Introduction
The policemen play a significant role in maintaining law and order in society. Therefore, they deal with issues ranging from civil disputes to criminal disputes. In many societies, policemen are expected to know the law and any other area that involves maintaining law and order. Unlike other professionals, police service is associated with difficulties and expectations that are beyond their capability. Although policemen are expected to perfectly execute their services, society overlooks their capability.
The qualities of “The Perfect Policeman” are idealistic, but not realistic. Expecting a policeman to have the legal knowledge and the capacity to tell right or wrong, requires them to attend a law school. Moreover, the expectation means that police officers spend more time in courts to gain experience in judging (D’silva, 2022). A police officer cannot know about medicine to behave like doctors or nurses (Rooney, 1984). Acquiring such knowledge involves attending medical school which needs at least six years. Intelligence among police officers is acquired after many years of exposure to various criminal proceedings (D’silva, 2022). It is a fallacy to compare a police officer to a college professor. Maintaining law and order can be tiring, and any police officer would love to have their efforts appreciated through salary increments and other forms of incentives. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “perfect policeman” since no human can have the qualities expected by society.
The police force is crucial for maintaining law and order in society. However, many community members overlook the roles the police play in saving lives and protecting society. While police officers are expected to have extraordinary qualities, it is important to remember that they are normal human beings. Some of the skills and knowledge require many years of practice and learning. Therefore, it is impossible to have all the knowledge and characteristics listed in “The Perfect Policeman”.
Search and Seizure Law
Law enforcement officers may need to examine a person’s house or property for effective criminal investigations. Police officers can sometimes misuse the search and seizure laws. There is a need for restrictive laws to protect the citizens. However, the citizens can take advantage of the restrictive laws, risking the lives of other citizens. Although restrictive search and seizure laws protect citizens, they can be misused.
Restrictive search and seizure laws for police officers protect the inherent rights of the citizens. The Fourth Amendment provides for various rights including that against unreasonable searches and seizures (UM Distance Learning Institute, 2017). Moreover, the restrictive law enhances accountability among police officers, promoting access to justice. The law prohibits abuse of power by police officers which encumbers justice. Although restrictive search and seizure laws are beneficial, they can be detrimental to access to justice. The laws can hinder investigations since the police are limited in gathering evidence (UM Distance Learning Institute, 2017). Additionally, the citizens can take advantage of the laws, risking the lives of other citizens. A balance between no restrictive and extremely restrictive policies must be maintained.
The best balance between no restrictive and extremely restrictive is prioritizing basic human rights. For instance, in cases where police intervention would least affect human natural rights such as a right to life, extremely restrive laws can be applied. However, in cases where there is a gross human rights violation, no restrictions on search and seizure laws can be applied. The balance would help promote public safety while supporting policemen’s activities.
Search and seizure laws help policemen during their investigations and the protection of citizens. Abuse of such laws by police enforcement has led to the adoption of restrictive policies. Although restrictive policies help promote human rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, they can interfere with police activities. Therefore, prioritizing basic human rights when formulating restrictive laws is crucial for public safety and access to justice.
Asset Forfeiture Laws
Seizing properties that are suspected to be involved in criminal activities augments investigation activities. The seizure encumbers interference with evidence by suspected criminals and any other person who may not be under arrest. Asset forfeiture laws are rules and policies that allow law enforcement agencies to keep properties suspected to be involved in criminal activity. While asset forfeiture laws promote criminal investigations, they are associated with abuse and a lack of transparency.
Asset forfeiture laws can be beneficial to the criminal justice system in various ways. The laws discourage suspected criminals from interfering with investigation activities (UM Distance Learning Institute, 2017a). The deterrence aspect of asset forfeiture laws allows the police to gather evidence which is crucial for prosecution (Rifai & Tisnanta, 2022). Moreover, the laws can promote revenue generation for the criminal justice system. Some of the seized properties are sold, and the money is generated for investigation activities, off-loading the taxation burden from the citizens. However, asset forfeiture laws are associated with the abuse of power by policemen. Some investigating officers can take advantage of the laws to arbitrarily deny citizens their proprietary rights (Rifai & Tisnanta, 2022). Additionally, the laws are associated with a lack of transparency since it is difficult to account for the total value of assets seized by law enforcement agencies. Therefore, regulating the seizure of assets by investigating agencies can reduce abuse while promoting transparency.
Conclusion
Asset forfeiture laws allow police officers and other law enforcement agencies to seize properties involved in criminal activities. The laws promote investigations by deterring offenders from interfering with criminally suspected properties. However, the laws are associated with abuse by police officers and a lack of transparency. Therefore, asset forfeiture laws can lead to infringement on property rights. A mechanism to regulate and account for the seized properties by police officers is of the essence.
References
D’silva, K. (2022). Same old story of good cop–bad cop? A narrative approach to social representations of the police’s role in addressing gender‐based violence in Indian gender advocacy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. Web.
Rifai, E., & Tisnanta, H. S. (2022). Role of law enforcement to prevent cyber laundering and asset recovery from overseas. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 16(1), 110–122. Web.
Rooney, A. (1984, September 7). The perfect policeman. Huntsville Item, Col.2, 4A.
UM Distance Learning Institute (2017). Law and order module 2. [Video].YouTube. Web.
UM Distance Learning Institute (2017a). Module 4 guilty until proven innocent. [Video]. YouTube. Web.