The United States Supreme Court case of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) provides an excellent example of the policy process. Explain to the class how the decision of the Supreme Court changed the use of force guidelines for police agencies across the United States. Have students apply the policy process using the Garner case or another Supreme Court case that affected police practices, such as Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) or Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Students should identify the case, the policy, and effects.
Discussion: Bringing It All Together Resources
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
Links to an external site.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Links to an external site.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Alright class, let’s delve into how a landmark Supreme Court decision can act as a catalyst in the policy process, fundamentally altering practices within law enforcement agencies nationwide. The case of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), provides a powerful illustration of this.
Prior to the Garner decision, many state laws and police department policies adhered to the common-law “fleeing felon rule.”This rule generally permitted law enforcement officers to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspected felon, even if the suspect did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Alright class, let’s delve into how a landmark Supreme Court decision can act as a catalyst in the policy process, fundamentally altering practices within law enforcement agencies nationwide. The case of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), provides a powerful illustration of this.
Prior to the Garner decision, many state laws and police department policies adhered to the common-law “fleeing felon rule.”This rule generally permitted law enforcement officers to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspected felon, even if the suspect did not pose an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Garner case challenged this long-standing principle.In Memphis, Tennessee, police officers shot and killed 15-year-old Edward Garner as he fled, unarmed, after allegedly burglarizing a house. The officers acted under the authority of a Tennessee statute that allowed the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, declared the Tennessee statute unconstitutional insofar as it authorized the use of deadly force against an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect.The Court reasoned that such use of force violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures.Justice White, writing for the majority, stated that “[t]he use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”
How the Garner Decision Changed Use of Force Guidelines:
The Tennessee v. Garner decision had a profound and lasting impact on the use of force guidelines for police agencies across the United States. Here’s how it triggered policy change:
Judicial Mandate:The Supreme Court’s ruling established a new constitutional standard. This meant that any state law or local policy that permitted the use of deadly force against an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing felon was now legally invalid. Police departments and state legislatures were compelled to revise their guidelines to align with this constitutional interpretation.
Shift in Legal Framework:Garner moved away from the broad “fleeing felon rule” and established a more restrictive standard based on the immediate threat posed by the suspect.The Court emphasized that deadly force is a seizure subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny and is only justified when the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Policy Revision and Implementation: Following the Garner decision, police departments nationwide had to review and revise their use of force policies. This often involved:
Legal Review: Legal counsel for police agencies analyzed the Garner ruling and its implications for existing policies.
Policy Drafting: New policies were drafted to explicitly prohibit the use of deadly force against unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspects. These policies often incorporated the “imminent threat” standard articulated by the Court.
Training and Dissemination: Law enforcement officers underwent training to understand the new guidelines and the legal limitations on the use of deadly force in fleeing felon situations. This training involved classroom instruction, scenario-based exercises, and updates to departmental manuals.
Accountability Mechanisms: Internal affairs units and civilian oversight bodies often reviewed use of force incidents to ensure compliance with the Garner standard and the updated departmental policies.
Applying the Policy Process Using Tennessee v. Garner
We can analyze the Tennessee v. Garner case through the lens of the policy process:
Problem Identification: The existing “fleeing felon rule” led to instances of individuals being killed by law enforcement while fleeing, even when they posed no immediate threat. The death of Edward Garner highlighted this issue and brought it to the attention of the legal system.
Agenda Setting:The Garner family challenged the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute through the court system, bringing the issue of deadly force against fleeing suspects onto the judicial agenda.
Policy Formulation: The Supreme Court, in hearing the case, engaged in policy formulation by interpreting the Fourth Amendment and establishing a new standard for the use of deadly force in such situations. The Court weighed competing interests – the need for law enforcement to apprehend suspects versus the individual’s right to life and liberty.
Policy Adoption: The Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner constituted the adoption of a new national policy standard regarding the use of deadly force against fleeing, unarmed, and non-dangerous felony suspects.
Policy Implementation: Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies were tasked with implementing this new policy. This involved revising statutes, updating departmental policies, training officers, and establishing accountability mechanisms.
Policy Evaluation: The impact of the Garner decision has been subject to ongoing evaluation. Studies have examined the effect of the ruling on the number of police shootings of fleeing suspects. While the immediate impact might have varied across jurisdictions, the long-term trend has generally shown a decrease in the use of deadly force in these specific circumstances. However, debates continue regarding the application of the “imminent threat” standard in various situations.
Alternative Case Application: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Let’s briefly apply the policy process to another significant Supreme Court case affecting police practices: Miranda v. Arizona.
Policy:The Miranda decision established the Miranda Warning, which requires law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their constitutional rights (right to remain silent, right to an attorney) before custodial interrogation.
Effects:
Mandated Procedure: Police departments across the United States were required to develop and implement procedures for informing suspects of their Miranda rights. This involved creating Miranda warning cards, training officers on when and how to deliver the warnings, and establishing protocols for documenting that the warnings were given and understood.
Impact on Interrogations: The Miranda ruling significantly altered how police conduct custodial interrogations. Confessions obtained without properly informing suspects of their rights were deemed inadmissible in court.
Legal Challenges and Refinements: The Miranda rule has been subject to numerous legal challenges and interpretations by the courts over the years, leading to refinements and exceptions to the initial ruling. However, the core requirement of informing suspects of their rights remains a fundamental aspect of police procedure.
Both Tennessee v. Garner and Miranda v. Arizona vividly demonstrate how Supreme Court decisions can act as powerful catalysts in the policy process, forcing significant changes in law enforcement practices and shaping the relationship between citizens and the state. Understanding these cases and their impact is crucial for comprehending the evolution of policing in the United States.
