these conditions, each state does not tolerate the excessive use of deadly force when not necessary, and in conditions wherein police officers or law enforcers can make peaceful negotiations. In essence, the different states in the United States support the implementation of the use of lethal force to law enforcers and police officers when the need arises, and from this, they practice maximum tolerance before resorting to brutality and deadly force. However, this is not a guarantee for the protection of the citizens, due to the presence of police brutality cases mentioned earlier. Based on these police brutality cases, it can be argued that state governments must ensure the public of their guidance on the right approach and attitude of law enforcers on their use of deadly force. In the event that law enforcers commit violations against the use of deadly force, state governments must be efficient and effective enough to implement strict laws and punishments that would restrict other law enforcers to commit violations against the citizens.
Conclusion
The use of lethal or deadly force in relation to law enforcement is one of the necessary actions in dealing with the increased incidence of crime and injustice in the modern society. Many individuals see it as an answer and punishment to criminals and law violators, who do wrong to a lot of citizens in the society. With the use of lethal force, many criminals would be cautious of being caught and seized by the law, especially that law enforcers use this force to protect the citizens from harm and when extremely necessary. However, despite the advantages of implementing and using deadly or lethal force in needed circumstances, police officers and law enforcers are entitled to use it in any situation, for its use depends on their discretion, and their view of the situation. Because of this, many law enforcers sometimes go beyond their limitation and resort to police brutality. Due to police abuse and brutality accounts, it would be necessary if the rule regarding the use of force will be reviewed and evaluated, or maximize the implementation of maximum tolerance. In this way, every citizen will be upheld to undergo fair and proper trial and jurisdiction under one common law.
0 comments:
Post a Comment