Police Disciplinary Sanctions

  • Uncategorized

PoliceDisciplinary Sanctions

  • Background information

Theconcept of disciplinary process, within the police units, has been afoundation of frustrations for an extended period. Frustration hasnot only been felt by those involved but also by those who areinterested in the outcome of the process. Police officers andexecutives are always upset by the long periods taken from theallegations of indiscipline, through the investigation phase to thefinal verdict. The frustrations become even worse when theresolutions are reversed and modified by the arbitrators, civilservice officers and the panels of the grievance. For decades now,law enforcers have continued to feel that discipline is subjectiveand has not successfully met the primary necessities of beingconsistent and just (Walker, 2012).

  • Thesis statement

Thisaspect makes it essential for us to focus on the probable sanctionsthat should be taken against officers involved in unethicalactivities, the rationale of punishment administration, the acts thatcall for severe sanctions and the actions that should be takenagainst them.

  1. Potential disciplinary sanctions

Incase the evidence of the case is tabled, balanced on probabilities,that the officer committed a legal transgression, the policeexecutives recommend some credible sanctions. Severe gross misconductmay be settled through formal disciplinary procedures which rangefrom the malpractice tribunal proceedings to informal disciplinaryactions (Walker, 2012).

Thesanctions have always comprised of:

  • Being dismissed from the forces,

  • Paying a certain amount of fines,

  • Being demoted in position or the ranks within the service units,

  • Being reprimanded or to some extent, they are called upon to resign from the police department. The sanctions taken must be asserted if they are certified or not.

  1. Rationale of Punishment administration

Thefirst step before punishment is given is listening to the publicaccount of what happened and what motivated the officer that wasinvolved in the incidence (Garcia, 2015).

  • Why did he get involved in the action?

  • Were those around him able to understand that the action was totally a breach of the ethical policies?

  • Was the action a routine practice? The public accounts on why the officer did certain actions can provide immense value to the executives and help in reaching a logical punishment. The disciplinary committee should also weigh if the punishment is intentional when related to the previous incidents or will it be against the officer`s well-being or the first human rights.

  1. Actions that warrant more severe actions

Disciplinaryoffenses are usually classified based on their severity. There arethose that less perilous while others are extremely critical innature (Garcia, 2015). Such offenses include:

  • The use of uncalled for force during the arrest process or custody produce or committing certain conducts that is not in line with the ethical policies.

  • Actions like threatening colleagues,

  • Getting involved in dishonesty and immorality,

  • Disobeying of senior officers

  • And being involved in corruption like taking bribes.

  1. Conclusion

  • What should be done in cases of such acts?

Inmost cases, the management resorts to offering correctional advice incases of misconduct. However, the move is different in seriousoffenses (Garcia, 2015). The group III category, which comprises ofactions that are more severe, has always warranted the superintendentto discharge the involved officer from duty. These misconducts alwaysput the officer`s jobs at risk and in case they had an ominous finalwarning, they are officially discharged from duty.

  1. References

Garcia,V. (2015).Constructing the `other` within police culture: an analysisof a deviant unit within the police organization.Police Practice &amp Research,6(1),65-80.

Walker,S. (2012). The neglect of police unions: exploring one of the mostimportant areas of American policing. PolicePractice &amp Research,9(2),95-112.

Close Menu