Use of Force, Bill of Rights, and Criminal Defense
Law enforcement officers are granted permission by the Constitution to use force under certain circumstances while carrying out duties. The constitutional provision stipulates that force may only be used when strictly necessitated and to the magnitude needed to fulfil their responsibility, such as self-defence or protection of others in imminent danger. Police officers are required by law to apply non-violent tactics before using firearms or force. Where force is used, police officers must exercise moderation and respond proportionally to the offence’s seriousness to limit injury or damage and preserve life. Law enforcers’ abusive and arbitrary use of disproportionate force or weapons is punishable by law. A controversial issue today in the American legal system is the justification of the use of force by police officers, given the actions and conduct of citizens. A universally accepted definition of “use of force” is lacking because neither two situations nor two police officers are the same. As a result, it is challenging to define justifiable or excessive use of force events. However, force must never be vindictively used for extrajudicial punishment or discriminatory practices. The paper explores using force, constitutional rights on free speech, and criminal defences.
Police officers have a constitutional mandate to use a reasonable measure of force as necessary in mitigating incidences, making arrests, or protecting themselves and others from imminent danger. The term “reasonable”, as used in legal benchmarking and reviewing of decisions, is a test that examines whether decisions made by an individual are legitimate, appropriate, and designed to mitigate an issue under the circumstances at a given time (Frank, 2). The levels of force used by law enforcement officers include primary restraint (physical or verbal), weaponless tactics, and lethal force (OHCHR, 4). The primary aim of police officers is to regain situational control as fast as possible to protect individuals or the community. The amount of force used by an officer is dependent on the situation. Therefore, it is challenging to define justifiable or excessive use of force events (National Institute of Justice, 3).
There are three critical general principles in determining the lawfulness of the use of force in making an arrest: necessity, precaution, and proportionality (Frank, 2). The necessity principle encompasses three elements: the use of non-violent measures, force for law enforcement purposes only, and the use of minimum reasonable force under the circumstances. Principle 4 of the 1990 Basic Principles affirms that “Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms.” (OHCHR, 4) Use of force or firearms is only permissible if other measures are proven ineffective or are unpromising in attaining the desired objective.
Proportionality sets the standard on what lawful use of force amounts to, depending on the posed threat and the offence committed (Frank, 2). The principle does not authorize disproportionate force but rather a force application that is proportionate to the offence’s seriousness and the purposeful objective desired. The principle acts to make “necessary” force unlawful. Pressure must be deployed proportionally to events. The principle of precaution limits the risk of severe harm or demise to any civilian or police officer (Frank, 2). Precaution demands that preventive measures be planned ahead of time to minimize resorting to lethal force by police officers. Authorities are obliged to take precautionary measures in their use of force (UNODC, 5).
The right to freedom of speech sometimes infringes on other people’s rights. For instance, to ensure an impartial and fair trial, the right to free speech may be restricted upon the jury, witnesses, and attorneys. A judge in such cases prohibits the discussion of material related to a trial outside of the courtroom. The objective is to maintain order. There is an ever more critical need for public order in the digital era. The use of the right to speech by authoritative voices can infringe others’ rights to justice through quotation or misquotation of prejudicial information. To this end, it is necessary to regulate the First Amendment concerning freedom of speech in circumstances whereby an individual’s speech could incite “lawless acts or conduct.” Limitations on freedom of speech are meant to balance legitimate rights and government interests. The time, place, and manner restrictions are intended to regulate and protect freedom of expression (Congress.gov, 1).
Defences are strategies designed by defence lawyers to establish reasonable doubt in criminal cases to prevent a conviction and increase the chances of acquittal (Frank, 2). While more, four defence strategies stand out in the criminal law system: innocence, necessity, insanity, constitutional violations, and self-defence. Innocence defence entails an argument to prove that an offender did not commit a crime. Self-defence strategy involves a claim of wrongdoing to protect oneself or others from danger. An insanity defence argues that the defendant was not of sound mind when committing a criminal offence. Constitutional violations involve scrutiny of a defendant’s maltreatment, circumstances of an arrest, and the collection of incriminating evidence. Necessity defence applies when a person commits a crime in an emergency to prevent more significant harm. Different defences apply to various circumstances. The defence of necessity in situations where civilians use lethal force is relatively fair because the individual’s actions in response to the compulsion of the event are not entirely voluntary. Actions under pressure are instinctual and are self-preservative
References
gov. n.d. Amdt1.2.4.1.1 Content-Based Regulation. Constitution Annotated. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-4-1-1/ALDE_00000750/#:~:text=First%20Amendment%3A,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.
Frank Schmalleger. 2021. Corrections in the 21st Century. CRJ410 McGraw Hill Education 9th edition
National Institute of Justice. 2020. Overview of Police Use of Force. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-police-use-force
2021. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/useofforceandfirearms.aspx
2019. Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice: Use of Force and Firearms. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-4/key-issues/3–the-general-principles-of-use-of-force-in-law-enforcement.html
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
A controversial issue today in the American legal system is the justification of the use of force by police officers, given the actions and conduct of citizens. In this assignment, you will explore the requirements for the use of force, constitutional rights pursuant to the Bill of Rights when it comes to free speech, and criminal defences justifying actions.
Use of Force, Bill of Rights, and Criminal Defense
Instructions
Write a 2–3-page paper in which you:
Specify the key requirements for police officers in determining the lawfulness of the use of force in making an arrest and what is meant by “reasonableness.”
Evaluate how free speech rights clash with the rights of others and the need for public order today.
Argue for or against the regulation of the First Amendment when it comes to speech that could or might incite “imminent lawless action or conduct.”
Analyze the defences within today’s criminal law system.
Evaluate the fairness of the common law defence of necessity when citizens use deadly force.
Use at least three sources to support your writing. Choose sources that are credible, relevant, and appropriate. Cite each source listed on your source page at least one time within your assignment. For help with research, writing, and citation, access the library or review library guides.
Write clearly and concisely in a manner that is grammatically correct and generally free of spelling, typographical, formatting, and/or punctuation errors.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this assignment is:
Evaluate the value of the use of force, the Bill of Rights in the United States law system and criminal defence methods.