NCJ Number
25454
Date Published
1975
Length
188 pages
Annotation
IN THIS STUDY OF SELECTIVE DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES, THE AUTHOR FOUND THAT POLICE FALSELY PRETEND TO ENFORCE ALL CRIMINAL LAW BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO DO.
Abstract
APPROXIMATELY 300 CHICAGO POLICE AT ALL LEVELS WERE INTERVIEWED FOR THIS STUDY. EACH OF THE TOP SIX OFFICERS (THE SUPERINTENDENT AND DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENTS) SEPARATELY CONFIRMED ALL FACTS. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT POLICE CAN NOT FULLY ENFORCE ALL CRIMINAL LAW FOR SEVERAL REASONS, INCLUDING THE FREQUENT LEGISLATIVE INTENT WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIC CRIMINAL STATUTES THAT ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CUT THEM BACK AND THE USUAL APPROPRIATION OF ONLY ENOUGH FOR AROUND ONE-HALF TO TWO-THIRDS OF FULL ENFORCEMENT. HE ARGUES THAT FALSE PRETENSE PREVENTS OPEN SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, PREVENTS TOP OFFICERS FROM MAKING AND ANNOUNCING ENFORCEMENT POLICY, PREVENTS SPECIAL STUDIES OF ENFORCEMENT POLICY, PREVENTS THE USE OF PROFESSIONAL STAFFS FOR MAKING ENFORCEMENT POLICY, PREVENTS ENLISTMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN POLICYMAKING, AND DISCOURAGES THE POLICE FROM COORDINATING THEIR ENFORCEMENT POLICY WITH THE POLICY OF PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES. THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT OPEN SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT IS LEGAL AND SHOULD BE MADE PART OF EXPRESS POLICE ENFORCEMENT POLICY. HIS THESIS IS AS FOLLOWS: (1) THAT THE FALSE PRETENSE SHOULD BE TERMINATED, (2) THAT THE SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT POLICIES SHOULD BE OPEN, (3) THAT TOP OFFICERS SHOULD MAKE THE OVERALL POLICIES, (4) THAT THEY SHOULD USE PROFESSIONAL STAFFS FOR MAKING IT, (5) THAT FOR MUCH OF IT THEY SHOULD USE RULEMAKING PROCEDURE OF THE KIND THAT FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES CUSTOMARILY USE, AND (6) THAT PATROLMEN SHOULD NO LONGER MAKE OVERALL ENFORCEMENT POLICY. FOURTEEN SEPARATE REASONS FOR OPEN SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT ARE SUMMARIZED. ALSO CONSIDERED IS THE CASE LAW ON JUDICIALLY REQUIRED ADMINISTRATIVE RULEMAKING, ALONG WITH VARIOUS JUDICIAL TECHNIQUES FOR IMPOSING THAT REQUIREMENT. A DISCUSSION OF THE RIGHT MIX BETWEEN POLICE RULES AND POLICE DISCRETION REBUTS THE IDEA THAT RULES NECESSARILY REPLACE DISCRETION, EMPHASIZES THE UTILITY OF RULES TO REINFORCE AND TO GUIDE DISCRETION, AND PROPOSES THAT PATROLMEN SHOULD HAVE DISCRETION TO INDIVIDUALIZE THE APPLICATION OF ENFORCEMENT POLICY THAT IS CENTRALLY MADE. THE APPENDIX CONTAINS AN ACCOUNT OF THE INTERVIEWING PROCESS USED IN THIS STUDY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)