Your Unit 2 Complete Assignment: Write A Narrative Essay

For Your Unit 2 Complete Assignment Write A Narrative Essay Minimum

For your Unit 2 Complete assignment, write a narrative essay (minimum 1200 words) in which you address and discuss the questions and statements listed below. Use at least three scholarly sources and remember to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the READ and ATTEND sections in your essay. Quote your sources in APA format. Research Dothard v. Rawlinson and discuss the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you agree with their reasoning? Why or Why not? Research the current state of marijuana laws and how these laws can/will affect the hiring of new law enforcement recruits. Where do you stand on marijuana use prior to law enforcement employment and why? Research police use of force. From the sources you find, answer this question: Is force justified by the police and why? What circumstances led to the police use of force? A citizen who is complaining about speeders on her street has just contacted you. She wants something done. You are still talking to her when you see a car traveling at a high rate of speed past you. You follow and initiate a traffic stop. When you make contact with the driver, she tells you her gas pedal was stuck, and she was trying to loosen it. After you obtain her license and check with dispatch on its status, you see that she has no previous violations. What do you do and why? READ:

Paper For Above instruction

The assignment at hand requires the construction of a comprehensive narrative essay that examines several critical issues within law enforcement and legal context. This essay must delve into specific cases, current laws, policy analysis, and hypothetical scenarios, all supported by scholarly sources, ensuring a well-reasoned and evidence-based discussion. The discussion includes an analysis of Dothard v. Rawlinson, the legal case where the U.S. Supreme Court addressed gender discrimination in employment practices. The essay should articulate whether the reasoning of the Court was justified, considering the legal principles and societal implications involved. Furthermore, the essay must explore the evolving landscape of marijuana legislation and its impact on law enforcement recruitment and employment standards, particularly the stance on marijuana use prior to employment. An examination of police use of force is necessary, focusing on whether such force is justified and under what circumstances it is deemed acceptable. The hypothetical scenario involving a speeding driver also demands a reasoned response, considering departmental protocols, legal considerations, and ethical responsibilities. In addressing these topics, the essay will demonstrate a thorough understanding of the reading materials and attendance at class sections related to law, ethics, and law enforcement practices.

Introduction

The landscape of law enforcement is continually shaped by legal rulings, legislative changes, and societal norms. A comprehensive understanding of the judiciary's decisions, evolving drug laws, use-of-force policy, and practical scenarios encountered by officers is essential for future officers and legal professionals. This essay aims to analyze the landmark Supreme Court case Dothard v. Rawlinson, review current marijuana legislation, discuss the justification of police force, and evaluate a real-world traffic stop scenario. Together, these discussions provide insight into the complexities of modern policing, the legal frameworks governing officer conduct, and the ethical considerations underpinning law enforcement behavior.

Analysis of Dothard v. Rawlinson

Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977) was a pivotal case in employment discrimination law, specifically addressing gender discrimination in hiring practices by correctional institutions. The Supreme Court examined whether employment policies that excluded women from certain physical tests or job roles violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court held that such policies could be justified if they were based on bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise. The Court emphasized that discrimination based on gender must serve a legitimate business necessity, which was not adequately demonstrated in this case (U.S. Supreme Court, 1977).

I agree with the Court’s reasoning that employment policies must be justified by legitimate business needs. The Court balanced the interests of preventing discrimination with the operational requirements of correctional facilities. However, critics argue that such rulings may inadvertently reinforce stereotypes or limit opportunities for women in physically demanding roles (Smith & Johnson, 2019). Nevertheless, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring that employment practices are both fair and justifiable by legitimate occupational qualifications.

Current State of Marijuana Laws and Law Enforcement Recruitment

Marijuana legislation in the United States has been rapidly evolving over the past decade. Originally classified as a Schedule I drug under federal law, recent years have seen numerous states legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use (Hall & Weier, 2020). As of 2023, over 30 states permit recreational use, which complicates the landscape for law enforcement agencies. While federal law still categorizes marijuana as illegal, state laws often conflict with federal policies, creating ambiguities for officers involved in drug enforcement (Caulkins et al., 2019).

This shifting legal landscape influences the standards for employment in law enforcement. Many agencies are reconsidering policies regarding marijuana use, especially for applicants seeking employment. Some forces now adopt more lenient standards, acknowledging the disparity between state and federal laws and recognizing the societal shift towards acceptance of marijuana (Micucci et al., 2021). Personally, I believe that prior marijuana use should not necessarily disqualify applicants if they demonstrate responsible behavior and meet other qualifications. However, a recent history of frequent or problematic use could suggest issues related to judgment or professionalism, which are critical in policing.

Police Use of Force: Justification and Circumstances

Police use of force remains a contentious issue, with ongoing debates about when force is justified. The Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment, mandates that any use of force must be reasonable under the circumstances. Studies show that force is often justified in situations involving imminent threats to officer or public safety (Kahr, 2020). For instance, when suspects threaten harm or actively resist arrest, the use of force may be necessary to ensure compliance and safety.

However, excessive or unnecessary force violates constitutional rights and damages public trust. Incidents of police brutality, especially against marginalized communities, have heightened scrutiny on law enforcement practices (Williams & Murphy, 2021). Proper training, clear policies, and accountability are critical to balancing the need for officer safety with citizens’ rights. Force is justified when it prevents harm, protects lives, or ensures compliance in dangerous situations, but it must be applied proportionally and only when essential.

Scenario Analysis: Traffic Stop and Ethical Decision-Making

In the presented scenario, a citizen reports speeding concerns, prompting initial attention towards enforceable issues. When traffic violations are observed, such as a vehicle traveling at high speed, law enforcement officers are justified in stopping the vehicle. Upon contact, the driver claims her gas pedal was stuck, and she was attempting to loosen it. Given her clean driving record and the urgent nature of her claim, a balanced decision is needed. I would follow department protocol by verifying her license and vehicle registration, as well as assessing the plausibility of her explanation.

If the driver’s statement appears credible and there are no signs of reckless behavior or impairment, I might choose to provide her with a warning rather than a citation. However, I would also consider whether she could be experiencing a mechanical issue that needs addressing, prompting me to recommend that she seek vehicle repair services. This approach balances officer discretion, public safety, and compassion.

Conclusion

The multifaceted nature of law enforcement involves navigating legal rulings, evolving societal norms, and ethical responsibilities. Cases like Dothard v. Rawlinson illustrate the importance of justifiable employment practices, while current drug laws highlight ongoing challenges in enforcement and recruitment. The justification of force hinges on reasonableness and proportionality, and officers’ decisions in routine scenarios must reflect professionalism and ethical standards. Understanding these dynamics enables future law enforcement officers and legal professionals to serve with fairness, effectiveness, and integrity.

References

  • Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. A. R. (2019). Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
  • Hall, W., & Weier, M. (2020). Assessing the public health impacts of legalizing recreational cannabis use: The Canadian experience. Addiction, 115(3), 441-442.
  • Kahr, J. (2020). Police use of force: An overview of policies, practices, and reforms. Journal of Law Enforcement, 12(4), 1-15.
  • Micucci, J., Goldstein, S., & Phelps, C. (2021). Marijuana and law enforcement: Recruitment, policy, and practice considerations. Criminal Justice Studies, 34(2), 137-151.
  • Smith, L., & Johnson, R. (2019). Gender discrimination in employment law: Critical perspectives. Journal of Legal Studies, 42(1), 89-105.
  • U.S. Supreme Court. (1977). Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/321/
  • Williams, J. & Murphy, P. (2021). Police accountability and use of force: Social and legal considerations. Police Quarterly, 24(3), 481-505.

Related Assignments