Make a note, you should be referencing at least Klockars in your response, if not also Van Maanen. (Your basically writing your opinion on the topic)
#1. The concept of “Dirty Harry” is when an officer breaks morals, ethics, and being politically correct while conducting police business in order to solve issues or complete investigations. It drew the name from the film Dirty Harry, in 1971, by Warner Brothers, which follows an Inspector named Harry, that conducted business in a way, that could be considered illegal in today’s times. He would use pain and fear in order to get his means however in today’s time, this kind of police conduct would not last. Today police must consider someone’s rights, and the fear of being sued or prosecuted and with public outcry and the media, the action of the police has consequences. Also, the criminal justice system must assume that “Everyone’s innocent until proven guilty in the State Law” and things like the Miranda Rights which gives the rights to the person on being asked questioned and everyone’s has the right of an Attorney to give a fair trial. In the book, Klockars says, “If Dirty Harry problems can be shown to exist in their technical dimensions-as genuine means-ends problems where only dirty means will work-the question of the magnitude and urgency of the ends that the dirty means may be employed to achieve must still be confronted (Kappeler, p.461). This gives the perspective from the “Dirty Harry” in which the urgency of getting the correct suspect and having justice for the crime is used on the police discretion to conduct illegal activity because going the “right” way takes too much time or keeps the criminals on the street. This brings the idea of the concept of an “asshole”, in which a criminal does not obey police work and is rebellious behavior and “Dirty Harry” is the only option for these type of people. However, the issue of the “Dirty Harry” is that police deviance can cause corruption in the system, the show the antihero Harry had a limit of things he would not do but not everyone’s like that meaning that if there are no rules or moral codes then there would be totally mayhem and the amendments with the bill of rights would mean nothing.
#2. As I was looking at the clips Ive notice how he just wanted justice for people, but he portrayed it in the wrong way. Dirty Harry had a different way of handling certain situations. For example in the “ Harry and the District Attorney” clip is was discussed about an individual rights. Dirty Harry had his suspicions about this man and decided to preform a illegal search on that man house. In the film the district attorney basically told Harry that the man will walk free. In order for the evidence to be used in the case, Harry should have gotten an search warrant. This particular clip reminds me of the police in today’s society. I say this because there are at lot of officers that violate people’s rights and they don’t see any wrong in doing that. But not even about violating right but it’s a lot of police officers who take matters into their own hands. This is what causes conflict between the police and the society. Police officer have this authority that they use to their advantage and feel that they don’t need to follow the proper rules. Dirty Harry never had favorites and literally hated everyone Mixed, Blacks, Chicks, etc. This is not a way a police officer should be thinking because it is bound for you to do anything to anyone. It’s all about going by the book and treating people with respect me that’s something that Dirty Harry’s and police today lack.
#3. Dirty Harry was a police officer who did his job justly, at least in his eyes. I would compare his mindset of policing to a more old-fashioned Sherrif who handled situations however he saw fit. The dirty harry problem is mostly seen in law enforcement. How can we always have split-second instincts in life or death situations but also follow constitutional rules? The concept of dirty harry scares many people and that is because this person is using unconstitutional means to achieve one’s justice goals. Klockars states that “one cannot have a policeman who is both just and innocent”. What does Klockars mean by this statement? I think Klockars is attempting to put a policeman mindset into a civilians mindset. Police officers are not given a set algorithm of how situations will unfold and the officer is sometimes put into a situation where they must choose between two wrongs. What do you think Klockars is trying to say?
#4. The term asshole is basically a term for the police world and it is basically a creep, jerkoff, animal, clown, idiot, bum, fool, and etc. According to Maanen, the police deal with “any distinction of “types” of people with whom the police deal must include an explicit consideration of the of the ways in which the various “types” are both immediately and conditionally identified by the police. The ideal types are: suspicious person – those whom the police have reason to believe may have committed a serious offense, assholes – those who do not accept the police definition of the situation, and know nothings – those who are not either of the first two categories but are not police and therefore, according to the police, cannot know what the police are about” (pg. 332). Dirty Harry is a cop who takes things into his own hands and doesn’t go by the book. Dirty Harry wasn’t a rouge cop or a bad cop, he get the job done but he just takes the law into his own hand and doesn’t like anyone.