Police

n this film “Let him have it” how does the director, Peter Medak, encourage the audience to feel sympathy for Derek Bentley and his family? Refer to three specific episodes from the film in you answer. “Let him have it” by Peter Medak is a very powerful film based on a controversial true story. The narrative is about a murder committed by Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley.

Peter Medak, the Director, explained “I made this film to break hearts” and the way the scenes have been established and portrayed by the actors increase the emotional response of the viewer. The reason that this film is so effective is due to the amount of emotion and sympathy the Director portrays towards Derek Bentley. However, the film has a distinct bias towards Derek Bentley as it follows his characterisation compared to that of the other actors. Within this essay I will draw out the techniques the Director has uses to create a truly emotive production.

I have chosen three episodes from the film where I believe the Director has emphasised the sympathy towards Derek and his family most effectively; the opening chapter, this depicts Derek when he was a young boy during World War II, the murder of the police officer, this is when Derek and Chris Craig attempt to break into a premises and the hanging. As the film opens it immediately provides the feeling of; sadness, sorrow, grief and unhappiness. The background to the credits are pitch black and the credits are written in old style, types set with white writing, establishing the feeling that the film is set in the past.

The background music is sad, gentle and to some extent slightly emotional providing a sense of unhappiness. As the credits continue, the music gets louder and louder. This creates suspense in the audience, making the viewer believe that something is going to happen. The credits dissipate and then we can here bomb blasts, providing an indication that the first scene is going to be set during a war. This is effective because we can imagine the scene from the sound before we can view it. The first scene reveals the trauma suffered by people living in London during World War II.

As the camera pans the set it shows the demolished houses and the devastated families with their personnel belongings scattered over the rubble. This creates a strong emotional response in the viewer for all of the people caught up in the air raid that has hit the street. The camera pans across a demolished house and the distraught family and then focuses into a body shot of a mother crying over her dead child. A lady calls for help, the attention is focused upon the lady shouting, “I have found him”, as they lift the rubble away, revealing Derek for the first time.

The scene reveals a helpless, weak and vulnerable young boy surrounded by rubble and covered in dust. The Director increases the emotive effect of the scene by lighting the childs’ face and zooming into the boy, which then reveals blood seeping out of his ear. The boy starts to shake and fit, this completed the effect the Director was aiming for, to create the initial sympathy for Derek. The trauma Derek experienced within the first scene could provide the reasons for his learning difficulties and disability.

The Director has built this scene to explain to the audience what is happening to Derek and to create sympathy for him due to this incident, although at this stage it is unclear that he is suffering from. The Director has clearly identified this scene to underpin the whole film and I believe it provides a very descriptive and highly emotive start to the film. The film transports the viewer to when Derek was 19 years old, this is expertly delivered by focusing in on Derek in the rubble, followed by a close up of Derek as a teenager and pans out to show who he is with.

The boys are about to break into an old persons shed, the mood is sad and sombre. The music is slow and deliberate, using the ‘miner keys’ making this scene uncomfortable and provides the feeling that something bad is going to happen. Then you see the boys breaking into the old person’s sheds, the lighting suggests Derek’s innocence due to him being highlighted and the boys shadowed. The music gets louder and louder when the boys are vandalising the shed. Derek had no intentions of going into the old persons shed until one of the boys encouraged him, “Hoy Derek”.

The Director is showing the audience how easily led and vulnerable Derek is whilst under the influence of others, which could be due to Derek’s learning disability. It looks obvious throughout the scene that Derek is playing and he does not understand what he is doing wrong. He is trying to be part of the gang. During the scene Derek tries to eat the old person’s supper that the other boys ruined with coffee, this is out of character for him and supports the conclusion that he is trying to fit in.

When the man comes back the rest of the boys flee but Derek just freezes, he then starts fitting. This scene is powerful due to the high camera shot indicating his harmlessness and his lack of power. The Director uses this technique to establish sympathy for Derek, so you feel that he is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The scene shows how the character of Derek is fragile and how easily he gives into peer pressure. This provides the impression of weakness within his character.

The Director has again uses this scene to depict the major events that affect Derek’s life and sets the scene of how Derek ends up in Kingswood Approved School (a young offender’s institute) and raises the question as to whether it is his fault that he is in there. The scene has a big impact on the film; the audience would not feel as much sympathy for Derek because they may think that he was ill-disciplined and badly behaved for being in the institute.

In the institute the music starts slowly to create sadness in the audience, as the camera tracks through the institute to a long shot of Derek in a long narrow corridor. This makes him look alone, harmless and sad as if he is waiting to be disciplined by the Head Master of the institute. The following scene is of Derek’s father and the Head Warden in the office discussing Derek’s low intelligence and his disability, epilepsy. This make the audience feel sympathy for Derek because he has been categorised and is not capable of fitting into a young offenders institute.

Derek needs specialist help, which he never appears to receive. After Derek is released from the Institute he takes it upon himself to become reclusive and agoraphobic probably due to this being easier than facing life and its dangers. It takes allot of persuasion by his sister, whom he loves, to overcome this feeling and become more extravert. This also provides the audience with impression that he feels unwanted because of being rejected from the school. This could have resulted in how easy it was for Derek to join Chris’s gang, because he felt wanted.

Prior to the scene where Derek and Chris attempt to break in to the butchers shop, Derek is portrayed as someone who is trying to fit in and that is why he takes the keys to the shop. Throughout this scene there is clear evidence that Derek does not realise the potential implications of what he is doing, he believes he was only having fun. When Derek hands over the keys to Chris he comments, “you be in charge Chris,” as if he is a child. As they jump off the bus the boys play together, just like young children.

Chris then hands a knuckle duster to Derek; he takes it like a child taking a new toy from his parents. This helped establishes to the audience that Derek’s intention on the roof was not to kill but to just following the gang and try to be one of them, as portrayed in the gangster movies that the boys watched at the cinemas, prior to this scene. Chris applies a great deal of peer pressure to Derek, “are we going to do this or are you going to piss off too? ” this shows how easily he is led by Chris.

The Director shows a family observing Chris and Derek climbing up the fence, they immediately call the police. The audience is now aware that the police are coming; it also creates suspense, as you wonder what will happen to Derek and Chris if they get caught. The Director keeps switching to the police and their movements setting the scene for what is about to happen. The viewers can see the level of police presence surrounding the boys where as Chris and Derek are completely unaware as they are playing on the roof, running around like children catching each other in a school playground.

When Derek and Chris are surrounded by the police, Derek exclaims, “my dad is going to kill me”, he could not think of anything worse than being reprimanded by his father. A police officer enters the roof and Derek struggles with Chris to try to prevent him shooting him, he warns the officer that Chris has a gun. Derek does not move when he was warned to stay still by the officer. It is at this stage when a critical point of the whole film is depicted, the officer asks Chris for the gun. Derek shouts to Chris “let him have it” meaning to give the gun to the officer; however Chris shoots the officer.

Throughout this scene, Derek is portrayed as trying to help. The audience can feel sympathy for Derek because when he is trying to be of assistance but is being pushed around by the police. The audience do not feel as much sympathy for the policeman as they do for Derek because the viewer does not know about the officer’s background, as we do with Derek, he is not characterised. The Director makes it very clear that Derek does intend to hurt or kill anyone and has no animosity towards the police officer. The Director shows a clear bias towards Derek in the way the scene is depicted.

The audience could feel some sympathy for Chris because his brother has just been sent to prison; he shouted “you gave my brother twelve years”. It is effective when the Director shows a close up of all the policemen loading up their guns, and showing Chris loading his gun with six bullets, to show how outnumbered Chris is compared to the police. When the Police Officer was murdered, the Director includes a close up of all of the faces looking at the body, Derek was shocked, sad and stunned at what Chris had committed.

When Derek walks towards the body he looks physically shaken, the viewer can feels a lot of sympathy towards him because he is genuinely sorry for the policemen. Derek knelt by the policeman’s side, lowering himself down to his level, to show his respects towards the policeman. As the policemen take Derek away he does not resist arrest because it was never his intention to hurt anyone, after all he was just playing, or so he thought. In the third scene I have chosen, Derek and his family are awaiting the hanging. The Director creates a large amount of sympathy towards Derek and his family throughout the final episode.

Once again the lighting and camera position is used to increase the emotive effect of the scenes. After Derek is taken down, following the court case, Derek and Chris are in two different cells looking at each other, this is the first time in the film where the Director places Derek in the shade. This is because he fared worse following the court case due to his age compared to that of Chris and he is facing execution. In the scene just prior to the hanging a light is tracked from the window through to the bath full of letters showing the support received for Derek’s cause.

The Director again is using this effect to show Derek’s innocence, this creates sympathy in the audience as they know what is about to unfold and that it is unjust. When Derek’s parents were informed that he should never have been tried in a court of law because of his mental age, the audience feel pity towards him because of what he went through in court, the stress of it all, when he should never have been there in the first place. The audience feels sympathy when he says “I am not afraid to die”; it gives the impression that he has given up and accepted the fact that he will die. It also emphasises the fact that he is still a child inside.

The audience feels sorry for Mr. Bentley as the letter to the Queen is his last hope of saving his son. The Director has added this scene to depict the desperation of the Bentley family. During Derek’s last conversation with his family he says goodbye as if he will never see them again, he tries to stay positive when his mum and dad are around “cheerio, see you tomorrow”. The music in this scene gradually gets louder to increase the emotion between the family also increases the sympathy towards Derek and his family, especially when you realise Derek can not touch or kiss his family for the last ever time before the hanging.

They then place their hands together on either side of the glass barrier. Derek dictates his last words to a prison warden because he can not write for himself, he states in his letter to his mum “I tell you what mum, the truth has to come out, and when it does a lot of people will get hurt”. As Derek dictates this the camera gradually zooms in as he signs his name showing that he is struggling to spell his name and has the handwriting of a child. The Director chooses to show a scene where Derek’s dad is in his bedroom holding his toy aeroplane, waiting for a verdict, this reminds us that Derek is mentally still a child.

It makes you feel sorry for Derek because he is going to be executed for a crime that he would never be able to even conceive, never mind commit. You feel like they are hanging a child, an eleven year old child. What’s more, in the scene the Director uses a close up of the officer scribing for Derek, the officer has a tear in his eye, as he sees the injustice unfolding. Within the execution scene there is a close up of the clock above the fireplace in the Bentleys house, this is very effective as it symbolises Derek’s life ticking away.

Mr. Bentley walks out into the middle of the street making him look small and helpless, like he has given up all hope. The street looks long and lonely, a postman walks up to Mr. Bentley giving him a pat on the back saying “this is all today” this shows the contrast in letters. A couple of days before there had been hundreds of letters being delivered, but now there was only one letter. This tells the audience that even Derek’s supporters have given up on the possibility of a reprieve.

As the clock is ticking away the camera delivers a high shot looking down on the family in the middle of their living room, hugging each other for comfort. The high shot makes them look helpless’ you feel that there is nothing they can do to help Derek now. It makes the audience feel sorry for the family as they have tried everything they could; petitions, trying to get a retrial, writing to the queen etc, but in the end nothing had worked. The Director increases the sympathy for the family when he uses a close up of them crying together for Derek.

This is jucsiposed to Derek saying his pray the Director shows the grieving and scared, sad Derek, to maximise the suspense and the sympathy for him and his family. Outside of the prison, protesters are singing hymns asking for God’s mercy for Derek. The Director shows this shot of all the protestors singing, in front of the huge walls of the prison and a huge solid door. This shows that the protesters can’t do anything for Derek but pray, sing and hope. This is creating sympathy for Derek because it is clear that everyone is on Derek’s side even the officers inside the prison and the executioner.

The executioner says to Derek “everything is going to be alright” to provide him with some encouragement. When it is time for the execution a clock is ticking, this links Derek’s scene to his families scene, then the clock strikes 9 o’clock and Derek’s breathing becomes louder. This is creating the tension in the audience, and also showing how nervous and scared Derek is towards the execution. Derek does not struggle or shout protesting his innocence, if the director didn’t show this the audience would not feel as much sympathy for him.

All the prison officers stopped working and after he was hung they bowed their heads showing their sadness for Derek. The protesters are now singing hymns for him as if they were at a funeral. When Derek is hung the camera closes in on his shoes in order to try to achieve the atmosphere, yet not showing the macabre hanging. The camera pans towards the light coming from the ceiling, as if Derek was escaping from the prison and going home or towards heaven. The camera flies over Derek’s town into his bedroom and down the stairs, as if he was walking towards the living room to his family.

The camera makes the audience feel like Derek is now a ghost or an angle. The camera zooms in towards Derek’s family together in the middle of the living room. Then over their shoulders to the clock on the mantelpiece, it stops ticking. This sequence of camera shots maximises the sympathy towards Derek and his family and creates an overwhelming feeling of injustice. The Director used multiple techniques in the film to create sympathy for Derek and his family for example; panning, high shot, low shots, close ups, body shots, etc.

The music throughout the film is similar, slow and, sad using the ‘minor key’ to create a slightly uncomfortable feeling. The lighting of Derek and the people around him, for example, Derek was predominantly in the light when he was around Chris, this suggests his innocence. The cumulative effect of the techniques creates a powerful, highly effective and emotive film which provides the viewer with a compulsion to keep watching and till the conclusion. After the conclusion the viewer is left with a true feeling of injustice and sadness especially when you find out it is based on a true story.

Dear Mayor Burns, My name is Destiny Knott, my family and I have recently moved into a house overlooking the park in the neighborhood of Park Hall. I would like to draw your attention to some of the lewd and lascivious acts that take place daily in Park Hall. On many separate occasions up to several times a day, I have noticed from my window or front porch a crowd of undesirable individuals sitting on the benches.

Numerous times these Individuals have been seen drinking alcohol and carrying on very loudly, using the foulest kind of language. On another occasion my family and have witnessed a violent fight occur right in front of the park where all of our children play. It is an outrage that our young innocent children should have to listen to and witness such inappropriate displays of behavior. I would Like to recommend Implementing a local community watch program to help ward off some of the undesired traffic In our area. I would also Like to recommend enforcing a community curfew for our underage children for their safety and protection.

Children out past curfew should be required to be accompanied by an adult. Another recommendation would be to follow up with local police to make frequent patrols through the neighborhood to help lessen the undesired traffic. Police handle these types of incidents. Lower crime rates in our neighborhood regarding prostitution and drug solicitation is much desired as well. We would also like to see a better comradely between our residents and the local law enforcement officers. I believe that given the proper diligence and attention to this matter, this problem can be solved making this a friendlier environment for our children. Sincerely,

As is the case with most people, a stigma is carried with the perception that asking for help is a sign of weakness. So much so is this fact that people have taken their own lives, before doing so. This is a universal problem that, to date has no solution. The prevalence of this problem is so severe education has been enforced almost to a mandatory level. Organizations have made suicide prevention training as such a part of the Job now that it almost seems routine.

As with soldiers that are expected to operate in high stress environments, so are officers and the risk of the pressure becoming too much is always there. An Organization known as SAVE (Suicide Awareness Voices of Education) has dedicated its mission to prevention and education, as we now know that one of the biggest defenses we have to this horrible problem is an educational offense. Knowledge is power. We need stress. Our bodies endure stress everyday and a certain amount of stress is healthy.

It is once we endure more than we can perceptively handle that the risk of suicide becomes prevalent. Most individuals in high stress professions excel under certain stressful situations, yet another reason that it takes a certain type of person to be able to handle the demands of police work, but every person is different and their body reaction to stress may be more severe. It is here that we see a stigma arise, in that an individual sees a counterpart that handles certain situations differently and perceptively better than they themselves creating a feeling of inadequacy.

It is because of perception that so many lives are lost due to this not so silent killer. Page 3 of 4 No singular definition can be used to pinpoint a definition for stress, but we are certain that “good” stress is known to be helpful. It’s the bad stuff that we have to look out for. In the past, law enforcement suicides often were ruled accidental deaths, and they are still underreported, Dandies says. “Most of us agree that the statistics are probably much higher than we actually know, because of the shame factor. ” (http://Saturday’s. Saturdays. Com)

If those in need of help would look past the stigma of weakness associated with getting help would we see a decrease in these senseless losses? Of course! “”These folks are taught to suppress their emotions and soldier forward,” says Elizabeth Dandies, a psychologist who works with California police agencies in the aftermath of suicides. “It’s very difficult for them to admit they need help. ” And I agree. I myself served five years as an Army PM and had to sit through countless hours of Suicide Prevention Training and memorizing a mantra using an acronym ACE.

Ask your buddy Care for your buddy Escort you buddy Did I encounter individuals that could’ve benefited from counseling and refused to go?

North Carolina was a place filled with discrimination and racism. There were places where African Americans couldn’t eat or shop in the same stores. Although slavery was over, some of the feelings that whites felt towards blacks were still empresses. With that being said, on February 6, 1960, four young men that went to A university decided that they should make a stand against discrimination in their town. I can remember the day like yesterday. It was the middle of February when they people started talking about doing the next sit

In, I knew that I would be there taking a stand with the rest of my people. We went Into the diner and Immediately sat down at the counter as tables. When I mean that there were hundreds of people that came down to help support the movement. And It wasn’t all blacks that supported, there were whites down there too who helped In the sit-ins. We sat there for hours on edge Just walling for someone to service us, but they just stared. For a long time they Just watched us Like we were aliens. They didn’t know whether to be confused or angry. After some time had past, they had soon called the cops.

And to the officers surprise, they were out numbered by a lot. They had to call for back up just to start to get us out. We made sure we stood our ground and made sure we kept our composure. It had gotten really bad too. People were throwing drinks at us, food, and anything else that they thought would provoke us into reacting in a negative way. The police officers started to get physical and violent and we weren’t even do anything wrong. All we wanted was to be serviced and waited on. What’s the difference between blacks money and whites? Just knew that this would be a part of a long process that will soon end with positive results.

Abstract

In the law enforcement, police officers are granted with discretion they can exercise in deciding whether to file a case against an accused or not. The case discussed in this paper will clarify the extent of the exercise of discretion and the parameters that should be considered by police officers in order not to qualify their acts as violation of their sworn duty.

R. v. Beaudry

Summary of the Decision

            The issue of the case resolved in the Supreme Court is whether the decision of the trial court is reasonable. The decision reached a five against four decision. The majority opinion upheld the decision of the trial court finding Sergeant Beaudry guilty of obstruction of justice and hence dismissed his appeal. On the other hand, the minority opinion suggested fro a new trial because of the obstruction of justice.

In the resolution of the case, the majority opinion concluded that evidences presented were enough to establish that Sergeant Beaudry deliberately failed to take breath samples from Officer Mr. Plourde for the purpose of hiding the latter’s crime (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). In reaching such decision, the majority established the relationship between a discretion and obstruction of justice. In the criminal justice system, police officers are granted with discretion which they apply in everyday routine of their duty. This discretion, however, is not absolute and should be done reasonable and within the context of justice. In order that discretion is justified, it has to pass two tests namely; subjectively and objectively. In order that discretion can be said to have been done subjectively, it has to be “exercised honestly and transparently based on valid and reasonable grounds” (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada).

According to the Supreme Court, the trial court committed no error in interpreting the evidences presented to have sufficed the elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. The Court held that Mr. Beaury failed to takes breath sample from Mr. Plourde because the latter is a police officer from other department (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). Furthermore, the discretion must be objectively or supported by material facts or circumstance. The discretion should have been applied properly in the sense that the seriousness of the offence has been considered. The Supreme Court held that in order the discretion is properly applied, the “justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest” (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). In the case of Mr. Beaudry, he may have exercised his discretion in good faith. However, it was not a legitimate exercise because it was deemed to avoid prosecution of Mr. Plourde. It was the surrounding circumstances that justified that Mr. Beaudry “breached his duty beyond reasonable doubt by giving preferential treatment to an off- duty officer” (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada).

With regard to the administrative directive or policy relied upon by the defence, the Supreme Court recognized it to have bearing on the exercise of discretion. But then, the administrative directive or policy is not the determinative in the instant case. The Supreme Court stressed that the policy raised does not have the force of law that can alter the scope of discretion that is found in common law or statute (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). Thus, the decision of the trial court is reasonable.

In the contrary, the minority opinion reiterated that a new trial should be afforded to the accused. In arriving at such conclusion, the dissenters emphasized that the decision of the trial court was unreasonable because “it was based on analysis and evaluation suffering from flaws” (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). The dissenting opinion led by Justice Fish reiterated that the evidences presented by the prosecution was not enough to establish that Mr. Beaudry exercised his discretion corruptly or dishonestly and with the purpose of obstructing justice (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). In addition, the dissenters stressed that a decision that has been through a process filled with flaws would be decided differently when tried again. In finding the need for a new trial, the dissenters pointed out evidences which would establish that Mr. Beaudry was in good faith and did not intend to obstruct justice. They stressed that an accused cannot be held guilty for obstruction of justice when he acted in good faith but his conduct cannot be characterized as a legitimate one (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). Thus, the appeal of Mr. Beaudry should be upheld and be granted a new trial to clear the flaws that the trial court judge has missed.

Analysis of the Decision

            After the remarkable decision of the court in the instant case, different opinions were formed. Some agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court while others criticized it. In the news, most found the decision as a lesson that should be inculcated in the minds of the law enforcers. But others agreed that Mr. Beaudry should have not been convicted. In order to fully present the issue resolved in the case, the facts of the case should be stated.

            On the unforgettable day of September 22, 2000, Sergeant in charge, Alain Beaudry and his two companions were in a routine operation (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). At about 3:30 a.m., they heard an unusual sound created by a vehicle coming toward them. Sergeant Beaudry pursued the vehicle while the other two followed him. Sergeant Beaudry observed that the minivan was and continued to drive through a stop sign and almost hit the median (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). Mr. Beaudry asked the dispatcher about the minivan and was informed that it belonged to a resident of Repentigny named Patrick Plourde (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada).

            When Sergeant Beaudry finally approached the minivan, the driver was responding to the order of the former, instead he banged his head to the wheel and through his body on the ground (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). At that instant, the driver of the minivan told Sergeant Beaudry that he is also an officer and showed his badge as a proof. The following events amounted to the conviction of Mr. Beaudry for obstruction of justice. On the police station, Sergeant Beaudry made an occurrence report but did not approve the taking of the breathalyzer sample from Mr. plourde (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). Notably, a breathalyzer test is done in order to determine the concentration of alcohol in the body of the accused. In addition, he also ordered that Mr. Plourde be detained in a youth detention which is equipped with surveillance camera. Sergeant Beaudry reported the matter to the supervisor of Mr. Plourde but the latter required the former to prepare a report and scrutinized why a breathalyzer test was not taken. Sergeant Beaudry answered that Mr. Plourde needs a treatment instead of being charged for impaired driving because of his mental condition. However, the reason of Mr. Beaudry was not accepted, instead a case of obstruction of justice was filed against him for not taking a breath sample from Mr. Plourde.

            In the trial court, the judge stated that the prosecution needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused exercised his discretion with the intent of obstructing, perverting, or defeating the course of justice. In addition, it was held that an exercise of discretion in good faith cannot be punished but it can be made punishable when it was used in order to defeat justice. Hence, the actus reus of the offence of obstructing justice must be carried out in two stages (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). One, it should be settled first that the “conduct can be regarded as a proper exercise of discretion” (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). If after thorough analysis, it was found that the conduct was indeed proper, the second stage follows. On the second stage, the prosecution must present that obstruction of justice has really been committed (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). From the trial court until to the Supreme Court, the accused was found guilty for obstructing justice.

            According to Richard Steinecke, the decision of the court in the instant case would likely clear guidelines that would bind the investigatory bodies when making an investigation of cases (Steineckie). The decision in the Court limiting discretionary power of the police force can be applied to regulators who have the right of declining to investigate allegations or refer an allegation of professional misconduct to a discipline hearing (Steineckie). In here, the act of Sergeant Beaudry has been reiterated as professional misconduct. In addition, favouritism is seen as the reason of Mr. Beaudry for not taking the breath test. Moreover, the author also concurred that the acts of the accused in not justified. Almost all opinion would suggest the same. Some also acclaimed the decision for enforcing equality in the law enforcement.

            However, it is noteworthy to visit the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court. The established principle of limited exercise of discretion can fully be supported. But in the particular case of Sergeant Beaudry, his exercise of discretion has been recognized as legitimate. But then, the trial court found the legitimate exercise punishable because it has been premised to obstruct justice. The trial court reiterated that the evidences presented were enough to establish the guilt. However, in considering all the material circumstances of the case, it can be gleamed from there that the accused was not dishonest or corrupt in his decision not to apply the breath test to Mr. Plourde.

            According to Richard Steinecke, the discretion should be applied in appropriately and proper. But then, among the police force, the appropriateness of the discretion or the extent or kind of case where discretion may be applied may be a difficulty for them. The court reiterated that exercise of discretion may be said to be proper when the decision not to charge should not be based on “favouritism, or on cultural, social or racial stereotypes” (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). Nevertheless, finding Mr. Beaudry guilty of obstruction of justice defeats the established principle. As what the dissenters reiterated, the evidences derived by the trial judge in finding the accused guilty are filled with flaws. From the circumstances, it may be difficult to conclude that the accused favored Mr. Plourde because he is an officer. The justification for this could be the fact that the basis of the accused was merely on his belief that Mr. Plourde was suffering from mental and emotional disorder. Besides, there was no concealment on the part of the accused as he made known about the fact to Mr. Plourde’s superior.

            Additionally, one issue raised by the author is the determination of the regulator whether it is appropriate to raise the acts of the accused to the discipline hearing. Knowing all about the circumstances of the case, the superior could have made an initial investigation and further heard the side of the accused before the case reached the highest court of the land. It can be worth to agree with Richard Steinecke when he stated that the appropriateness of taking an action against Beaudry on the basis of his acts is doubtful.

            This is also supported by Jodi Martin in her article Accountability and the exercise of discretionary police power? (Martin). The question whether discretion was proper and appropriate could be returned to the superiors of the accused who filed the charge against him. From the trial court up to the Supreme Court, the judges found no difficulty in making out the offence charged (Martin). Speaking about discretion, the decision may be acclaimed for setting the parameters as to the extent of proper exercise of discretion. According to Justice Charron, the exercise of discretion is proper only when the decision is not based on favouritism, or cultural, social or racial ” (Martin). However, the parameter may be confusing by the police force. The necessity of the discretion has been recognized but is not limitless (Martin). In the proper exercise of discretion, the reasons should be then weighed together with the gravity of the crime. In addition, in order not to confuse any police in exercising their discretion, the crimes should be specified as to which discretion may be applied. In the instant case, the crime was considered serious on the basis of the statement made by Justice Cory in the case of R v. Bernshaw (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). In the instant case, drunk driving has been plaguing the society because of the destruction and accident it caused over time. It has been causing social loss to the country which should be taken seriously (Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen, Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada). Mr. Plourde is just one among those who violated the law. Hence, the court found the failure to file charges against Mr. Plourde as serious because of the graveness of the crime. The reason of the accused and the proper exercise of his discretion were not enough to defeat the turn down the seriousness of the crime.

            Finally, it can be noted that majority applauded the decision on the basis that it sets an example to the police force. Others also suggest that the decision should be included in the curriculum of the students aspiring to be in the law enforcement. Although discretion has been granted to the police officers as necessary in the daily exercise of their functions, it should be noted always that the discretion is not absolute. The reason should be justified and the gravity of the crime should be considered in making a decision. In the case of Mr. Beaudry, good faith has been established in his exercise of discretion. However, the court found him guilty because they were satisfied by the evidences presented. But, as for me, a new trial should be granted in order to consider the mitigating factors because, as the dissenters have concluded, the accused was not corrupt of dishonest in making his decision.

References

Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada. (2008). Alain Beaudry and Her Majesty The Queen. Retrieved November 9, 2008, from http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc5/2007scc5.pdf

Martin, J. 6 March 2007. The Court. Accountability and the Exercise of Discretionary Police Power? Retrieved November 9, 2008, from http://www.thecourt.ca/2007/03/06/accountability-and-the-exercise-of-discretionary-police-power.

Steinecke, R. 23 February 2007. Bar-Ex News. SCC’s Investigative Discretion Principles can be Applied to Regulators. Retrieved November 9, 2008, from https://www.bar-ex.com/barex/appmanager/bx/on;jsessionid=zJKjLHqGqn6pB1SqbN6Q22gkwM0940C2bWLtfKyJJTvn7zzvspPw!41065555?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=newsResources_article&articleId=8026.

Analysis & Application Police Complaints November 21, 2011 Abstract Conducting ourselves as mature individuals could determine whether or not we’re taken seriously within society. Since the beginning of time, black, white, Hipic, etc. , have filed complaints against police officers, regardless of their maturity level or regardless of their own fault level. Is society too disrespectful to law enforcement? If civilians could walk in police officer shoes for one day would the complaint level decrease?

This paper will focus on the perception of the police by measuring public complaints and identifying two key aspects that affect the relationships between law enforcement and civilians. Background One may be shocked to learn that police officer complaints and the final outcome of said complaints are not handled by the police chief, the city’s mayor or a review board, but instead by an “arbitrator”. (Iris, 1998) This has been a particular struggle between police chief’s and review boards across the United States.

In the years between 1990 and 1993 “there was a total of 328 disciplinary actions decided by binding arbitrators” involving the Chicago Police Department, and under a new policy in 1993, “205 disciplinary actions were reviewed by arbitrators for non-binding advisory opinions. ” (Iris, 1998, pg. 216) Despite a rigorous review process, surprisingly disciplines imposed upon Chicago police officers were cut in half by the arbitrators. Could the ineffectiveness of the police discipline have a major affect in regards to civilian complaints?

If arbitrators are not punishing police officers appropriately, this could be a reason for their actions and why some officers feel as though they are above the law. More officers need to be held accountable for their actions and across the United States, each complaint made against an officer should hold the same outcome if found guilty. Concerns/Issues In an article written by Dina DeCrescenzo, the author mentioned two forms of holding police officers accountable early on in their careers and those are; internal and external. Internal forms include the presence of an effective internal affairs division; proper recruitment; selection peer or coworker pressure”. External forms include; civilian review boards and citizens reporting deviant police behavior”. (Burns, 2009, pg. 69) Identifying deviant police officers early can definitely have an affect on civilian complaints. In 2005 in Los Angeles, CA, a 13 year-old, 8th grader was killed by a police officer after failing to stop a vehicle and leading officers on a chase. The officer had not idea that the assailant was a 13 year-old boy.

The police chief had a very challenging job at the time, of reforming the police department. The police chief found that the officers’ actions were justified because his life was threatened. However the commission, headed by a civil rights activist, “voted 4 to 1 to set aside” the police chiefs’ finding and ruled that the officer “violated department policy when he fired into the car as the boy backed toward him”. (Murr, 2005) Many disagreed with this decision; some thought that because the officer risks his life to protect the public, the decision was unjust.

This may be the key reason why complaints are not reported or are not taken seriously. If law enforcement are not being held accountable, how can civilians trust them? Now in the aforementioned case, the ruling was overruled; however the public opinion by law officials in regards to the ruling weighs heavily on society and the criminal justice system. If law officials believe that every shooting incident is warranted because police officers put their lives in danger, then the public will not have faith in the legal system. Proposed Solutions A key issue in this sample is the measurement of how civilians feel about law enforcement.

Trust and confidence for law enforcement are the main reason individuals feel compelled to either speak up or not speak up at all against officers. How can we help society gain trust and confidence in its law enforcement individuals? 1. Personal experiences with police: Questionnaires offered to individuals that would love to see a change in policing and less complaints. The questions would consist of thoughts on fighting crime, crime prevention, victims of police brutality, community concerns and thoughts on unlawful stops. Collecting this data will allow law enforcement to react in the appropriate manner.

Not necessarily criticizing information, but helpful information. 2. Community: Questionnaires in regards to community policing (good or bad), teenagers within the community, policing programs to assist single parents. This type of information is critical to identifying reasons for crime. Working together with the community can decrease police complaints because confidence and trust has been replenished in the neighborhood. Conclusion Unfortunately the number of police complaints within the United States by citizens are hard to identify because each law enforcement agency records and processes complaints differently.

Police officers are held accountable for not only their partners, themselves, but the community. If tactics are not used to build better relationships within the communities they police, citizen complaints will continue. The aforementioned samples can be used to help offset some of the miscommunication happening between law enforcement and citizens. Society and law enforcement must come to a middle point on the ruler to help make a safer environment. References Burns, Ronald G. (2009) Critical issues in criminal justice. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. Murr, A. (2005). Back on the Mean Streets. Newsweek, 145(8), 32.

Public versus Private Policing CJA 500 April 19, 2010 Chris Bragg Public versus Private Policing In recent years, both the numbers of police officers in the United States has been declining. However, the rates for many white-collar crimes, such as computer crimes, employee theft, and fraud, are increasing. Public policing has been known to have a monopoly on policing until the increased trend in private policing in the United States.

Public and private policing have many similarities as well as differences and the distinction between public and private police are often blurred. Public Policing Public policing has always been known as the frontline in protecting the society and one of their major assets is the public’s accountability. Recent studies have shown that to some people, a uniformed police can transmit a feeling of respect and security, and through that, he may even be preventing crime just by their presence.

The role of public policing is governing both the future and the past: preventing crime and rendering justice with respect to past crimes. Its favored strategy is deterrence on punishment because punishment promises both to prevent crime and to exact a cost for misdeeds already done. Public policing must provide a full range of police services to the public. Public police are particularly experienced, trained, and skilled in the exercise of persuasive authority to command compliance with their safety orders and needs.

They are also trained and effective in the use of tactics such as undercover policing, arrest, use of weaponry to protect themselves and the public as-needed, and investigation related to preparing cases for referral to the prosecutor. On the other hand, public police must be taught ‘how to’ do community policing, a type of policing that requires an entirely different approach and language. It requires a different manner of speaking and a different choice of words from traditional policing. It requires a different mindset and attitude toward the public, and a different kind of leadership from the top down.

Community policing requires officers to stay put in one neighborhood and build long-term relationships with shoppers, residents, businesses, and employees. It requires officers to be much more proactive and friendly than normal, receptive to suggestions, and willing to use a participatory process to set at least some policing goals and priorities. It requires language not command-oriented and language that does not tend to escalate emotions or raise hackles of those being questioned and not in trouble, or those causing disturbances.

It rarely requires arrest as the first resort. It usually requires conversation, negotiation, and mediation that move both parties toward the center, and toward a mutually satisfactory reduction of tempers and threats. Public policing is known to society as the police who protect our communities and arrest those individuals who commit crime. Public policing has the role to maintain law and order, preserve peace, and prevent crime. Public police are employed by governments and paid for by tax dollars and grants. Private Policing

Private policing, while emerging as a new industry, is not a new phenomenon and predates the existence of public policing as witnessed today. Private police look and behave as if public police and describing their function often involves a comparison of the activities and responsibilities of the two. The increase of private policing has been in response to many changes in society such as the increase of “mass private property” in the form of large shopping complexes, cinemas, large retail stores, and large compound style housing estates or gated communities.

These require constant surveillance for the safety of shoppers and residents. In fact, adequate security has become one of those value-added extras that attract customers and residents. Technological advances, such as high-tech video surveillance cameras, computers, mobile phones, and satellites have increased the need an increase of security personnel for monitoring, investigating, and analyzing. Private policing has been described in many aspects such as policing activity of crime prevention; detection and apprehension carried out by private organizations or agents for commercial purpose.

Private policing includes those people who work for a security company or are employed by an individual or firm to carry out security work, crowd control, or private investigations. Private policing is provided by a private individual or organization, rather than by a public body or the state like public policing is. Private policing targets private crime and is in the business of protecting private and corporate interests. Private policing can serve as many different roles in our community.

The major components of private security are alarm systems, security guards, and investigative services. The increase of security systems installed in cars, homes and businesses have said to be the deep-rooted needs to feel secure and to feel that their lives and property that are personally valued are protected, and that offenders can be identified and also obtained. Security has been considered to be a commodity, to be bought, and sold in the marketplace. The value of such a commodity reflects not only material criteria but also an inner human dimension of personal fear and feelings.

Many individuals who are in the public eye also hire private security as bodyguards to protect themselves, along with their valuables. Security guards are on the frontline of public interaction and contact in private security. Security guards are used in shopping malls, factories, airports and many other venues that need to be monitored. Crowd control has been part of the private policing roles at functions such as concerts, sporting events, school, and religious events. Private investigators are also among the private policing sector is one with the least amount of public contact.

Private investigators are hired by individuals or businesses for a certain purpose and work mostly behind the scenes or undercover doing surveillance. Security guards, surveillance, monitors and investigators are among the few that make up private policing. Comparing Private and Public Policing Private police are seen to be concerned with the protection of personal and corporate interest whereas public police represent the interests of the public and seek to enforce the regulations of the judicial system.

Private policing, in comparison to public policing, has been described as passive policing regarding active policing, or as proactive and preventative rather than reactive: in which public police generally react to the crime, private police through surveillance and presentation are seen to prevent crime. The ability of private security providers to select the tasks and duties that they perform is one of the major advantages that private policing has over public policing.

Private security regulates entry, limits participation, and excludes on the basis of presumption signs of bad behavior. Some examples would be securing gated communities by checking for residency or employment; dress (T-shirts, bare feet) in businesses that require appropriate attire; and behavior (obscene language, loud radios, roller blades, skateboards). This is also referred to as “profiling,” which the public police have accused of many times. Unlike the public police, private police are not hampered by their regulatory actions by probable cause.

Private policing usually operates behind the traditional and legal boundaries in which the public police cannot lawfully cross unless by invitation or probable cause. This leads to the private policing sector developing a “broader enterprise than public policing, with a wider range of functions. ” Another major benefit with the private providers of security is their flexibility. They can, and will, perform most tasks they are paid to do. Their customers can demand a lot from them, because they are directly answerable to paying clients and their needs.

The private entrepreneurs are also forced to ‘do right’ by the market. If they fail, they will lose their money. Public police do not have the negotiation factor and are paid on salary, no matter how they perform or how efficient they are in performing their duties. Many have said that private policing is for the rich and public policing is for the poor. This could be effectively argued based on the fact that private policing is not designed to consider the general good for society, like public policing.

Private policing is primarily protecting the interests of their paying clients and focuses more on “loss prevention,” rather than “crime prevention. ” Private policing has been scrutinized and concern have expressed that private security can be overly intrusive, less than scrupulous in its adherence to self-imposed guidelines, and on occasion, the law, and threatening to civil liberties. This could be a direct effect of poor standards, low pay, poor training, lack of good background checks, and also strong competition among private security companies.

Many criminologists have examined these factors affecting private policing and believe that the key to the problem lies in the issue of the accountability and regulation of the private security sector. Legitimacy is a problem among private policing because there are few, if any, statutes or laws that give the private security industry governmentally granted rights or powers. Although public policing does have higher standards, they are not regulated and accreditation is voluntary. Many police officers, both working and retired, take jobs in the private security sector for extra income.

Obviously, poor training and lack of experience cannot pertain to these individuals; however it has been argued that by hiring these experienced individuals at a higher pay, decreases the pay and funds for training to those without experience. Conclusion Public and private policing are major components in the criminal justice field. It would be impossible for our communities to feel secure without the combination of both forces. The focus has been on public and private policing to interact effectively and cooperate with each other. Understanding the importance of one another’s responsibilities and roles could lead to a great partnership.

Throughout recent years, some law enforcement agencies have come to realize how to benefit from private policing. References T. Jones. (1998). Private Security and Public Policing. Retrieved April 19, 2010 from www. questia. com/PM. qst? a=o=30434190 Shearing and Stenning. (1983). The Interweaving of Public and Private Police. Retrieved on April 19, 2010 from web. mit. edu/gtmarx/www/private. html (May 12, 2009). Private security and public policing. Retrieved on April 19, 2010 from www. statcan. gc. ca › … › 85-002-X_ › _Juristat