ARE POLICE ABOVE THE LAW Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

ARE POLICE ABOVE THE LAW - Essay Example However, at the same time police are in the best position to be tempted by corruption, kickbacks, dealing in contraband, and covering up excessive force. While violating the law is not the norm for the vast majority of good officers that play by the rules, for those that don't the system and organization places them above the law. Police officers are in a position to abuse the law and will naturally take advantage of their position when the opportunity arises, and are in fact encouraged by the system to do so. According to Johnson and Cox, "Police officers are exposed to an extraordinary level of temptation in such areas as drug investigations" (70). As with any cross section of Americans, some people will be more prone to violate social values when there is an opportunity for economic gain. This factor is exacerbated by the fact that "little or no discipline is imposed when police officers witness fellow officers engaging in misconduct. As a result, public safety officers believe that it is acceptable to break the law or the rules of the department" (70). In many routine instances police officers, and the department, places their actions above the law. The police department not only provides the opportunity fo... Police are conditioned to form an unbreakable bond with their peers. As part of their training, "Police rookies are given the impression that they are under attack by the public and can only rely on one another" (Terrance and Cox 73). This carries over through generations and pervades the entire department. According to Terrance and Cox, "The problem is not a "few bad apples," but an organizational climate that molds new officers into thinking and doing as the organization wishes" (74). If the officer was honest when he or she entered the academy, by the time they hit the street they will encouraged to turn a blind eye to corruption and abuse. Incidents involving police misbehavior confirms the theory that when police are given a considerable opportunity to break the law they will take advantage of a system that will refuse to report or punish them. In 1998, Human Rights Watch reported that police brutality was a persistent problem in US law enforcement. They cited cases of "unjustified shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and unnecessarily rough treatment" and while they represented a minority of the total officers they found that "law enforcement supervisors, as well as local and federal government leadership-often fail to act decisively to restrain or penalize such acts" (Police Brutality). Police officers that operate outside and above the law have become a growing national problem. Critics will argue that the public exposes the police to too much scrutiny and places unreasonable expectations on the officers. They will say that officers are often in life and death situations that call for immediate reactions and split second decisions. The heat of the moment can cause an officer to over-react, but should be considered

Supreme Court Justices (Government 2) Research Paper

Supreme Court Justices (Government 2) - Research Paper Example Both men are on the conservative wing of the court and have held their position there for many years. Both are remarkably intelligent men who have also been lightning rods for political controversy. Antonin Scalia is a Reagan appointee and has sat on the Court since 1986 and is the senior associate judge. He still has many years of service left. He is known for his sarcastic wit and sharp tongue, as well as for his hard-headedness. He is known for his dissenting opinions. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority opinion and is issued separately, often attacking the reasoning of the judges who sided with the majority. As one critic observes: His writing style is best described as equal parts anger, confidence, and pageantry. Scalia has a taste for garish analogies and offbeat allusions—often very funny ones—and he speaks in no uncertain terms. He is highly accessible and tries not to get bogged down in abstruse legal jargon. But most of all, Scalia's opinions rea d like they're about to catch fire for pure outrage. He does not, in short, write like a happy man (Clarke). Nevertheless, Scalia knows what he believes. In the end, he is not interested in the government forcing people to act in certain ways. Although he is a pro-life Catholic, in 1992 in a case about funding for Planned Parenthood, Scalia has this to say about the legality of abortion: â€Å"The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.† Another famous ruling by Scalia came in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003. This was a case about affirmative action. The court ruled that the University of Michigan should permit affirmative action in order to create a more diverse, harmonious school. Scalia, in a dissent, said he found this ridicu lous. These were ideals that the government should not legislate but are taught by general practice. Respect for others was something that â€Å"is a lesson of life rather than law—essentially the same lesson taught to (or rather learned by, for it cannot be 'taught' in the usual sense) people three feet shorter and twenty years younger than the full-grown adults at the University of Michigan Law School, in institutions ranging from Boy Scout troops to public-school kindergartens.† Both of these cases show that Scalia is a man of principle. He is not willing to sell his ideals down the river. He understands that even thought the constitution may be a document written many years ago, a living tree is just as likely to rot as it is to grow. Clarence Thomas was appointed by President George H.W. Bush. He has many years of service ahead of him. He is originally from a poor family in Georgia. He is only the second African-American to sit on the Supreme Court, after Thurgood Marshall. He is known for his quiet and serious demeanour on the bench. The issue of his appointment was one of the most scrutinized and divisive issues in politics in America in the 1990s. During his confirmation hearings in the Senate, a woman named Anita Hill came forward to say she has been sexually harassed by Thomas. Thomas denied this. Thomas' response to the allegations was truly memorable. Faced with a huge circus around unproven allegations, he told the Senate, â€Å"This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed