[MBates]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I mean if you're pushing for every traffic law to be enforced with no discretion, I just don't think that's a reasonable or commonly agreed upon sentiment. There's literally tickets for anything. Our Spec Pens are 50-60 pages long and that's just the provincial one. I don't think you want every cop enforcing every traffic law that's broken.

You do realize that being pulled over is a form of enforcement already right? The physical act of being pulled over is a deterrent. Not everything that happens needs to result in tickets.

So the argument is that a cop wrote you a lesser fine and now fighting it, you want to see if you could have gotten a better deal with another cop? I have no idea what other cops give as breaks. Sometimes people who get pulled over for speeding don't get tickets at all. Does that mean I shouldn't give tickets to speeders at all?

Cops have a wide range of options of enforcement at every call. There are infinite amount of variables from each call. Whether its traffic, criminal or otherwise.

I don't charge someone who stole $8.20 worth of food to feed themselves from Safeway cause how is that in the public interest? Sure some cops will go 100%, some will go 0%, but I think arguing about getting a break is counter productive.

Of all the posts about discretion I quoted this one because the bolded part seems to best explain why it is vital to a proper functioning system.

iggy_oi is not wrong to raise concerns about discretion potentially being abused or creating unintended injustices (it most certainly can), but he is very wrong suggesting it is improper or not inherently part of a police officer's sworn job description.

Police officers purportedly exercising 'discretion' to give favours to a friend or colleague or because they are trying to pick up a good-looking driver are very likely committing criminal obstruction of justice.

Police officers subjectively and objectively acting in the public interest to not charge someone with an offence (or charge a lesser version of the offence) even though they have a basis to lay a charge - are exactly what we need more of in my view. The key is, as jar_e said earlier, the legitimate reasons for the discretion must be documented and objectively be able to withstand scrutiny.

In 2007 the SCC had a split decision in a case where a police officer was convicted of obstruction and attempted to invoke legitimate discretion as his defence for not proceeding to get breath samples from an apparently intoxicated driver who was a police colleague. The majority said this about police discretion:

Applying the letter of the law to the practical, real‑life situations faced by police officers in performing their everyday duties requires that certain adjustments be made. Although these adjustments may sometimes appear to deviate from the letter of the law, they are crucial and are part of the very essence of the proper administration of the criminal justice system, or to use the words of s. 139(2) , are perfectly consistent with the “course of justice”. The ability — indeed the duty — to use one’s judgment to adapt the process of law enforcement to individual circumstances and to the real‑life demands of justice is in fact the basis of police discretion. What La Forest J. said in R. v. Beare, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387, at p. 410, is directly on point here:

Discretion is an essential feature of the criminal justice system. A system that attempted to eliminate discretion would be unworkably complex and rigid.

Thus, a police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. Far from having carte blanche, police officers must justify their decisions rationally.

The required justification is essentially twofold. First, the exercise of the discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds (reasons of Chamberland J.A., at para. 41). Thus, a decision based on favouritism, or on cultural, social or racial stereotypes, cannot constitute a proper exercise of police discretion. However, the officer’s sincere belief that he properly exercised his discretion is not sufficient to justify his decision.

Hence, the exercise of police discretion must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. I agree with Doyon J.A. that in determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised...

The facts of the case led to a conviction at trial and ultimately that was upheld as a reasonable conclusion. But it was in no way doubted that police officers are expected to exercise legitimate discretion as part of their duties.

jar_e has essentially described exactly how and why the law expects (and requires) discretion to work on a daily basis. If police charged every offence no matter what, it would take probably a couple of weeks to bring the entire system to its knees.