Duty of a police officer

[poxpower]

Is the duty of any person in authority, ( judge, cop, army, teacher, internet masturba..I mean moderator...) to enforce the rules as given from above or to only enforce the rules they think is best?

example1: Jeff is a fat dumbass piece of shit who made it on the force and he hates black people and loves to pick on them because he thinks it's great.

example2: Roger is a middle-aged cop who used to smoke a lot of doobage as a kid and who doesn't give two shit about enforcing any drug laws because he thinks they're a load of crap.

So WHAT DO YOU THINK

[stafffighter]

From what I understand there is some level of disgression the police have individually but overall they took the job to serve the public, not their own interests. As Dilbert said "Every job is sometimes going to require you to do something you'd rather not do. That's why they pay you."

[Eoewe]

Such duty should be for the people and not for the self.

Sounds like bullshit, doesn't it?

[Rideo]

I believe that Officers should enforce the law as it is stated without personal opinion, even though I don't agree with drug laws. What example 1 is doing is called discrimination and he should be fired for it.

Careful screening and training should be done to ensure that our officers hold no personal sway and do their jobs without interference of opinion.

But I also believe that most of our judges need to become more liberal as it is their job to interpret the law, not simply enforce it blindly as the police are supposed to do (many judges do not look at cases closely enough and consider all the factors of the individual, instead they [most I've known and dealt with] simply give the same penalty for the same crime no matter how different the circumstances are). I believe that we should also allow all judges to be elected by the people.

In summary:

Legislative-Make the laws
Judicial- Interpret the laws
Executive-Enforce the laws

The executive branch should not interpret the laws because it is not their job.

[MortifiedPenguins]

If they don't like the law, don't be a cop.

Otherwise, your job is to enforce the letter of the law.

[InsertKickassAlias]

Other than being able to keep his job, the police officer has no real obligation to do their job. Whether they do decide to help us or not is irrelevant as they are still paid the same wages.

The only real difference between someone who is a police officer and someone who isn't is a shiny tin badge.

[homor]

if jeff is framing people, i have to go with roger, because that would make jeff a public threat, making him counter-productive of his job.

but otherwise, i'd go with someone whos an asshole and does their job than a nice guy whos a fucking slacker.

[Mollywop]

If you've actually gone through the difficult process of becoming a police officer, you probably aren't planning on slacking off. The job is competitive and your promotions and raises are based on your performance. So a slacker isn't going to get very far. Sooner or later the lack of investigations beyond basic traffic stops will get you in hot water. There IS such a thing as a nice/reasonable police officer. Although they may cut you a break here and there they're job description is still to protect citizens and bust your ass for breaking the law. Officers who are nice and let everything slide are mostly a thing of the past. They're looked down upon by the new age of officers, who get their hard on by finding any and every reason they can to arrest someone. I'm taking the police exam soon myself. :o

[gumOnShoe]

You enforce the rules, regardless of how you feel, otherwise you aren't doing your job. Is it morally right or necessary for those laws to exist? That's the legislative side and you need to work to change things if you disagree with them.

Even a forum moderator has the capability to modify the rules or start the process to do so. One person failing to follow the rules, or breaking the rules makes everyone else's job harder and puts undue stress on all, plus confusion and angst when the next offense is punished.

[poxpower]

At 9/19/08 02:04 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: You enforce the rules, regardless of how you feel, otherwise you aren't doing your job. Is it morally right or necessary for those laws to exist? That's the legislative side and you need to work to change things if you disagree with them.

Ok so can you punish Nazi war criminals?
After all, they were doing their jobs as instructed by higher-ups.

Are you going to say they should have changed the system they were under and that not doing so makes them horrible criminals all of a sudden?

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/19/08 06:44 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/19/08 02:04 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: You enforce the rules, regardless of how you feel, otherwise you aren't doing your job. Is it morally right or necessary for those laws to exist? That's the legislative side and you need to work to change things if you disagree with them.

Ok so can you punish Nazi war criminals?

If they're criminals then they've broken a law and our executive branches would be required to. ;)

After all, they were doing their jobs as instructed by higher-ups.

Yes, but did they follow the law that was generally accepted by its society? What I think you are trying to get at is: What if the laws are unjust or amoral? Then its sketchy, but if you disagree with the laws, no you shouldn't enforce them, but at the same time you shouldn't be a officer of that law. If its not by choice then I don't feel your obligated to enforce the law as you haven't made the choice to commit yourself to that society and its ideals. Again, this is the point at which you must become an agent of change through the legislative ways or violent ways of our society.

Are you going to say they should have changed the system they were under and that not doing so makes them horrible criminals all of a sudden?

I'd say that many were complacent and that its possible to have a corrupted society and a power that knows how to take advantage of a subjugated people. I think there's plenty of blaim to go around. I don't think you'd ever be able to take them to trial, nor should you, but lets be quite clear (if we're going to talk about all of this), some of the german people were complacent and even for the ideas and they shared some of the blame if they did nothing to stop it. The good people who did, no I wouldn't punish them.

Note though that when the law fails, I don't believe anyone should be an agent of that law and if the corrupted continue to do so then I do believe violence is a valid option to overturn that law, by revolution if necessary.

[poxpower]

At 9/19/08 06:56 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

If they're criminals then they've broken a law and our executive branches would be required to. ;)

They weren't laws when they did it.
You can retro-criminalize people.

Yes, but did they follow the law that was generally accepted by its society?

I have no idea of the details.
If the written laws are changed, what's the difference? They follow the written law, that's the only law officials are required to follow, no?

but at the same time you shouldn't be a officer of that law.

Maybe you feel you can make society even better if you enforce the right rules and make sure there's not an asshole in your place enforcing the wrong ones?

As mods, we know that the last people who should be mods are the ones who beg and ask for it. But then where would you get cops? Hehe.

Note though that when the law fails, I don't believe anyone should be an agent of that law and if the corrupted continue to do so then I do believe violence is a valid option to overturn that law, by revolution if necessary.

So what we get from this topic is mostly: well it depends.
:P

[Diederick]

Police officers, medics, judges, etc. are not hired for their personal beliefs. They are hired to be an objective aid enforcing laws and orders that were (in at least some way) democratically chosen.

[gumOnShoe]

At 9/19/08 08:08 AM, poxpower wrote: So what we get from this topic is mostly: well it depends.

P

In almost all things really, yes. :)

[JoS]

They server the public interest and not their own. IS it really in the public interest to start a massive hunt for the guy with the joint at a concert, not really. However, is it in the public interest to arrest them if they see them doing it, perhaps.

A better example then drugs though is jay0walking. Most places have laws against jay-walking, but they are rarely enforced. Its not that most people think jay-walking should be legal, its because its not really in public interest to enforce it all the time. Every once and a while perhaps, like a safety blitz day. Or look at when cops give out speeding tickets. Often the ticket they issue you is for less than what you were actually doing, you only get the full speed if you contest it in court. This is in the public interest because it saves money on court costs and such.

[polska322]

if a police officer does not enforce law for any reason he/she should be fired