Freedoms and Discretion

I heard something on the news this morning that caused m to comment concerning it. A city is reported to be contemplating the passage of a city ordinance that would require residents to apply for a permit to have large Christmas decoration displays in their yards.  They might be required to pay fees for the permits. Several of the city’s residents are upset and at first it does look very unfair, but is it?

One has to look at the concept when does one person exercising their freedoms and rights interfere with another person or group of persons exercising their freedoms and rights? In the past there have apparently been a couple of very large displays in that city that attracted many people to drive by or stop and look.  The cars of onlookers were so numerous traffic problems resulted. Residents who lived in the area were having trouble getting to their homes and traffic in the area was not flowing well. These problems required Police assistance for traffic control. Should the city provide police for this problem?  The city budget, especially that of the police, is limited. should this additional expense be paid by tax money? I think compromise (what a concept) could be reached.  If displays were not so large they would not cause problems and the city would not need to provide traffic control or require permits.

The concept when does my freedom and rights interfere with your freedom and rights encourages me to discuss discretion at all levels of government from those who enact the laws to those who enforce them.

Police officers need to use discretion much of the time. They need to consider what is best for the greater good or best for the majority.  They need to take into account their city, county or state as a whole. Traffic laws are a good example. If every traffic law on the books were enforced almost every driver would be receiving citations on a regular basis and police officers would be too busy issuing citations; nothing else and would get done not to mention how upset citizens would be. How about if police enforced the laws how they were written.  One mile per hour over the speed limit is breaking the law, but the police use discretion.  They evaluate how much over is dangerous and a blatant violation. Just the width of the speedometer needle or a flutter of your foot could cause a one, two, or three mph overage, but more than five over is usually blatant disregard.

A theft is a theft is a theft some might say.  A theft from one cent to $500 is classified the same.  Should the officer treat the homeless man who takes a candy bar from a rack on the sidewalk outside store be treated the same as someone who steals a $400 stereo from Wal-Mart?  The officer can choose how to deal with them. I and most the officers I have worked with in the past would probably ask the homeless guy to take the candy bar back if it wasn’t eaten, or pay for the candy bar and strongly chastise the man.  The person stealing the stereo would get cited for theft or arrested, dependent on the surrounding circumstances.

Officer discretion is important because it humanizes police. Otherwise police officers could be replaced with robots.

When do you think one person’s freedom and rights interfere with another person’s? Is there a way to quantify that?  Who should make the determination of the violation? Do you feel discretion ought to be allowed for those who make the laws? For those who enforce the laws? How much discretion should be allowed?

Until Tomorrow,

Sally S