Discretionary Responses to Graffiti and Hate Crimes: The Case of the High School Incident
In cases involving graffiti and hate speech, especially in sensitive environments like schools, law enforcement officers must balance legal obligations with the need for restorative justice and community safety. Officer Thomas’s response to the vandalism at the high school, which includes racial and sexual orientation slurs, raises several discretionary factors that can inform his actions. This essay examines two potential actions Officer Thomas could take and justifies one based on key discretionary factors.
Possible Actions
Action 1: Arrest the Student for Hate Crimes
One option available to Officer Thomas is to arrest the student who committed the act of vandalism. This decision would be influenced by several discretionary factors:
1. The Law: The act of spray painting slurs and hate speech can fall under hate crime statutes, depending on local laws. An arrest would demonstrate that such behavior is taken seriously and that the legal system is committed to protecting marginalized individuals.
2. Seriousness of the Offense: The nature of the comments—racial slurs and derogatory remarks aimed at a transgender student—reflects a serious violation of community standards and school policies. Taking strong action could serve as a deterrent for similar behavior in the future.
Action 2: Refer the Student to Restorative Justice Programs
Alternatively, Officer Thomas could choose to refer the student to a restorative justice program rather than pursuing criminal charges. This decision would involve considering different discretionary factors:
1. Officer & Citizen’s Attitudes: If Officer Thomas believes that the student may benefit from education about the harmful impacts of his actions and is genuinely remorseful, he might favor an approach that focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
2. Victim/Offender Relationship: Understanding that the student’s intent was to scare another student rather than physically harm them could influence Officer Thomas’s decision. If the student expresses a willingness to make amends, restorative justice could provide a path towards healing for both parties.
Justification of Selected Action
If I were Officer Thomas, I would choose Action 2: Refer the Student to Restorative Justice Programs. My justification for this decision rests on two key discretionary factors:
1. Officer & Citizen’s Attitudes: The student’s admission of guilt and his indication that he intended to scare the transgender student suggest a need for educational intervention rather than criminal prosecution. If Officer Thomas perceives genuine remorse, this presents an opportunity for growth and understanding rather than punishment that could have long-term consequences on the student’s life.
2. Complainant Opinion: Engaging with school administration and potentially the affected student about their perspectives on the incident can provide insight into how best to handle the situation. If both parties are open to restorative practices, this response can promote healing and reconciliation in a way that punitive measures may not achieve.
By opting for a referral to restorative justice programs, Officer Thomas addresses the behavior while also promoting an educational approach that could foster empathy in the offending student. This choice emphasizes community values over punitive measures, aiming to prevent future incidents through understanding and dialogue.
Conclusion
In conclusion, responding officers must navigate complex scenarios that involve vandalism and hate speech with sensitivity and discretion. While an arrest may seem warranted based on legal standards and the seriousness of the offense, choosing a restorative justice approach aligns better with principles of community support and healing. Understanding individual circumstances and fostering opportunities for learning can lead to more effective long-term outcomes for both offenders and victims alike.
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
