Handcuffing Policy Analysis and Recommendations

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Policy
Theory
Intended Outcome
Efficacy
Efficiency
Recommendations
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Handcuffs on the hands of an individual are the symbol of a person that has been arrested. Nonetheless, this attribute continuously sparks discussions concerning the necessity of such measures when arresting a person (Martinot, 2014). The debaters divided into two camps. One-half believed that handcuffing was obligatory, and the other thought of handcuffing as of excessive force. Consequently, the court policy on handcuffing should be reevaluated in order to minimize the disparity between the two camps (Phillips, 2013).

Policy

The current handcuffing policy states that the use of limiting devices is obligatory for all inmates, except if in the law enforcement officer’s decision unusual conditions appear which make the exploitation of handcuffs intolerable or needless (Quintard-Morenas, 2015). The current policy also presupposes that there should be only a limited number of situations when pre-arresting handcuffing may be lawful.

Theory

The updated policy is intended to diminish the use of excessive force when arresting individuals. This objective has to be achieved by tolerant use of handcuffs in cases when the police officer recognizes unlawful activity (Iv, Frank, & Liederbach, 2014). The new policy is based on the belief that law enforcement officers are only permitted to use the minimum amount of power required to defend themselves and transport the suspect into police department custody (Phillips, 2013).

Intended Outcome

The new policy is designed to minimize the number of arrests where the wrongdoers were put in handcuffs and treated with an excessive amount of force. Another intended outcome of this policy is improved self-assurance of the police officers and their upgraded ability to conduct detention (Martinot, 2014). The most important outcome is the minimization of the number of restrained individuals that are handcuffed while attending court.

Efficacy

The efficacy of this novel policy lies in the fact that by being just towards the convicts the court will be able to elicit trust and respect in the detained individuals (Quintard-Morenas, 2015). The efficacy of this policy can be evaluated by the percentage of people who behaved appropriately during the court hearing (not wearing handcuffs). Nonetheless, the act of handcuffing an individual may not correlate with the probable personal objectives of a convicted criminal.

Efficiency

The efficiency of the policy can be measured by the number of the detainees that the court will be able to judge without applying any excessive force throughout the process (Quintard-Morenas, 2015). It is rather important to understand that the efficiency of this new policy cannot be exceptionally high due to its relative gentleness of the methodology applied. However, this approach would help the courts evaluate the current legal system in terms of the prisoners’ credibility.

Recommendations

It is recommended to thoroughly reassess the upsides and downsides of the current policy and make necessary changes. The proposed new policy should be implemented gradually in order not to provoke misconduct among the inmates. The detailed outcomes of the enactment of the no-handcuffing policy should be reported to the law enforcement agencies in detail.

Conclusion

The current legal system is a subject of controversy and is persistently addressed as one of the most intricate legal apparatuses in the country. The policy outlined in this paper is intended to improve the attitude of courts towards the majority of the convicted individuals. Even though this policy might implicitly raise the possibility of misconduct, it appeals to the basic human rights of individuals in court.

References

Iv, C. F., Frank, J., & Liederbach, J. (2014). Understanding police use of force. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37(3), 558-578. Web.

Martinot, S. (2014). Police impunity, human autonomy, and Jim Crow. Socialism and Democracy, 28(3), 64-76. Web.

Phillips, S. W. (2013). Police recruit attitudes toward the use of unnecessary force. Police Practice and Research, 16(1), 51-64. Web.

Quintard-Morenas, F. (2015). The widespread handcuffing of arrestees in the United States. Police Practice and Research, 2(12), 34-39.

Click Here To Order Now!