The Dichotomy of Law Enforcement and Legal Failure: Perspectives on Protection, Accountability, and Psychological Impact
Dylan C. Floyd, Doctoral Candidate
Department of Forensic Psychology, Walden University
FPSY-8116-3: Understanding Psychology Research
Dr. Victoria Latifses
February 1, 2024
The Dichotomy of Law Enforcement and Legal Failure: Perspectives on Protection, Accountability, and Psychological Impact
At the heart of a stable society lies a robust legal system, a vigilant law enforcement body, and a collective belief in the protection of its citizens. This literature review ventures into the critical evaluation of a pressing concern within forensic psychology and the criminal justice system: the apparent shortcomings of law and order that threaten public safety and erode trust in judicial processes. The paper examines the legal system's failure to provide adequate protection, the contentious influence of prosecutorial discretion on crime statistics, and the consequent psychological strain placed upon those in law enforcement.
The pivotal role of the legal system is to prevent crime, enforce laws, and instill a sense of security among the populace. Yet, when this system does not perform as expected, it prompts a reevaluation of its effectiveness and the public's perception of justice. Forensic psychology intersects with these issues by shedding light on the mental processes that influence legal decisions, behaviors, and the impact these have on society. The criminal justice system, concurrently, must confront the repercussions of these systemic lapses, seeking ways to reform and revitalize practices that undermine public confidence and safety.
In this review, we will scrutinize the factors contributing to the law's inability to shield the public, tracing accountability from legislators to law enforcers. We will investigate the controversial practice of prosecutorial discretion and its potential distortion of crime rates, leading to an inaccurate portrayal of community safety and criminal activity. The psychological repercussions of these systemic flaws on law enforcement officers are significant, manifesting in stress, burnout, and a pervasive sense of disenfranchisement. Moreover, media representations of police work can shape public attitudes and amplify these psychological effects, creating a cycle that challenges the integrity of law enforcement and the legal framework.
By exploring these multifaceted issues, this review aims to enrich the conversation within forensic psychology and the criminal justice system. It seeks to provide a thorough understanding of the current challenges and foster the development of informed reforms that can reestablish equilibrium and confidence in the institutions that are the bedrock of society's safety and justice.
The Law's Failure to Protect the Public
Failure-to-protect laws are predicated on the principle of holding individuals, typically caregivers, accountable for neglecting to prevent harm to those under their care. These laws have been enacted across various jurisdictions with the intent to deter neglect and ensure the safety of vulnerable populations, especially children. However, the application and implications of these laws have been a subject of contentious debate within the legal and psychological communities.
At the core of failure-to-protect laws is the legal expectation that caregivers must act to shield dependents from foreseeable harm. This expectation can result in criminal liability when caregivers either act recklessly or fail to act, resulting in injury or risk of injury to a child or other vulnerable individuals. These laws are designed to serve as a deterrent and a means of enforcing societal norms around the duty of care (Mahoney, 2019).
Historically, failure-to-protect laws were established to address gaps in child protection statutes, creating a legal obligation for caregivers to intervene in harmful situations. However, the enactment and enforcement of these laws have varied, leading to disparities in their application. This inconsistency raises concerns about the fairness and efficacy of the laws, with some arguing that they can disproportionately impact marginalized groups (Rogerson, 2012).
Criticism of failure-to-protect laws often centers on their potential to criminalize victims of domestic violence, particularly when these victims are also responsible for the care of children. Critics argue that such laws can fail to consider the complexities of domestic abuse, where victims may be unable to safely intervene or lack the resources to leave abusive situations (Enos, 1996). Further, there is concern that these laws do not adequately distinguish between intentional neglect and situations where systemic barriers prevent individuals from fulfilling their protective roles (Kantor & Little, 2003). Suggested reforms to failure-to-protect laws include clarifying the legal definitions of neglect and abuse, implementing more nuanced considerations of individual circumstances, and providing greater support for at-risk populations. Advocates for reform also call for a shift in focus from punitive measures to preventative and supportive interventions that address the root causes of neglect and abuse (Fugate, 2001). While failure-to-protect laws aim to ensure the safety of vulnerable individuals, their application has revealed significant challenges and unintended consequences. A re-evaluation of these laws, informed by empirical evidence and psychological insights, is necessary to ensure they effectively serve their intended purpose without exacerbating the vulnerabilities they seek to mitigate.
Prosecutorial Discretion and Crime Rates
Prosecutorial discretion is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system, granting prosecutors the authority to decide whether to charge individuals, which charges to bring, and how to pursue each case. This discretion carries significant implications for crime statistics and legal outcomes, as it can influence the trajectory of criminal proceedings from their inception.
Prosecutors possess nearly unfettered discretion in charging decisions, making them some of the most powerful actors in the criminal justice system (Howell, 2014). The decisions made at this stage can dramatically alter the official crime statistics; for instance, if prosecutors choose not to file charges in a significant number of cases, it could artificially lower the crime rate as reflected in legal statistics. Conversely, an aggressive charging policy could ostensibly raise the reported crime rate, even if actual criminal activity remains constant (Bjerk, 2005). The role of prosecutorial discretion under mandatory minimum sentencing laws has been studied with evidence suggesting that such discretion can lead to a mismatch between the crime committed and the penalty imposed. Mandatory minimums can force prosecutors to adjust charges to fit the prescribed penalties, which may not always reflect the severity or nature of the crime, potentially skewing crime statistics and outcomes in the process (Bjerk, 2005).
While prosecutorial discretion is intended to allow for flexibility and individualized justice, there are concerns that it could inadvertently contribute to an increase in crime. For example, if prosecutors systematically decline to charge certain crimes due to limited resources or policy decisions, it could signal to potential offenders that certain types of criminal behavior are less likely to be prosecuted, potentially leading to an increase in those crimes (Howell, 2014). Moreover, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion has been linked to increased toughness in prosecution over recent decades, which some argue has led to increases in the incarcerated population without necessarily reflecting a commensurate increase in crime rates (Spohn, 2018). This trend raises questions about the relationship between prosecutorial practices and the perception of crime in society. Prosecutorial discretion plays a pivotal role in shaping crime statistics and legal outcomes, with significant potential implications for the public's understanding of crime rates and the functioning of the criminal justice system. As such, it is essential to continuously evaluate the exercise of this discretion to ensure that it aligns with the principles of justice and effective crime control.
Psychological Effects of Law Enforcement on Police Officers
The psychological well-being of law enforcement officers is an area of growing concern, given the unique and often stressful nature of police work. Research has consistently shown that occupational stress and psychological distress are prevalent among those in law enforcement roles, which can have significant implications for their mental health and job performance.
The link between occupational stress and psychological functioning in law enforcement officers is well-established. Studies have found that higher levels of occupational stress are associated with greater psychological distress among police officers, which can manifest in various forms, including anxiety, depression, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Pasillas, Follette, & Etter, 2006). The nature of police work often involves exposure to critical incidents, violence, and life-threatening situations, which can contribute to long-term stress and mental health issues (Liberman et al., 2002).
The public perception and media portrayal of police officers play a crucial role in shaping their psychological experience. Media coverage that is perceived as negative or critical can impact officers' self-image, morale, and stress levels. Studies have shown that the portrayal of police in the media can influence public attitudes towards law enforcement, which in turn can affect how officers perceive their own roles and the support they receive from the community (Dowler & Zawilski, 2007). Furthermore, the media's representation of police misconduct and discrimination can exacerbate feelings of being under siege or misunderstood by the public, potentially leading to increased psychological distress (Louis et al., 2013). The occupational stress and psychological distress experienced by law enforcement officers are significant concerns that require attention and intervention. The impact of public perception and media portrayal on police psychology underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of how these external factors can influence the mental health of officers. Addressing these challenges is essential to maintain the well-being of police officers and to ensure the effective functioning of law enforcement agencies.
Public Perception and Police Accountability
The relationship between police and the communities they serve is complex and deeply influenced by perceptions of accountability. Understanding public satisfaction with the police and the factors that contribute to it is crucial for maintaining trust and legitimacy in law enforcement.
Public perception of police accountability plays a significant role in how communities view and interact with law enforcement agencies. Accountability is often linked with reducing incidents of officer misconduct and, when managed effectively, can enhance public trust in the police (Walker, 2001). The perception of accountability can also affect public satisfaction with the police, as it is believed that transparent and accountable policing practices lead to fairer treatment and justice (De Angelis & Wolf, 2016).
Public satisfaction with the police is influenced by various factors, including police-citizen encounters, general attitudes toward law enforcement, and demographic variables. Studies have shown that direct contact with police, whether positive or negative, can significantly impact overall satisfaction levels. In addition to personal experiences, the broader public’s general attitudes and perceptions of police effectiveness in controlling disorder crime also play a role in public satisfaction (Zhao, Tsai, Ren, & Lai, 2014).
Several factors contribute to public satisfaction with police services. These include the perceived effectiveness of the police in crime control and prevention, the fairness and equity of police actions, and the level of professionalism and courtesy demonstrated by officers. Furthermore, transparency and clear communication from law enforcement agencies can improve satisfaction by fostering trust and confidence among community members (Kochel & Skogan, 2021). Public perceptions of police accountability and satisfaction are intricately linked and influenced by a multitude of factors. Understanding and addressing these factors is essential for building and maintaining public trust in law enforcement, which is a cornerstone of a functioning democratic society.
Manipulation of Crime Statistics
The manipulation of crime statistics by prosecutors is a significant concern that can have far-reaching implications for public policy and trust in the legal system. The ability of prosecutors to influence crime rates and legal outcomes through their discretion in charging decisions is a powerful aspect of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors have substantial discretion in deciding which cases to pursue, what charges to file, and how to handle plea bargains. This discretion can lead to the manipulation of crime statistics, whether intentionally or as a byproduct of other goals. For example, prosecutors might downgrade charges to secure a quick plea deal or to manage heavy caseloads, which can affect the overall crime rate reported in statistics (Gershman, 1991).
The manipulation of crime statistics can have serious implications for public policy, as policymakers rely on accurate data to make informed decisions about resource allocation, crime prevention strategies, and law enforcement practices. If crime statistics are not reliable, policies may be misguided, and resources may not be directed where they are most needed (Bruce, 2010). Additionally, the perception or reality of manipulated crime statistics can erode public trust in the legal system. When the public becomes aware of such manipulation, it can lead to skepticism about the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, potentially undermining the legitimacy of law enforcement agencies and the rule of law (Hickman & Rice, 2010). The manipulation of crime statistics by prosecutors is a critical issue that affects public policy and trust in the legal system. It is essential to strive for transparency and accuracy in reporting crime statistics to ensure that public policies are based on sound data and that the public can have confidence in the criminal justice system.
Media Portrayal of Police and Psychological Impact
The media plays a critical role in shaping public perceptions of law enforcement, and the portrayal of police officers can have a significant psychological impact on both the public and law enforcement personnel. Media portrayals of police officers vary widely, ranging from the heroically positive to the critically negative. Entertainment media often examine police misconduct in crime dramas, influencing perceptions of police use of force and fostering beliefs about police behavior (Donovan & Klahm IV, 2015). News media similarly affect public opinion, with certain portrayals potentially reinforcing negative stereotypes or contributing to a fear of crime (Dowler & Zawilski, 2007).
The way police officers are depicted in the media can also impact the officers themselves, affecting their self-perception and psychological well-being. Exposure to negative portrayals can exacerbate stress and contribute to a siege mentality among officers, where they feel unfairly judged or underappreciated by the public they serve (Mustafaj & Van den Bulck, 2021). This can lead to a range of psychological responses, including defensive attitudes, reduced job satisfaction, and even mental health issues such as depression or PTSD.
The media's portrayal of police can also have profound effects on the public's psychological state. Negative representations can sow distrust and fear of law enforcement, potentially eroding the public's willingness to cooperate with police efforts (Callanan & Rosenberger, 2011). On the other hand, positive media portrayals can enhance public trust and confidence in the police, reinforcing the perception of police officers as protectors and community partners. The media's portrayal of police officers has a complex and powerful impact on both law enforcement and public psychology. Understanding and addressing the effects of these portrayals is crucial for fostering a healthy relationship between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.
Government Failure and Impact on Police
Government failure, including the lack of support and resources for police agencies, is a critical issue that can have various negative consequences for law enforcement personnel and public safety. When local governments fail to provide adequate support and resources to police agencies, it can lead to organizational challenges such as the disbanding of local police departments. This lack of support can stem from budgetary constraints, political decisions, or shifting priorities, which may leave law enforcement agencies struggling to fulfill their duties (King, 2014).
The consequences of government failure for law enforcement personnel include reduced morale, increased job stress, and burnout. Law enforcement officers may face a lack of shared mutual understanding and support between police and citizens, leading to emotional and psychological strain. This can, in turn, affect officers' mental health and their ability to effectively serve the community (Schaible & Six, 2016).
A lack of government support for police agencies can undermine public safety by diminishing the capacity of law enforcement to respond to crime and maintain order. Under-resourced and overstretched police agencies may be less effective in crime prevention and response, potentially leading to increased crime rates and a decreased sense of community security (Cullen, Lemming, Link, & Wozniak, 1985). Government failure to adequately support police agencies has significant implications for both law enforcement personnel and public safety. It is essential for governments to ensure that police agencies have the necessary resources and support to carry out their duties effectively and maintain the trust and safety of the communities they serve.
Psychological Effects of Crime or Criminals When Prosecutors Fail to Charge Arrestees
The decision by prosecutors not to charge individuals who have been arrested can have significant psychological effects on police officers, the public, and the accused individuals themselves. For police officers, the decision not to prosecute can be demoralizing and may lead to feelings of frustration and helplessness. It can undermine the perceived effectiveness of their work and shake their confidence in the justice system. This can exacerbate stress and burnout among officers who feel that their efforts to uphold the law are not being supported by other parts of the criminal justice system (Schaible & Six, 2016).
The public's reaction to the failure to charge arrestees can range from confusion to outrage. Such decisions can erode public trust in the criminal justice system and lead to perceptions of injustice and inequality. This can increase fear and anxiety within communities, particularly if there is a belief that dangerous individuals are not being held accountable for their actions (Harmon, 2016).
For the accused, not being charged can result in a complex mix of relief and ongoing stigma. While avoiding prosecution may alleviate immediate legal consequences, the accused may still face social and professional repercussions based on the arrest. This can lead to long-term psychological effects, including stress and damage to one's reputation and self-identity (Côté, 2000). The decision not to charge individuals who have been arrested has broad implications for all parties involved. It is crucial that these decisions are made with careful consideration of their potential psychological impacts and the overall integrity of the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
Throughout this paper, we have examined various aspects of law enforcement, from the psychological effects on police officers to the impact of government failure on police agencies. Our exploration into the psychological effects of law enforcement on police officers revealed that occupational stress and psychological distress are prevalent and can be exacerbated by public perception and media portrayal. The analysis of public perception and police accountability highlighted public attitudes toward law enforcement and the importance of perceived police accountability in shaping satisfaction with police services. We also dove into the manipulation of crime statistics by prosecutors, uncovering potential impacts on public policy and trust in legal systems. Moreover, the media portrayal of police officers was found to have significant psychological impacts on both law enforcement personnel and the public, influencing perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Lastly, the discussion of government failure underscored the critical need for adequate support and resources for police agencies to ensure law enforcement personnel can effectively maintain public safety.
The thesis posited that the complex interplay between psychological factors, public perception, media portrayal, and government support significantly influences the efficacy of law enforcement and the well-being of police officers. The evidence reviewed substantiates this claim, indicating that these elements are interconnected and have profound effects on the functioning of law enforcement agencies and their relationship with the communities they serve.
For forensic psychology, these findings underscore the importance of considering the multifaceted environment in which law enforcement operates. Forensic psychologists must be aware of the various external and internal pressures that law enforcement officers face and how these can affect their mental health, decision-making, and interactions with the public. Furthermore, forensic psychologists play a crucial role in supporting law enforcement officers through interventions, training, and policy recommendations that promote psychological resilience and effective policing practices.
Future research should continue to explore the nuances of how media portrayal and public perception influence law enforcement, as well as the psychological impacts on officers. Studies should also investigate the long-term effects of government failure on police agencies, including the development of strategies to mitigate negative consequences. Moreover, research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of existing support systems for law enforcement personnel and to develop innovative approaches to enhance their psychological well-being and job performance.
In closing, this paper highlights the critical need for continued attention to the psychological aspects of law enforcement, the dynamics of public and media influence, and the implications of government support for the effective functioning of police agencies. As society evolves, so too must our understanding and support of those tasked with ensuring its safety.
References
Bjerk, D. (2005). Making the crime fit the penalty: The role of prosecutorial discretion under mandatory minimum sentencing. The Journal of Law and Economics, 48(2), 591-625. https://doi.org/10.1086/429980
Bruce, D. B. (2016). ‘The ones in the pile were the ones going down’: The reliability of violent crime statistics. South African Crime Quarterly, 31. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2010/v0i31a888
Callanan, V. J., & Rosenberger, J. S. (2011). Media and public perceptions of the police: Examining the impact of race and personal experience. Policing & Society, 21(2), 167-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2010.540655
Côté, J. E. (2000). Arrested adulthood: The changing nature of maturity and identity. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814763995.003.0002
Cullen, F. T., Lemming, T., Link, B. G., & Wozniak, J. F. (1985). The impact of social supports on police stress. Criminology, 23(3), 507-526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00351.x
De Angelis, J., & Wolf, B. (2016). Perceived accountability and public attitudes toward local police. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(3), 205-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2016.1158177
Donovan, K. M., & Klahm IV, C. F. (2015). The role of entertainment media in perceptions of police use of force. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12), 1261-1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815604180
Dowler, K., & Zawilski, V. (2007). Public perceptions of police misconduct and discrimination: Examining the impact of media consumption. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(2), 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.01.006
Enos, V. P. (1996). Prosecuting battered mothers: State laws' failure to protect battered women and abused children.
Fugate, J. A. (2001). Who's Failing Whom—A Critical Look at Failure-to-Protect Laws. NYUL Rev., 76, 561-612.
Gershman, B. L. (1991). The new prosecutors. U. Pitt. L. Rev., 53, 393.
Harmon, R. (2016). Why Arrest? Michigan Law Review, 115.3, 307. https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.115.3.why
Hickman, M. J., & Rice, S. K. (2010). Digital analysis of crime statistics: Does crime conform to Benford's law? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-010-9094-6
Howell, K. B. (2014). Prosecutorial discretion and the duty to seek justice in an overburdened criminal justice system. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 27, 285-315. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/geojlege27§ion=12
Kantor, G. K., & Little, L. (2003). Defining the boundaries of child neglect: When does domestic violence equate with parental failure to protect? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 338-355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502250834
King, W. R. (2014). Organizational failure and the disbanding of local police agencies. Crime & Delinquency, 60(6), 919-944. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128709344675
Kochel, T. R., & Skogan, W. G. (2021). Accountability and transparency as levers to promote public trust and police legitimacy: findings from a natural experiment. Policing: An International Journal, 44(5), 911-927. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-04-2021-0062
Kreag, J. (2016). Prosecutorial analysis. Wash. UL Rev., 94, 515.
Liberman, A. M., Best, S. R., Metzler, T. J., Fagan, J. A., Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (2002). Routine occupational stress and psychological distress in police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(2), 421-441. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510210429446
Louis, W., Burke, S., Pham, H., & Hall, B. (2013). Media representations and responsibilities: Psychological perspectives. Australian Psychological Society.
Mahoney, A. (2019). How failure to protect laws punish the vulnerable. Health Matrix, 29, 171-191.
Mustafaj, M., & Van den Bulck, J. (2021). The media and our perceptions of the police. In The Rowman & Littlefield Handbook on Policing, Communication, and Society.
Pasillas, R. M., Follette, V. M., & Etter, S. N. (2006). Occupational stress and psychological functioning in law enforcement officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 21(1), 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02849501
Rogerson, S. (2012). Unintended and unavoidable: The failure to protect rule and its consequences for undocumented parents and their children. Family Court Review, 50(4), 580-593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2012.01477.x
Schaible, L. M., & Six, M. (2016). Emotional strategies of police and their varying consequences for burnout. Police Quarterly, 19(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611115604448
Schaible, L. M., & Six, M. (2016). Emotional strategies of police and their varying consequences for burnout. Police Quarterly, 19(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611115604448
Spohn, C. (2018). Reflections on the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion 50 Years After Publication of The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 225-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12367
Walker, S. (2001). Police accountability. National Institute of Justice
Zhao, J. S., Tsai, C. F., Ren, L., & Lai, Y. L. (2014). Public satisfaction with police control of disorder crime: does the public hold police accountable? Justice Quarterly, 31(3), 394-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.667140
