Law Enforcement Conflict: Police Discretion vs. Community Will
This paper examines the conflict between legal obligation and community will in the criminal justice system. It argues that law enforcement officers should exercise discretionary judgment, selectively enforcing laws based on community standards and public sentiment rather than applying rigid, uniform enforcement in every situation. The paper discusses how communities with differing norms may require tailored approaches to policing, considers when prosecutors and police should decline to charge individuals in light of local opinion, and explores why sheriffs — with their direct community ties — face particular challenges in balancing legal duty with the will of the people they serve.
- Introduction: When Law and Community Will Conflict: Overview of tension between law and public will
- Police Discretion and Selective Enforcement: Argument for selective, community-sensitive policing
- Prosecutorial and Police Power to Decline Charges: Community sentiment as basis for declining prosecution
- Community Standards and Differentiated Enforcement: Enforcement varying by local community norms
- The Sheriff's Dilemma: Sheriffs balancing legal duty and community ties
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds an abstract policy tension — law versus community will — in a concrete, relatable anecdote about a mentally unstable shoplifter, giving the argument real-world weight.
- It builds its case progressively, moving from general principles of selective enforcement to specific actors (police, prosecutors, sheriffs), which gives the essay a logical arc.
- The conclusion narrows focus onto the sheriff as a distinctive figure, effectively tying community contact and legal authority together in a single role.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a brief illustrative scenario — a young man caught shoplifting who the community identifies as mentally unwell — as a case study to support the broader normative claim that law enforcement should defer to community knowledge. This technique grounds a policy argument in observable human circumstances rather than relying solely on abstract reasoning.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with the general conflict between law and community will, then develops the argument for police discretion, expands to prosecutorial discretion with an example, applies the principle to community-specific norms, and closes by focusing on sheriffs as the enforcement role most directly caught in this tension. Each paragraph advances the argument one step further.
Introduction: When Law and Community Will Conflict
The government, including the criminal justice system, is meant to be answerable to the people. However, there are instances where the law and the will of the people may conflict. This can be due to evolving social preferences that lawmakers have failed to keep pace with, or it can result from different communities holding different standards. Resolving the conflict between doing what is required by the law and serving the will of the people is, in many cases, far from a black-and-white decision.
Police Discretion and Selective Enforcement
The police should always strive to enforce the law. However, there are some cases that can be considered minor and not particularly serious. Officers should have the ability to selectively enforce laws that the public wants enforced. Even though police are required to uphold law and order, there ought to be some exceptions. There are instances where a law might not be popular among the people in a given area. In such cases, police should use judgment regarding such offenses, since it is possible that an individual may not even be aware they are violating the law. There are also offenses that the public widely recognizes and considers serious; police discretion should concentrate resources on those offenses rather than on ones that carry little public concern.
Prosecutorial and Police Power to Decline Charges
The police or a prosecutor should have the power to decide against charging a particular offender when it is clear that the local population does not want that person prosecuted. This is because community members may know something about an individual that the police or prosecutor do not. If the community is strongly opposed to a charge being brought, there is likely a meaningful reason behind that sentiment, and it should be considered before a decision to charge is made.
For instance, consider the case of a young man who was caught taking items from a retail store without paying. The store owner ran after him, drawing the attention of nearby police officers on patrol and several passers-by who were attracted by the commotion. When asked why he had acted as he did, the young man remained silent. Members of the public told both the police and the store owner not to take action against the boy, explaining that he was mentally unstable and in need of medical attention rather than prosecution. In such a case, officers should be empowered to exercise discretion and decline to charge him, reflecting the community's informed perspective on the situation.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.