Discretionary Responses in Retail Theft Scenarios: The Case of Brooke
In situations involving theft, particularly when the offender presents personal circumstances that may have influenced their actions, law enforcement officers must carefully navigate their responses. Officer Wilson’s encounter with Brooke, who attempted to steal medication to help her mother, raises several discretionary factors that can guide the officer’s decision-making process. This essay examines two possible actions Officer Wilson could take and justifies one based on key discretionary factors.
Possible Actions
Action 1: Arrest Brooke for Theft
One possible action for Officer Wilson is to arrest Brooke for theft. This decision would be influenced by various discretionary factors:
1. The Law: Legally, attempting to steal medication constitutes theft, regardless of the circumstances. By choosing to arrest her, Officer Wilson is upholding the law and fulfilling his duty to enforce it.
2. Seriousness of the Offense: Theft of medication can be viewed as a serious offense, particularly because it involves potentially life-saving drugs. An arrest could send a message about the consequences of such actions.
Action 2: Issue a Warning and Refer Brooke to Social Services
Alternatively, Officer Wilson could choose to issue a warning and refer Brooke to social services for assistance instead of arresting her. This decision would involve considering different discretionary factors:
1. Officer & Citizen’s Attitudes: Brooke’s emotional state and remorse suggest that she understands the gravity of her actions. Officer Wilson’s sympathetic feelings towards her could influence him to take a more compassionate approach, recognizing that the situation results from desperation rather than criminal intent.
2. Victim/Offender Relationship: In this case, there are no obvious victims beyond the pharmacy itself, which is a corporate entity. Given Brooke’s explanation regarding her mother’s dire financial situation, Officer Wilson may view her as someone in need rather than as a typical criminal.
Justification of Selected Action
If I were Officer Wilson, I would choose Action 2: Issue a Warning and Refer Brooke to Social Services. My justification for this decision rests on two key discretionary factors:
1. Officer & Citizen’s Attitudes: Brooke’s clear remorse and emotional distress indicate that she did not act with malicious intent but rather from a place of desperation. Acknowledging her emotional state can foster trust between law enforcement and community members, reinforcing the idea that police are not just enforcers of the law but also supporters of community welfare.
2. Complainant Opinion: While the pharmacy may have policies regarding theft, the nature of the item stolen—medication—combined with Brooke’s circumstances suggests a need for compassion. If the pharmacy staff is willing to forgive the incident rather than pursue charges, this further supports a lenient approach by Officer Wilson.
By opting for issuing a warning and referring Brooke to social services, Officer Wilson addresses both the immediate situation and the underlying issues contributing to her behavior. This response not only provides Brooke with an opportunity for rehabilitation but also reinforces a sense of community support rather than alienation through punitive measures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, responding officers face complex decisions when addressing theft cases, especially when personal circumstances come into play. While an arrest may seem justified based on the law and seriousness of the offense, taking a compassionate approach by issuing a warning and referring individuals in need to social services aligns better with community-oriented policing principles. Understanding individual circumstances can lead to more effective outcomes that promote rehabilitation and community cohesion.
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
