Discipline and morale are closely related. Morale is how a person feels; discipline is how a person acts. The purpose of discipline is to promote desired behavior. This may be done by encouraging acceptable behavior or punishing unacceptable behavior. An agency’s policy and procedure manual is the foundation on which most discipline must be based. Discipline is a fundamental management right.
The 10/80/10 principle divides the workforce into three categories: 10 percent who are high achievers, 80 percent who are average achievers and 10 percent who are unmotivated troublemakers and cause 90 percent of management’s problems. A problem employee exhibits abnormal behavior to the extent that the behavior is detrimental to organizational needs and goals as well as the needs and goals of other department personnel. In addition to problem employees, law enforcement managers must also be able to deal with people who, although not technically “problem” employees, are extremely difficult to work with. These include yes people, passives, avoiders, pessimists, complainers, know-it-alls, exploders, bullies and snipers. To deal with problem people, get their attention, identify the problem behavior, point out the consequences, ask questions, listen and explain expectations. Avoid defensiveness.
A primary rule of effective discipline is that it should be carried out as close to the time of the violation as possible. Progressive discipline uses disciplinary steps based on the severity of the offense. The steps are usually (1) oral reprimand, (2) written reprimand, (3) suspension/demotion and (4) discharge. The offense and offender, how the offense was committed and the offender’s attitude and past performance are important considerations in assigning penalties.
Discipline, either positive or negative, depends on the use of consequences. The balance of consequences analysis considers behavior in terms of what positive and negative results the behavior produces and then focuses on those results. Personal, immediate and certain (PIC) consequences are stronger than organizational, delayed or uncertain (ODU) consequences. Managers should change the balance of consequences so that employees are rewarded for desired behavior and punished for undesired behavior—not vice versa.
The PRICE Method consists of five steps: (1) pinpoint, (2) record, (3) involve, (4) coach and (5) evaluate. Both praise and reprimands can be effectively accomplished in one minute. An effective manager usually gives four times more praise than blame. Managers can also give strokes. These strokes might be positive, negative, absent, crooked or plastic. The focus should be on positive strokes.
Discussion Questions
1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions?
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum takes into account much of what a police officer may need to do. Do you think there is anything that may have been left out? Would you change any aspect of the continuum?
I think in law enforcement an employee, should be dismissed for the following. A conviction of breaking a law. An employee that is found to be dishonest or untrustworthy, such as caught stealing or made an attempt to get paid for more then was working. Anytime excessive force was found to be used. A drug problem or alcohol problem, where the employee was found to refuse treatment. Every employer holds there own standards when to dismiss an employee. However in law enforcement honesty is key and being held to a higher standard and being above the law. any breach of this would make the employee in able to properly serve in law enforcement.
I feel that supervisors who properly supervise their employees and were not aware of any problem should not be held accountable. You can not watch someone all the regardless of who you are every second. Such as a police officer who is running drugs in their off duty time. Or says they are somewhere else and you can not prove they are lying although you use diligence on your part to prevent this. Now as a supervisor, if you were never around or did not properly supervisor your employee then you should be civilly liable. If you were aware of the problem and did nothing about it then you should be criminally and civilly liable. Not only are you a bad supervisor but if the action led to someone being hurt or a law to be broken then you should be held to the same level that the person who committed the actual act is. You must understand that when you take on a role as a supervisor. You are responsible for those who you supervise, and your duty is to make sure they comply with company policy or correct the action.
The Circular Use of Force Continuum is just a guide. It is not set in stone. You can not base every decision on the chart. As a law enforcement every person and every situation you enter is going to be different. Also it does not take the officer into account. You could have a very fit 200 pound 6'2 officer facing someone smaller then them although may be bigger then another officer. Also iT does not take the officers own training and proficiency into account. It should be feasible for the use of force to be used to take the person into custody or to use deadly force if necessary in the totally of the circumstances. A person who is high on drugs and has been struck several times and has no affect goes for an officers gun deadly for is justifiable and reasonable. Compared to a person that may of had a physical handicap making them unable to get the officers weapon may be able to deescalated another way with out putting the officer in jeopardy. It is easy to criticize someone by just looking at one photo or one event. The only way to judge the situation is to be there or have all the facts and the totally of the circumstances of the events. While there is a use of force policy the situation all the circumstances and the actual chart should be considered before deciding if the officer made the proper decision of the force used. My department as many are going away from having a use of force policy chart and calling the use of force chart a guide. So more interpretation based on the whole event can to be taken into account. This way it does not put as much liable on the department and officer it allows for justifiable force to be taken into account if there are extingent circumstances.
The drugs issue is a valid one. If the employee is addicted and it could be related to the position (maybe a police officer), then firing that officer is probably unfair or unjust.
Use of force policies are very important. Good example of the "loaded" perpetrator and how force cannot be static. I do see the usefulness and effectivenss of the Use of Force Continuum. As you stated it is a guide that assists in training and guiding rather than dictating.
1. Well, i think that an employee can be dismissed for many various reasons, not only in criminal justice, but in any field. I think that an employee can...or should be dismissed if they have no type of communication skills WHATSOEVER. of course you would have to try to help the employee to enhance their communication skills, but if there is no progress, then i think it's only right to "let them go". I also think that an employee can be dismissed by lacking any kind of responsibility, trustworthiness, and not having any respect for anyone and being straight up rude. I also feel that if an employee happens to be one of the "trouble makers" then the employer should keep an eye on them because most likely if they bahave in a troublesome way, then they must be doing something that can get them into trouble. If you are a criminal, then i, personally, don't think that you should've been in the criminal justice field in the first place...depending on the crime committed. Also drug addicts, alcoholics, any addict period...they should be provided with help, and if the help fails to work, then that employee with the "problem" should be dismissed. Employees in the criminal justice field should not receive any special treatment. Whether you're a homeless bum or president of the U.S, if you commit a crime, you must pay the consequences....and one includes getting dismissed. Of course this is just my view on things and everyone thinks different, but these are based on my morals
2. I think that whether a supervisor should be held responsible for their employee's actions all depend on whether the supervisor is a "good" supervisor or a "bad" one. A supervisor is merely a baby sitter, of course it is their job to watch over the employees and ensure that evryone is doing what they are supposed to b doing, BUT if there is an employee who does an unlawful act or a crime while not on duty, then i dont think the supervisor should be held accountable at all. However, if an employee is not doing what they are supposed to be doing while on the job, then it is the supervisor's responsibility to be on top of things and everyone. If something is done "under the tables" and the supervisor knows absolutely nothing about what's going on, then he should not be held accountable criminally. They should be held responsible civilly responsible because it is their job to be in everyone's business and know what's going on. I think that the only way a supervisor should be held responsible both criminally and civilly, is if a crime is committed ON the workplace and DURING the working hours...if the supervisor knows anything at all or even has the slightest suspicion about anything, then it is his/her responsibility to get to the bottom of things (for this they should be responsible civilly but not criminally). Without a doubt, the supervisor should be held criminally and civilly if he/she is a part of the crime with the employee/person committing it, or even if they just witness it, they should be held responsible criminally as well.
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum, like joseph said, is just a guide. It basically tells you different ways that an officer or a criminal justice worker can protect themselves while working or on duty. If an officer is on duty and he pulls someone over or stops someone on the road, the use of force policies basically says the "basic" things that are done, depending on how the victim reacts or how serious the situation is. The use of force policies states that an officer can ven use a deadly weapon, if the situation is just that severe. Of course not all situations will require you to need a gun or a baton. If you are with someone who appears to look dangerous or on drugs, then of course it would be safe and reasonable to keep your gun or any protective weapon nearby. On the contrary, if you are simply looking for someone who committed a less serious crime or who appears to be defenseless, then yes, you should have protection still nonetheless, but just use other means, that are less offensive and dangerous, to protect yourself. There are exceptions in the use of force policy because not eevry officer comes into the same situation so the use of force for each situation will be different.
Famathieu I agree with you as far as committing a crime ha no place in criminal justice filed. The problem with the rest of the world if all jobs eliminated anyone who committed a crime would be unable to find work, and we would a much higher crime rate because any former criminal would not have a chance at a honest living. Also as far as a supervisor should be in their business and know if their up to something. Any one is capable of having a secert or a skeleton in their closet that may be hidden very well even if they are being closely monitored.
1.I feel that human error should result in dismissal under the following conditions. The number one reason is respect/harassment. This consists of making threats, using discriminatory or derogatory language, and insubordination. If in employee is caught stealing, such as stealing merchandise, time, and major supplies. Excessive tardies and call outs are another reason why a person should be dismissed. If they are scheduled to be at work on a certain day or a certain time then that is for a reason. That means that they are needed for that shift and, if they can work there schedules then there tardiness or absence it making the next person work twice as hard. A person should also be dismissed when it comes to major safety violations such as doing something against protocol that put others at risk for injury. 2.I feel that the only time when a supervisor should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates’ actions is when the supervisor helped, advised, or knew that something was happening and ignored it. Or if the supervisor was neglecting their duties and something happened on account of it. Other then that you can’t possible punish a supervisor to that extent on account of what there people do. 3.What I would change is to take The Circular Use of Force Continuum from being a standard to be more like a training guide that shows officers the different things in which they can use to get the job done. I say this because there are never two situations that are the exact same. With that said every situations should be handled differently and the use of force continuum does not really show that. In my opinion it is more like a trail and error system then anything. Meaning that if the first step does not work then you go to the next step. To me this is basically a waste of time because in the circumstances that you are using this continuum, time is precious. Which means that if your continuum tells you to go from a verbal command to a empty hand control use of force and that didn’t work then you had to take it to the next step which in this case would be the use of a Taser or Baton. That’s precious time that you have lost so know you are putting your life at risk with the time that you have lost trying to use the continuum training that you gotten.
Joseph I totally agree with you on your reason for dismissal. In the Law Enforcement field you are kind of out there for you own and you are not always under direct supervision so trust is big. You are empowered to enforce the law as well as abide by it as well. So when that trust is broken in law enforcement there is really nothing that can do besides dismissed.
Travis, I agree totally with your point about harassment. I can not believe I forgot to say it. Sexual harassment and any type of discrimination or prejudice can not be tolerated in the work place. However I think in law enforcement calling out should not have as stiff penalty in a regular work environment. Like a pilot flying a plane I think you always want them at a 100 percent and would understand even if it is something minor; if they do not feel like flying that day. In law enforcement you need to be at 100 percent and your mind always has to be on target. If you have even a minor illness or just feel out of it that day your in ability to do your job 100 percent could cost someone their life. I also agree with you about when a supervisor should be held criminal liable. If they knew they knew and could of stopped it if they were not aware and it wasn't their own negligence then this should be excused.
1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer.
Human error in Law Enforcement should result in dismissal if the officer becomes dishonorable to their service. Once an officer becomes dishonorable he shall therefore be treated as any other citizen. Law Enforcement officers are held with high standards there should be little to no room for errors.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions?
No, I don’t think the supervisor is responsible for the subordinate’s actions. Most of the time the supervisors comes to a call when requested by the officer. If any crime has occurred by the officer 90% of the time the crime has already been committed before the supervisors is called to the scene. Majority of the time the supervisor does not know that a crime had occurred and sometimes is the last to know that the officer committed a dishonorable act. The supervisor can not watch ever single officer at once if the supervisor had any dealings with any criminal act along with his or her subordinates then yes, the supervisor should be held criminally as well as civilly.
Regina, you are right about police officers needing to be trustworthy. People forget when someone breaks into a house or business officers have the right to enter that property to check for victims and offenders. If an officer stole even just once their job could never be done effectively. Also their back up must trust them, if they can not watch each others backs because they do not trust them, you can not put your self in life threatening situations; which are a normal occurrence in law enforcement. As far as a supervisor only responding when requested it depends on agencies. However usually you know when their is a problem officer when their supervisor is always showing up on scenes. Police officers are adults not children if they need to be watched with an eagle eye; they need to find another career.
1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer. Termination due to human error can happen in many facets of a job and not just in law enforcement. An employee can be dismissed if they breach a part of their job contract, abuse in any way towards a citizen, any client they may work for, any co-worker they maybe in close quaters with. Verbal and Physical abuse is apart of human error that should result in immediate dismissal from their jub. Also, they if that employee had the proper trianing they should be terminated due to the lack of that employee using their training and resources properly.
Regina i agree with you that any law enforcement officer should be let go due to their dishonesty and how they are held to a greater standard than regular civilians and that their trust in the public eye is huge not only on that department but on all law enforcement agencies across the country.
Please answer the following questions and if needed, explain your answers fully. You are required to turn in the completed questions on December 12, 2009 at the beginning of the class session (8am).
Thank you.
1. What is motivation?
2. What theories of motivation have been proposed by Maslow, Herzberg, Skinner,Vroom, and Morse / Lorsch?
3. Which kind of reinforcement is more effective?
4. When should reinforcement occur?
5. What are the most common external motivators?
6. Internal motivators include what?
7. What factors might be responsible for morale problems?
8. Who is most able to improve or damage individual and department morale?
9. How morale might be improved?
10. What should promotions be based on?
11. Should promotions be from outside or from within? Explain your answer
12. How do morale and discipline differ?
13. What is the main purpose of discipline?
14. What is the foundation for most disciplinary actions?
15. What is a fundamental management right?
16. What is the 10/80/10 principle?
17. How is a problem employee characterized?
18. What types of personalities might be likely to result in problems?
19. How can managers deal with problem people?
20. What is a primary rule for the timing of discipline?
21. What should be considered when assessing penalties?
22. What steps are usually involved in progressive discipline?
23. What is a balance of consequences analysis?
24. What consequences are most powerful?
25. How can managers use the balance of consequences?
26. What does the PRICE Method consists of?
27. How much time do effective praise and reprimands require?
28. What ratio of praise to blame is usually needed?
I think that if progressive discipline is applied and there is no improvement, that employee should be dismissed from work. For example, an officer is dispatched to a physical domestic disturbance call, and because it is the end of his shift that officer does not wish to write any paperwork. That officer is continuously disciplined and coached and similar situations occur and the officer’s actions do not seems to improve, that officer should be permanently dismissed from duty since his actions may result in liability problems for the department. A supervisor should be responsible for his employs actions on certain situations. For example, a SGT covers up his officer’s mistake since the SGT and the officers are friends outside of work. That SGT should be responsible for his officer’s mistake. On the other hand, in a busy city, a SGT is responsible for a large amount of officers, and has many duties such as reviewing reports, citizen complaints, responding to emergency calls. It may be impossible for that SGT to monitor everything that happens in the city. If an officer make a mistake the supervisor should not be responsible for the officer’s mistake. It all depends on the circumstances.
Like Qmalachica02 (Juliana) said the problem with law enforcement, is when you really screw up in law enforcement you probably broke a state or Federal law. Something could get you dismissed at one job can get you arrested in law enforcement. Not reporting a domestic battery is violation of state law. You are held to a higher standard because you have higher standards then a citizen. You know the law and you know when you are doing something wrong. As long as you act in good faith your department takes the liability, when you deviate from your training and policies. That is when you are solely at fault and no one not even your department, can be liable for your actions but you.
The circular use of force ia an important guidance tool, however we have to take into consideration that officers come in contact with many different unique situations. There are many different situations that may require resonable decisions to be made, I agree with Travis, safety is very important, and different situations require different measures.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions? No, i don't think that supervisors should be held liable if they operate by the books and reported what they observed in the correct manner. Also,they cannot be everywhere their subordinates are and to micro-manage them. However, they should be charged if they engaged in the illegal acts or them trying to cover-up any wrongdoing places them in that regards.
Kelvin, I agree the supervisor should not be held liable for the employee’s actions. Also, the supervisor definitely cannot be everywhere their subordinates are to micro-manage however their adults that know the company policy and or producers and they know what are right from wrong.
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum takes into account much of what a police officer may need to do. Do you think there is anything that may have been left out? Would you change any aspect of the continuum? The circular use of force continuum takes into account of what the progression of actions an officer should take. It is a good tool to use during a training of an officer but it should be used just as that. However, officers are also gauging a specific situation in that moment and there is never a stop that is the sane or a situation that maybe the same but may have similarities. Experience teaches an officer better than what the book says. You may have a person that is incoherent and the use of force would have to be totatlly different from what the use of force may suggest you to do. It also doesn't take into account the up to the minute action and what you should do if something changes in a split second. But it is a good tool to have in law enforcement.
Travis and Juliana I totally agree with both of you and that it doesn't take into account the officers making a split decision and they must make altering decisions.
Yes Travis i agree that you can only punish a supervisor if he knows and doesn't report it or he tries to cover it up. You can't charge someone with a crime that someone else committed and they knew nothing about it until it comes out.
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum is a very important tool the continuum should be use for training so that officers become more familiar with the concepts when their watched with situation their better able to deal with them. I would suggest that The Circular Use of Force Continuum be reviewed more often by departments and their staff it would be easy to remember and less dangerous for the office during critical incidents.
Yes Regina I agree with what you are saying. The officers are grown people. They have minds of their own and they know right from wrong. It shouldn't be the supervisor who is held responsible for any wrong things they do. Although, it is the supervisor's duty to point out the fact that the officer is wrong, and it is his job to teach him/her that what they're doing is wrong, and the supervisor must also tell them the right way to do things. Everyone makes mistakes, although some mistakes are intentional...the supervisor is NOT a babysitter, he can't watch every little move that every officer makes, he trusts his officers. That is why trust is a very important aspect...trusting someone can also get you in trouble. Nonetheless, i dont think the supervisor should be held responsible criminally for the wrongdoing of an officer, unless, like i stated previously, he/she plays a role in the "crime" done
1. human error should result in dismissal when an officer or deputy continues to ignor standard protocol and disciplinary actions. everyone makes mistakes. however, behavioral pattens can be masked or hidden for only so long. if an officer continue to disreguard the rules he/she must be dismissed.
2. No, I do not believe that supervisors should be held responsible for their subordinates mistakes. Unless the supervisor knowingly aurthorized or permitted reckless behavior, they should not be held accountable.
3. I believe that the Circular Use of Force Continuum should remain the same. However, if after a review from both the officers and statics reveal that something is missing or should be added, then I would lokk at making a revision.
Kelvin, I totally agree with your comment experience teaches and officer better than what the book say. However, training helps the officer understand how to deal better with the situation. For example a new officer who has never been involved in this type on dilemma training may aid the new officer on how to deal with the situation.
Kevin I agree with you on The Circular Use of Force Continuum. It takes training and giving the officers that you are training many different and similar scenarios in order for them you use this tool effectively. You need more then a book to get the point across.
Pretty much everyone is on the same page when it comes to a supervisor getting held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions. Kevin made a strong point when it came to micro-managing. I speak from experience when I say that no one like people watching over their shoulders all day. It's just uncomfortable for everyone and hinders people from getting the job done. Julian also made an excellent point when it came to the SGT that managed large amounts of people. Let’s say that the SGT like in some cases in New York is in charge of 15 plus officers. Its no way that the SGT can be at everywhere at once so you cant possible hold the SGT to that magnitude.
I agree with Juliana aka qmalachica02, many time if a superior is friends or buddies with a subordinate they will cover the subordinates maistakes (if they can). If such practices are discovered, both the superior and the officer should be held responsible for the officers mistakes.
I agree with you answer on the Circular Use of Force Continuum. However, you stated that it probably is a better tool in training than in real life or real time situations. It should be noted that nothing it real time will go exactly as the book or training (controlled environment). However, using your training with applied situation based reason can benefit everyone.
For example, a person who is speeding runs a red light and gets pulled over. The person is distraught over something. After a few line of questions you determine the persons mom was in an accident and on their way to the hospital. You can hold the person up giving them a ticket, or you can show some sympathy and tell them to proceed more carefully. WHat an officer can do vs. how they respond given the situation at hand can escalate or squash it.
Proper Training + experience + wisdom = better officers.
Welcome to our Asynchronous Blog for DSC1006 Introduction to Homeland Security. You should respond to the questions and follow the instructions from our class meetings on Saturday.
Discipline and morale are closely related. Morale is how a person feels; discipline is how a person acts. The purpose of discipline is to promote desired behavior. This may be done by encouraging acceptable behavior or punishing unacceptable behavior. An agency’s policy and procedure manual is the foundation on which most discipline must be based. Discipline is a fundamental management right.
ReplyDeleteThe 10/80/10 principle divides the workforce into three categories: 10 percent who are high achievers, 80 percent who are average achievers and 10 percent who are unmotivated troublemakers and cause 90 percent of management’s problems. A problem employee exhibits abnormal behavior to the extent that the behavior is detrimental to organizational needs and goals as well as the needs and goals of other department personnel. In addition to problem employees, law enforcement managers must also be able to deal with people who, although not technically “problem” employees, are extremely difficult to work with. These include yes people, passives, avoiders, pessimists, complainers, know-it-alls, exploders, bullies and snipers. To deal with problem people, get their attention, identify the problem behavior, point out the consequences, ask questions, listen and explain expectations. Avoid defensiveness.
A primary rule of effective discipline is that it should be carried out as close to the time of the violation as possible. Progressive discipline uses disciplinary steps based on the severity of the offense. The steps are usually (1) oral reprimand, (2) written reprimand, (3) suspension/demotion and (4) discharge. The offense and offender, how the offense was committed and the offender’s attitude and past performance are important considerations in assigning penalties.
Discipline, either positive or negative, depends on the use of consequences. The balance of consequences analysis considers behavior in terms of what positive and negative results the behavior produces and then focuses on those results. Personal, immediate and certain (PIC) consequences are stronger than organizational, delayed or uncertain (ODU) consequences. Managers should change the balance of consequences so that employees are rewarded for desired behavior and punished for undesired behavior—not vice versa.
The PRICE Method consists of five steps: (1) pinpoint, (2) record, (3) involve, (4) coach and (5) evaluate. Both praise and reprimands can be effectively accomplished in one minute. An effective manager usually gives four times more praise than blame. Managers can also give strokes. These strokes might be positive, negative, absent, crooked or plastic. The focus should be on positive strokes.
Discussion Questions
1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions?
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum takes into account much of what a police officer may need to do. Do you think there is anything that may have been left out? Would you change any aspect of the continuum?
I think in law enforcement an employee, should be dismissed for the following. A conviction of breaking a law. An employee that is found to be dishonest or untrustworthy, such as caught stealing or made an attempt to get paid for more then was working. Anytime excessive force was found to be used. A drug problem or alcohol problem, where the employee was found to refuse treatment. Every employer holds there own standards when to dismiss an employee. However in law enforcement honesty is key and being held to a higher standard and being above the law. any breach of this would make the employee in able to properly serve in law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI feel that supervisors who properly supervise their employees and were not aware of any problem should not be held accountable. You can not watch someone all the regardless of who you are every second. Such as a police officer who is running drugs in their off duty time. Or says they are somewhere else and you can not prove they are lying although you use diligence on your part to prevent this. Now as a supervisor, if you were never around or did not properly supervisor your employee then you should be civilly liable. If you were aware of the problem and did nothing about it then you should be criminally and civilly liable. Not only are you a bad supervisor but if the action led to someone being hurt or a law to be broken then you should be held to the same level that the person who committed the actual act is. You must understand that when you take on a role as a supervisor. You are responsible for those who you supervise, and your duty is to make sure they comply with company policy or correct the action.
The Circular Use of Force Continuum is just a guide. It is not set in stone. You can not base every decision on the chart. As a law enforcement every person and every situation you enter is going to be different. Also it does not take the officer into account. You could have a very fit 200 pound 6'2 officer facing someone smaller then them although may be bigger then another officer. Also iT does not take the officers own training and proficiency into account. It should be feasible for the use of force to be used to take the person into custody or to use deadly force if necessary in the totally of the circumstances. A person who is high on drugs and has been struck several times and has no affect goes for an officers gun deadly for is justifiable and reasonable. Compared to a person that may of had a physical handicap making them unable to get the officers weapon may be able to deescalated another way with out putting the officer in jeopardy. It is easy to criticize someone by just looking at one photo or one event. The only way to judge the situation is to be there or have all the facts and the totally of the circumstances of the events. While there is a use of force policy the situation all the circumstances and the actual chart should be considered before deciding if the officer made the proper decision of the force used. My department as many are going away from having a use of force policy chart and calling the use of force chart a guide. So more interpretation based on the whole event can to be taken into account. This way it does not put as much liable on the department and officer it allows for justifiable force to be taken into account if there are extingent circumstances.
Joseph:
ReplyDeleteThe drugs issue is a valid one. If the employee is addicted and it could be related to the position (maybe a police officer), then firing that officer is probably unfair or unjust.
Use of force policies are very important. Good example of the "loaded" perpetrator and how force cannot be static. I do see the usefulness and effectivenss of the Use of Force Continuum. As you stated it is a guide that assists in training and guiding rather than dictating.
1. Well, i think that an employee can be dismissed for many various reasons, not only in criminal justice, but in any field. I think that an employee can...or should be dismissed if they have no type of communication skills WHATSOEVER. of course you would have to try to help the employee to enhance their communication skills, but if there is no progress, then i think it's only right to "let them go". I also think that an employee can be dismissed by lacking any kind of responsibility, trustworthiness, and not having any respect for anyone and being straight up rude. I also feel that if an employee happens to be one of the "trouble makers" then the employer should keep an eye on them because most likely if they bahave in a troublesome way, then they must be doing something that can get them into trouble. If you are a criminal, then i, personally, don't think that you should've been in the criminal justice field in the first place...depending on the crime committed. Also drug addicts, alcoholics, any addict period...they should be provided with help, and if the help fails to work, then that employee with the "problem" should be dismissed. Employees in the criminal justice field should not receive any special treatment. Whether you're a homeless bum or president of the U.S, if you commit a crime, you must pay the consequences....and one includes getting dismissed. Of course this is just my view on things and everyone thinks different, but these are based on my morals
ReplyDelete2. I think that whether a supervisor should be held responsible for their employee's actions all depend on whether the supervisor is a "good" supervisor or a "bad" one. A supervisor is merely a baby sitter, of course it is their job to watch over the employees and ensure that evryone is doing what they are supposed to b doing, BUT if there is an employee who does an unlawful act or a crime while not on duty, then i dont think the supervisor should be held accountable at all. However, if an employee is not doing what they are supposed to be doing while on the job, then it is the supervisor's responsibility to be on top of things and everyone. If something is done "under the tables" and the supervisor knows absolutely nothing about what's going on, then he should not be held accountable criminally. They should be held responsible civilly responsible because it is their job to be in everyone's business and know what's going on. I think that the only way a supervisor should be held responsible both criminally and civilly, is if a crime is committed ON the workplace and DURING the working hours...if the supervisor knows anything at all or even has the slightest suspicion about anything, then it is his/her responsibility to get to the bottom of things (for this they should be responsible civilly but not criminally). Without a doubt, the supervisor should be held criminally and civilly if he/she is a part of the crime with the employee/person committing it, or even if they just witness it, they should be held responsible criminally as well.
3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum, like joseph said, is just a guide. It basically tells you different ways that an officer or a criminal justice worker can protect themselves while working or on duty. If an officer is on duty and he pulls someone over or stops someone on the road, the use of force policies basically says the "basic" things that are done, depending on how the victim reacts or how serious the situation is. The use of force policies states that an officer can ven use a deadly weapon, if the situation is just that severe. Of course not all situations will require you to need a gun or a baton. If you are with someone who appears to look dangerous or on drugs, then of course it would be safe and reasonable to keep your gun or any protective weapon nearby. On the contrary, if you are simply looking for someone who committed a less serious crime or who appears to be defenseless, then yes, you should have protection still nonetheless, but just use other means, that are less offensive and dangerous, to protect yourself. There are exceptions in the use of force policy because not eevry officer comes into the same situation so the use of force for each situation will be different.
ReplyDeleteFamathieu I agree with you as far as committing a crime ha no place in criminal justice filed. The problem with the rest of the world if all jobs eliminated anyone who committed a crime would be unable to find work, and we would a much higher crime rate because any former criminal would not have a chance at a honest living.
ReplyDeleteAlso as far as a supervisor should be in their business and know if their up to something. Any one is capable of having a secert or a skeleton in their closet that may be hidden very well even if they are being closely monitored.
1.I feel that human error should result in dismissal under the following conditions. The number one reason is respect/harassment. This consists of making threats, using discriminatory or derogatory language, and insubordination. If in employee is caught stealing, such as stealing merchandise, time, and major supplies. Excessive tardies and call outs are another reason why a person should be dismissed. If they are scheduled to be at work on a certain day or a certain time then that is for a reason. That means that they are needed for that shift and, if they can work there schedules then there tardiness or absence it making the next person work twice as hard. A person should also be dismissed when it comes to major safety violations such as doing something against protocol that put others at risk for injury.
ReplyDelete2.I feel that the only time when a supervisor should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates’ actions is when the supervisor helped, advised, or knew that something was happening and ignored it. Or if the supervisor was neglecting their duties and something happened on account of it. Other then that you can’t possible punish a supervisor to that extent on account of what there people do.
3.What I would change is to take The Circular Use of Force Continuum from being a standard to be more like a training guide that shows officers the different things in which they can use to get the job done. I say this because there are never two situations that are the exact same. With that said every situations should be handled differently and the use of force continuum does not really show that. In my opinion it is more like a trail and error system then anything. Meaning that if the first step does not work then you go to the next step. To me this is basically a waste of time because in the circumstances that you are using this continuum, time is precious. Which means that if your continuum tells you to go from a verbal command to a empty hand control use of force and that didn’t work then you had to take it to the next step which in this case would be the use of a Taser or Baton. That’s precious time that you have lost so know you are putting your life at risk with the time that you have lost trying to use the continuum training that you gotten.
Joseph I totally agree with you on your reason for dismissal. In the Law Enforcement field you are kind of out there for you own and you are not always under direct supervision so trust is big. You are empowered to enforce the law as well as abide by it as well. So when that trust is broken in law enforcement there is really nothing that can do besides dismissed.
ReplyDeleteTravis, I agree totally with your point about harassment. I can not believe I forgot to say it. Sexual harassment and any type of discrimination or prejudice can not be tolerated in the work place. However I think in law enforcement calling out should not have as stiff penalty in a regular work environment. Like a pilot flying a plane I think you always want them at a 100 percent and would understand even if it is something minor; if they do not feel like flying that day. In law enforcement you need to be at 100 percent and your mind always has to be on target. If you have even a minor illness or just feel out of it that day your in ability to do your job 100 percent could cost someone their life. I also agree with you about when a supervisor should be held criminal liable. If they knew they knew and could of stopped it if they were not aware and it wasn't their own negligence then this should be excused.
ReplyDelete1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer.
ReplyDeleteHuman error in Law Enforcement should result in dismissal if the officer becomes dishonorable to their service. Once an officer becomes dishonorable he shall therefore be treated as any other citizen. Law Enforcement officers are held with high standards there should be little to no room for errors.
2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions?
No, I don’t think the supervisor is responsible for the subordinate’s actions. Most of the time the supervisors comes to a call when requested by the officer. If any crime has occurred by the officer 90% of the time the crime has already been committed before the supervisors is called to the scene. Majority of the time the supervisor does not know that a crime had occurred and sometimes is the last to know that the officer committed a dishonorable act. The supervisor can not watch ever single officer at once if the supervisor had any dealings with any criminal act along with his or her subordinates then yes, the supervisor should be held criminally as well as civilly.
Regina, you are right about police officers needing to be trustworthy. People forget when someone breaks into a house or business officers have the right to enter that property to check for victims and offenders. If an officer stole even just once their job could never be done effectively. Also their back up must trust them, if they can not watch each others backs because they do not trust them, you can not put your self in life threatening situations; which are a normal occurrence in law enforcement. As far as a supervisor only responding when requested it depends on agencies. However usually you know when their is a problem officer when their supervisor is always showing up on scenes. Police officers are adults not children if they need to be watched with an eagle eye; they need to find another career.
ReplyDelete1. When should human error result in dismissal? Explain your answer.
ReplyDeleteTermination due to human error can happen in many facets of a job and not just in law enforcement. An employee can be dismissed if they breach a part of their job contract, abuse in any way towards a citizen, any client they may work for, any co-worker they maybe in close quaters with. Verbal and Physical abuse is apart of human error that should result in immediate dismissal from their jub. Also, they if that employee had the proper trianing they should be terminated due to the lack of that employee using their training and resources properly.
Regina i agree with you that any law enforcement officer should be let go due to their dishonesty and how they are held to a greater standard than regular civilians and that their trust in the public eye is huge not only on that department but on all law enforcement agencies across the country.
ReplyDeleteWeek 2 questions from Chapter 9 and 10
ReplyDeletePlease answer the following questions and if needed, explain your answers fully. You are required to turn in the completed questions on December 12, 2009 at the beginning of the class session (8am).
Thank you.
1. What is motivation?
2. What theories of motivation have been proposed by Maslow, Herzberg, Skinner,Vroom, and Morse / Lorsch?
3. Which kind of reinforcement is more effective?
4. When should reinforcement occur?
5. What are the most common external motivators?
6. Internal motivators include what?
7. What factors might be responsible for morale problems?
8. Who is most able to improve or damage individual and department morale?
9. How morale might be improved?
10. What should promotions be based on?
11. Should promotions be from outside or from within? Explain your answer
12. How do morale and discipline differ?
13. What is the main purpose of discipline?
14. What is the foundation for most disciplinary actions?
15. What is a fundamental management right?
16. What is the 10/80/10 principle?
17. How is a problem employee characterized?
18. What types of personalities might be likely to result in problems?
19. How can managers deal with problem people?
20. What is a primary rule for the timing of discipline?
21. What should be considered when assessing penalties?
22. What steps are usually involved in progressive discipline?
23. What is a balance of consequences analysis?
24. What consequences are most powerful?
25. How can managers use the balance of consequences?
26. What does the PRICE Method consists of?
27. How much time do effective praise and reprimands require?
28. What ratio of praise to blame is usually needed?
I think that if progressive discipline is applied and there is no improvement, that employee should be dismissed from work. For example, an officer is dispatched to a physical domestic disturbance call, and because it is the end of his shift that officer does not wish to write any paperwork. That officer is continuously disciplined and coached and similar situations occur and the officer’s actions do not seems to improve, that officer should be permanently dismissed from duty since his actions may result in liability problems for the department.
ReplyDeleteA supervisor should be responsible for his employs actions on certain situations. For example, a SGT covers up his officer’s mistake since the SGT and the officers are friends outside of work. That SGT should be responsible for his officer’s mistake. On the other hand, in a busy city, a SGT is responsible for a large amount of officers, and has many duties such as reviewing reports, citizen complaints, responding to emergency calls. It may be impossible for that SGT to monitor everything that happens in the city. If an officer make a mistake the supervisor should not be responsible for the officer’s mistake. It all depends on the circumstances.
Professor by the way this is Juliana Andrade, I dont know why its posting up with my aol user id name.
ReplyDeleteLike Qmalachica02 (Juliana) said the problem with law enforcement, is when you really screw up in law enforcement you probably broke a state or Federal law. Something could get you dismissed at one job can get you arrested in law enforcement. Not reporting a domestic battery is violation of state law. You are held to a higher standard because you have higher standards then a citizen. You know the law and you know when you are doing something wrong. As long as you act in good faith your department takes the liability, when you deviate from your training and policies. That is when you are solely at fault and no one not even your department, can be liable for your actions but you.
ReplyDeleteThe circular use of force ia an important guidance tool, however we have to take into consideration that officers come in contact with many different unique situations. There are many different situations that may require resonable decisions to be made, I agree with Travis, safety is very important, and different situations require different measures.
ReplyDeleteAgain this last post was made by Juliana Andrade.
ReplyDelete2. Do you think that supervisors should be held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions?
ReplyDeleteNo, i don't think that supervisors should be held liable if they operate by the books and reported what they observed in the correct manner. Also,they cannot be everywhere their subordinates are and to micro-manage them. However, they should be charged if they engaged in the illegal acts or them trying to cover-up any wrongdoing places them in that regards.
Kelvin, I agree the supervisor should not be held liable for the employee’s actions. Also, the supervisor definitely cannot be everywhere their subordinates are to micro-manage however their adults that know the company policy and or producers and they know what are right from wrong.
ReplyDelete3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum takes into account much of what a police officer may need to do. Do you think there is anything that may have been left out? Would you change any aspect of the continuum?
ReplyDeleteThe circular use of force continuum takes into account of what the progression of actions an officer should take. It is a good tool to use during a training of an officer but it should be used just as that. However, officers are also gauging a specific situation in that moment and there is never a stop that is the sane or a situation that maybe the same but may have similarities. Experience teaches an officer better than what the book says. You may have a person that is incoherent and the use of force would have to be totatlly different from what the use of force may suggest you to do. It also doesn't take into account the up to the minute action and what you should do if something changes in a split second. But it is a good tool to have in law enforcement.
Travis and Juliana I totally agree with both of you and that it doesn't take into account the officers making a split decision and they must make altering decisions.
ReplyDeleteYes Travis i agree that you can only punish a supervisor if he knows and doesn't report it or he tries to cover it up. You can't charge someone with a crime that someone else committed and they knew nothing about it until it comes out.
ReplyDelete3. The Circular Use of Force Continuum is a very important tool the continuum should be use for training so that officers become more familiar with the concepts when their watched with situation their better able to deal with them. I would suggest that The Circular Use of Force Continuum be reviewed more often by departments and their staff it would be easy to remember and less dangerous for the office during critical incidents.
ReplyDeleteYes Regina I agree with what you are saying. The officers are grown people. They have minds of their own and they know right from wrong. It shouldn't be the supervisor who is held responsible for any wrong things they do. Although, it is the supervisor's duty to point out the fact that the officer is wrong, and it is his job to teach him/her that what they're doing is wrong, and the supervisor must also tell them the right way to do things. Everyone makes mistakes, although some mistakes are intentional...the supervisor is NOT a babysitter, he can't watch every little move that every officer makes, he trusts his officers. That is why trust is a very important aspect...trusting someone can also get you in trouble. Nonetheless, i dont think the supervisor should be held responsible criminally for the wrongdoing of an officer, unless, like i stated previously, he/she plays a role in the "crime" done
ReplyDelete1. human error should result in dismissal when an officer or deputy continues to ignor standard protocol and disciplinary actions. everyone makes mistakes. however, behavioral pattens can be masked or hidden for only so long. if an officer continue to disreguard the rules he/she must be dismissed.
ReplyDelete2. No, I do not believe that supervisors should be held responsible for their subordinates mistakes. Unless the supervisor knowingly aurthorized or permitted reckless behavior, they should not be held accountable.
3. I believe that the Circular Use of Force Continuum should remain the same. However, if after a review from both the officers and statics reveal that something is missing or should be added, then I would lokk at making a revision.
Kelvin, I totally agree with your comment experience teaches and officer better than what the book say. However, training helps the officer understand how to deal better with the situation. For example a new officer who has never been involved in this type on dilemma training may aid the new officer on how to deal with the situation.
ReplyDeleteKevin
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on The Circular Use of Force Continuum. It takes training and giving the officers that you are training many different and similar scenarios in order for them you use this tool effectively. You need more then a book to get the point across.
Pretty much everyone is on the same page when it comes to a supervisor getting held criminally as well as civilly responsible for their subordinates actions. Kevin made a strong point when it came to micro-managing. I speak from experience when I say that no one like people watching over their shoulders all day. It's just uncomfortable for everyone and hinders people from getting the job done. Julian also made an excellent point when it came to the SGT that managed large amounts of people. Let’s say that the SGT like in some cases in New York is in charge of 15 plus officers. Its no way that the SGT can be at everywhere at once so you cant possible hold the SGT to that magnitude.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Juliana aka qmalachica02, many time if a superior is friends or buddies with a subordinate they will cover the subordinates maistakes (if they can). If such practices are discovered, both the superior and the officer should be held responsible for the officers mistakes.
ReplyDelete@ Kelvin
ReplyDeleteI agree with you answer on the Circular Use of Force Continuum. However, you stated that it probably is a better tool in training than in real life or real time situations. It should be noted that nothing it real time will go exactly as the book or training (controlled environment). However, using your training with applied situation based reason can benefit everyone.
For example, a person who is speeding runs a red light and gets pulled over. The person is distraught over something. After a few line of questions you determine the persons mom was in an accident and on their way to the hospital. You can hold the person up giving them a ticket, or you can show some sympathy and tell them to proceed more carefully. WHat an officer can do vs. how they respond given the situation at hand can escalate or squash it.
Proper Training + experience + wisdom = better officers.