Graham Decision and PERFs Recommendation

Most law enforcement officers are faced with pressure to reform changes to policies and procedures that permit police officers to use force in their duties. However, this pressure emanates from media, often well-intended misinformed populations, and leaders in the community. The police executive research forum (PERF) launched significant guiding principles on the excessive use of force by police officers in March 2016. These guidelines were meant to integrate policing practices to a higher performance and standard service safer for every citizen. There are higher chances that allowing police officers to use force raise concerns of misinterpreting principles of adopting force. Thus, police will adopt principles of force that will change policies that govern safe policing for everyone. PERF made the Supreme Courts decision to be restrictive because the reasonable standard ruling had its strengths and weaknesses.

The ruling by the Supreme Court on Graham v. Connor had many weaknesses in the policing sector. The ruling could have led to misinterpretation between the constitution and the principles that govern safe policing (Obasogie & Newman, 2018). Many police officers would abuse their power by applying force to every citizen. Application of force by police will presume suspects guilty without prosecution. Many reports over the past have led to the death and suffering of individuals in police hands. Thus, fewer restrictions on police using force would allow police officers to develop excuses for citizens. Even though the force policy can be applied if criminals come into violent reaction by criminals, police officers would have used this provision to uncover the truth. Police would also cultivate harassment of criminals in unprecedented ways that go beyond the constitution. PERF aims to provide a policing policy that provides better policing to all people (PERF, 2016). Therefore, all human beings should not be subjected to severe punishment and harassment. Hence, the commission is tied to this provision to provide and ask police officers to look for alternative ways to handle violent criminals.

Restricting the use of force by police officers on citizens is a good way to develop a positive relationship between the community and the police. The public view of police should be friendly-oriented, not offensive with enmity (PERF, 2016). A positive correlation between police and the public helps to speed up the investigation and solve issues that hinder the operation of the police services. Therefore, applying excessive force in policing should not be encouraged, as the constitution ruled out the Graham v. Connor case. Many police officers might end up causing harm and injuries to the people (Gillenwater, 2015). Further, police will be impaired due to public fear of harassment. There is a need for higher collaboration between the public and the police to combat errant activities such as terrorism. Adherence to PERF recommendations will help reduce cases of police brutality and resultant injuries to citizens.

The constitution is a body that should protect human rights against any form of violation, such as torture. It should ensure efficient mitigation measures that different policing bodies need to follow. Further, there should be provision for alternatives to the minimum required defense and force by police (PERF,2016). The Supreme should be superior at setting and incorporating policing laws and procedures that do not put citizens at risk when committing a crime (Obasogie & Newman, 2018). In this case, the constitution should give policing bodies independence in initiating and formulating laws and amendments. This independence will help to put restrictive standards and measures which handle suspects and criminals.

Police chiefs are responsible for ensuring that police officers adhere to good conduct and relations with the public. They must monitor the activities and standards of services each police unit offers (Stoughton, Noble, & Alpert, 2021). Thus, they act as moderators to the set policy aspects and laws, such as restrictions on the force. For this reason, the role of the constitution in promoting policing practice should be setting laws that provide alternative ways of treating criminals per human rights provisions. On the other hand, chief police officers should be coherent with investigations and allegations that result from excessive use of power by the police (PERF, 2016). Failure to adhere to these responsibilities puts the public in danger of harassment under the umbrella of self-defense.

In conclusion, law enforcement officers have become more punitive whenever they encounter criminal suspects. This issue comes in handy with the constitutional provision for polices personal safety in case of violent acts by the suspect. In this case, many people have suffered at the hands of police officers who have misinterpreted the application of force in policing. Therefore, PERF recommends that force application in the police should integrate police services that suit every citizen. There is a need for a friendly correlation between the public and the police. A healthy relationship helps speed up an investigation and easily gather important information from the public. On the contrary, an enmity between citizens and the police hinders operation activities of the policing sector. The constitution has a role in guarding peoples rights from torture and harassment. It is also supposed to provide alternatives to self-defense needed by police officers. Chief police officers are also responsible for reviewing and regulating policing measures threatening citizens better treatment. PERFs decision to restrict the Supreme Courts decision helps guard against misinterpretation of the policing policies.