Is Police Brutality Ever Justified?

Authors Avatar by babylee (student)

The National Institute of Justice defines police force as the ‘amount of force required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject’.  The organisation further noted that in order to maintain social order the police must utilise some sort of force whether it be verbal, physical or lethal. (Police Use of Force, 2012).  Use of force and excessive use of force by officers (police brutality) differ in whether the amount of force used was excessive or whether or not the force used in the situation was necessary.

The issue of whether police brutality, in the case of this assignment, for arrests, questioning and to keep general law and order is one that may seem at first glance a simple no.  However, there are strong proponents both for and against the use of excessive police force in some cases and that is what this paper would discuss in order to provide a balanced view on the different perspectives.

Supporters of police brutality may perhaps take the same stance as the consequentialists. Consequentialism is the ethical view that ‘ is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences.’ (Haines, 2006)  In other words, the ends justify the means resulting in the Dirty Harry dilemma where the objective is good but the actions may require dirty work.  Ethical altruists will argue that an individual should take an action that would benefit everyone instead of themselves.  How do these philosophies relate to police brutality? Consider for example interrogation. The primary goal of police interrogations is to obtain a confession about a crime. In areas where there may not be enough evidence to prosecute but there is certainty an individual committed a particular crime, a confession may be the last effort to sentence a suspect.  This may occur in countries where there may be higher crime rates and lower conviction rates due to an incompetent judicial system. Should the police therefore be allowed to use brutality in order to obtain their confession?  The altruists will argue yes. They can even argue that after all, members of a society under the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke’s social contract surrender some of their rights to the state and in such instances the safety of the general public ought to outweigh the happiness of the suspect.

Join now!

Another point of argument is the fact that policemen place their lives on the line and they might not be able to judge within a split second the risks when confronted by an attacker.  With their jobs being to ‘protect and to serve’ the use of weapons such as tasers and batons may be needed to reinforce society ideals that criminal behaviour will not be permitted (Pie, 2008).  Not only do these actions reinforce societal ideals but it may also act as a deterrent to other criminals.  If potential criminals know that the police will carry out their duties to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay